Mono help mystery unraveled, and more.

I won't repeat the whole thing here, 'cause it's too long.

But in short, many of our suspicions were correct, that the vocals were
replaced AFTER take 12 was completed, and the tambourine was not
included because vocals were on the same track.

The mystery was that there was no documentation.

That's because they did the vocals at another studio - the one they were
doing dialog replacement for "Help" at....

There still isn't a definitive answer for *why* they replaced the vocals
- only the theory of wanting to get rid of the tambourine, since they
weren't seen in the "filmed" version of "Help" at the beginning of the
film, no one was seen playing tambourine....

rianpstein...

Quite possible as the clip not only served as the title sequence (with
darts)
but (without darts) also as promo clip - and you all heard the stories
about
the problems they ran into with promo clips featuring instruments hear
but
not seen being played. As far as I remember the musicians union was
demanding "live" performances.

Danny Caccavo...

Good point. I'll buy that!

A few other tidbits -

Norman Smith played the bongos on "A Hard Days Night" (!!!). Apparently,
Ringo wasn't a maestro at the bongos, so Norm did the overdub.

sequentially...

Here is an important question, that I've never seen anyone comment on in
the group besides
me:

On the 45 version of "Let it be," Right "before"
the song ends and where Paul sings "Whisper
words of Wisdom "Let it be," ( for the last time) there is a 2 note
slide guitar part...played by George. You can
barely hear it...and it's not on the album version.

It must have been very import to George to put these 2 notes into the
song...and I just speculate that he may have had a problem with
McCartney...to let him insert these two notes.

My question is, does the book say anything
about this at all? If it doesn't, perhaps this is
supposed to always remain a mystery?

Jeff

CDBaby:
Amazon:

The "aaaaaaahhh" on ADITL was Paul....

jt10824...

What evidence do Kehew and Ryan give to support that? Emerick writes
in his book that it was John, and his story is supported by the story
he tells of the assistant on the session, Richard Lush, who remembered
being very nervous about the punch-out because Lennon would get angry
if his first "ahhh" were accidentally erased. Presumably Lush
corroborated that, because he was one of the main people interviewed
for Emerick's book.

Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe the word of the engineer
and assistant engineer who were actually at the session than some third
parties who come along 40 years later and write a book about it.

"Recording The Beatles" may be a terrific book (I haven't read it yet
but certainly it's getting good reviews) but that doesn't mean that
just because they say something is true, it is. I know a lot of you
are going to say, "Well, I hear it as being Paul," and you may hear
whatever you hear, but that doesn't make it true. Again, I tend to
believe Emerick and Lush's version about this... unless Kehew and Ryan
are presenting definitive evidence to the contrary.

Lookingglass...

AS much as I liked and enjoyed Emerick's book, it has been shown that he
made some mistakes with his memory. That itself does not mean we can't read
his book and gain some knowledge. I got a great deal from the book

In the new book (Recording The Beatles), the authors stated they listened to
the single track recording of that portion of the song and it "clearly" is
McCartney.

jt10824...

So their "evidence" is that they listened to the track? That's
opinion, not evidence, especially since, as we all know, McCartney and
Lennon had an uncanny ability to mimic one another's voices.

I'm still inclined to take the word of the engineer and assistant
engineer on the session -- two people who were actually there -- over
someone who merely listened to the tape.

RTB may be a great book -- as I said, I haven't read it yet -- but,

terra...

Of course you haven't, yet you felt quite free to pan the book, the authors,
and anyone buying it. Go off half-cocked a lot?

but,

again, just because the authors state something as fact doesn't
necessarily make it so.

terra...

But because you or Geoff do...?

Lookingglass...

...the same can be said for Geoff Emerick. Just because he said it is so,
does not make it so. What 'proof' does Geoff put forth?

Without going into all the statements made about the mistakes in Geoff's
book, we are relying on his memory. ALL the authors of BOTH books have
access to the same 'physical' proof...the recordings. Just as we have our
ears to hear with. For me personally, it is not that important whether John
or Paul sang this portion of the song...

jt10824...

I agree with you, Dave, that it's not all that important who sang it.
The point I was trying to make is that just because Geoff Emerick says
something doesn't automatically make it untrue (as some would have us
believe) and just because Brian Kehew and Kevin Ryan say something
doesn't automatically make it true (as some would have us believe).
They weren't there themselves, so they are relying on the memories of
their sources, and who's to say that those sources got it right?

At the risk of repeating myself, the evidence Geoff puts forth is not
just his own recollection of John singing the "ahhhs' but his

Lookingglass...

