From: dbk@cs.umd.edu (Dan Kozak)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Beatles Recording Anomolies
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:09:04 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <8568@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> weiss@babbage.seas.ucla.edu (Michael Weiss) writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.185727.22440@news.columbia.edu> brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:
>>>Please Please Me - 1:27
>>This song has two different vocal tracks.  While this is a performance
>>error, using the track with the mistake could be considered a mixing
>>error too.  After all, they did do it right once.

>But PPM was recorded on a two-track.  There must be two completely different
>takes.

Right.  The mono (single & album) version is apparently a single take
(tho' Lewisohn lists the take number as unknown) with harmonica added
via tape-to-tape copy).  The stereo version is an edit of takes 16, 17
& 18, tho' Lewisohn doesn't specify which of the 18 takes were the
basics and which had the harmonica (it's possible that some of the
harmonica parts are edit pieces, i.e. that they weren't complete
versions of the song, but Lewisohn uses the phrase "edit piece" with
abandon).

FYI, it seems that unlike the later 4 and 8 track work, editing in the
2 track era was usually done to the master tape not the mix tapes
(since the editing comes before the mixing, natch).  This would
suggest that if the original mono version was a mix of take 16, 17 or
18 (which seems likely), the master tape would no longer exist in its
original form having been spliced up for the stereo version.  I don't
have any of the boots--do any of these takes show up on them?

>>The mono and stereo "If I fell" differ in Paul's voice cracking on the
>>high notes "was in vain".  Does Lewisohn explain how this was smoothed
>>over in one version?  The error was in the performance, but only shows
>>in one mix.

>Lewisohn mentions nothing about this.

Right.  This was discussed a few months ago . . . 
============================================================
MG@CRNLNS.BITNET (Mario Giannella) writes:
> In their book "Every Little Thing: The Definitive Guide To Beatles
> Recording Variations, Rare Mixes and Other Musical Oddities, 1958-
> 1986", Popular Culture, Ink. 1990, William McCoy and Mitchell McGeary
> write:

> "...when Paul harmonizes with John on the line 'And I would be sad
> if our new love was in VAIN'..." (Paul's voice cracks badly).

> "...in mono (version), engineer Norman Smith eited out this mistake
> by replacing this flubb with the identical words from earlier in
> the song."

> So editing out Paul's mistake from the stereo version just got left out
> during that exhausting day.

bad@pismo.sw.stratus.com (Bruce Dumes) writes:
> Interesting.  But where did McCoy and McGeary get this info?  Is it
> based on listening and deciding that the first and second "love in
> vain" sound the same to them, or did they have some information from
> Norman Smith?

Indeed, this is the important question.  The audible evidence seems to
confirm it: the two lines sound identical to me and the non-audibility
of the edit is consistent with the fact that it is from the same take,
therefore reducing the number of variables (exact mike placement,
etc.) that could result in an audible edit.

It also makes sense that this might not have been documented, since
making a second mix of one line from the same take and editing it in
would be a fairly quick procedure and be more likely to escape
notation than editing two different takes together, say.  It even
seems plausible that it not being noted might have contributed to it
being overlooked when the stereo mixes were prepared.

If one had access to the original mix tape it would be easy enough to
check that it