At the risk of repeating myself, I looked forward to reading Geoff Emerick's
book. I waited years for this book...he was there. I liked the book and
enjoyed the insights I got from it. 'Others' have stated there are
mis-remembered facts in the book...how would I know? I only know that Geoff
would give me an insight no one else could, and for that I value his book.

Lookingglass...

They did NOT rely on 'sources' in their determination that McCartney sang
the "Ahhhs" of A DAY IN THE LIFE. They listened to the isolated vocal track
of that passage...they say "clearly" it is McCartney. I suppose a case could
be made for a 'mishearing' of the track, but again...how would I know?

For some, "too much information" overwhelms their sense of judgment...for
others... more information means a better understanding...if one wishes to
understand 'better'.

dave (...it is believing/it's getting better all the time...)

remembrance of his rookie assistant Richard Lush being nervous about
the punch-out point because he feared John's wrath if he accidentally
wiped the beginning of it, to the degree that he got on the talkback
and cautioned Paul to clip his ending. I'm assuming that Lush
corroborated the story because he was one of the main people
interviewed for Geoff's book. Based on the special acknowledgment he
got in the book, it also appears that Lush remains a close friend of
Geoff's, so it's a pretty safe assumption that there's nothing in the
book that Lush took issue with.

terra...

And why exactly wouldn't Geoff corraborate with the Beatle book authors?
Nearly everyone else did, including Lush. In fact, according to RTB:

"When recording Paul's vocal on this section, Richard Lush had to take great
care when dropping the machine into Record mode, if done too soon, the tail
end of Paul's "went into a dream" line would be wiped. The gap between the
two is TINY and a great testament to Lush's skill as a Tape Op."

Since Lush was a source on this book and presumably vetted his
contributions, and as this stiry is the same as yours (Geoff's) except for
one minor detail...Geoff is the -only- one who says it was John. And
Richard WAS there.

jt10824...

terra, you don't deserve the courtesy of a reply, but for the benefit
of intelligent people who are reading this, this quote from RTB in no
way indicates that Lush says it was Paul who sang the 'ahhhs,' so there
is no contradiction there. It simply states that Lush was afraid of
wiping the tail end of Paul's "went into a dream," whereas Emerick's
version of the story is that Lush was afraid of wiping the beginning of
the 'ahhh's" SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID OF INCURRING LENNON'S
WRATH. Knowing the relative personalities of the two Beatles in
question, ask yourself, if you were in Lush's position, would you be
more afraid of Paul's temper, or Lennon's?

Also for the benefit of intelligent people who are reading this (and
that leaves out terra), you may be aware that terra enjoys insulting
and hurling obscenities at anyone who dares to disagree with him. I am
one of those people, I'm proud to say -- a crime for which he has
labeled me a "shill." As in, "anyone who likes the Emerick book must
be a shill." Presumably that includes Dave and the many other people
who have posted positives about it.

At least I'm in good company!

And, btw, I have in no way panned RTB or its authors -- I have simply
questioned the pricing of the book and asked who their sources were.
As Dave rightfully pointed out, no one book should ever be viewed as a
"bible" -- not Lewisohn's, not Emerick's, and not this one, no matter
how many years the authors spent on it. There will always be
differences of opinion and possibly even factual errors in every book

Emerick's version, to me, is simply more believable than accepting the
opinion of a third party who wasn't there, even if they had access to
the multitrack and were able to hear the track isolated on its own. I

terra...

Uh-huh, except that leaves out Lush. He -was- there.

I

know that many people are convinced that they are hearing McCartney and
not Lennon doing that part, but, again, these were two guys who had an
uncanny ability to sound like one another, as we all know.

terra...

Yep. I always thought it was John too until it was proved otherwise.

Politer, jt, but still nothing but spin.

Lookingglass...

...we ALL have choices to make...and battles to win (or lose).

dave (...don't you know that you can count me out...)

terra...

The fact is the RTB authors used the facts in the studio. How much in
Geoff's book was memory vs. fresh research?

I really don't want to slam Geoff, I think it's great he wrote what he did
and many people are enjoying reading it. I'm sure that it is far more
accurate than any thirdfourth party tell-alls. The trouble is with rabid
shills like jt who have an obvious agenda and are NOT doing their
client/friend/author any favors.

The 'fact' that THE BEATLES, with George Martin and Geoff, and the rest of
the EMI staff, and members of a symphony orchestra produced the song known
to us as A DAY IN THE LIFE is enough for me.

I suppose 'the fact' will be important to some...and until McCartney comes
forward and states that he or John sang that 'bit', good luck finding 'the
truth'. And then of course, is Paul 'remembering' correctly? ("When I get
older...losing my hair, many years from now...")

...history is written by the victors...

terra...

Perhaps, but there has been MUCH scrutiny of this book by those who KNOW the
facts, engineers and masterers and musicians, studio owners and to a person
they have highly acclaimed the work, design and research of this book.

Then we have one malcontent.

;^)

dave (...I read the news today...Oh Boy!..)

What is MORE important to me is that THE BEATLES recorded A DAY IN THE
LIFE...that, we know.

;^)

terra...

Ignore this shill for Emerick's book. Mention Ken Scott and he foams at the

terra...

Then do a simple web search on him. And it is no longer questionable,
but indeed fact.

Lookingglass...

I'm not that 'tech' savvy...how does one 'web-search' jt...?

dave (...tell me what you see...)

mouth.

They have far more evidence in this book than just Geoff's memory.

One can believe who they want, but it is most certainly Paul.

Lookingglass...

Thanks...as a rule, I pay attention to the post and not the poster...though
I do 'know' some of the names here.

...and as we are 'human' (well, most of us), our memories can be faulty.

Why, I remember some incidents I was a part of in MY life that I 'remember'
incorrectly...all my relatives make sure they correct me 'correctly'...!!!

;^)

(ken scott)

Sorry, I just want to see him foam at the mouth...just to see if it's true.

:^O

dave (...tell me what you see...)

dave (...I read the news today, Oh Boy...)

appeyroad...

Come on you guys, It was obvious to me and my circle it was Paul from
the day we bought the album on the day it came out during the first of
an afternoon of playing it over and over.

terra...

Well, aren't WE special?

Danny Caccavo...

But not to many. In fact, for many years, I assumed it was John, until
about 5 years ago when someone pointed out that it was Paul - once I
listened carefully, I was convinced.

But many are not, which is why I mentioned it.

BlackMonk...

I've often thought that we'd all be better off as listeners if we could
ignore questions of who played or sang what part. When, for example, I'm
listening to Television, I'm not listening fully if part of my mind is
asking "who played that guitar part" and I'm missing what the band sounds
like together if I'm focusing on trying to figure out what Verlaine
specificially is doing.

Annie...

I see your point, but just because I sometimes listen with an "agenda,"
doesn't mean I can't at other times listen to merely absorb and enjoy.
I personally a great deal of pleasure from having a variety of
listening "attitudes."

Also, I don't subscribe to the idea that being a Beatles fan should be
"all about the music." To me, the Beatles are much more than that. I'm
interested in their social impact, individual personalities, group
dynamic, historical importance, etc. And in order to have worthwhile
discussions on those issues, a working knowledge of trivia is always
handy. :)

Lookingglass...

I agree...sometimes I listen 'just to listen and enjoy'...other times I
listen to specifically hear something...a chord progression or a turn of
phrase in the lyric...an inflection...a particular guitar lick...sometimes I
turn up THE WHO real loud for therapeutic reasons...just to blow out the
cobwebs (and strange!). I listen for LOTS of reasons...that does not stop me
from really listening to the music.

dave (...often enough to know...)

Danny Caccavo...

Yes, I agree with you, Dave - sometimes I listen to the overall effect,
and sometimes I drill down and focus on one part. I still hear new
things after all these years...

On the other hand, I can certainly understand individual musicians wanting
to be credited for what they played.

Danny Caccavo...

Well, I think in the case of The Beatles, the ultimate "sum of the parts
being greater than the whole," it somehow becomes more important to note
who did what when trying to analyze the music. Although Television was
great, it didn't really inspire the kind of analysis that The Beatles
did...

Annie...

Really?? Wow! I am surprised. :) Thank you for being so generous with
your expensive new knowledge. Heh, I wonder how many people are
glossing over this post, never dreaming it contains that little
nugget...

TAR...

Why? I knew it all along.

fishandchipp...

donz5...

This explanation (which I buy, also) reminds me of the "Day Tripper"
promo, where Ringo is pretending to play drums by hitting the facade
with his sticks, then, valiantly attempting to ditch the sticks and
pick up the tambourine whenever that instrument iss prominent.
Hilarious to watch, but probably required in order to satisfy the
musicians union.

abby...

Is that where he got the idea to do something similar in Broadstreet during
the Wanderlust medley?

I didn't, always thought it was my dentist before drilling a hole in my
molar............................."I'm boring a hole, where the food
gets in"

terra...

Well....I always assumed it was John until a year or two ago, then after
others said it was Paul I listened close to the 5.1 splits and realized it
WAS Paul. Trying to tell people that was an uphill climb, and I understood
because I too once 'knew' it was John. But the evidence was there and
so....now it should be acknowledged as such, but of course there will be
plenty of people who will say "This book is not the last word, my ears tell
me....bla bla bl..."

I see it coming already.

Buy the book!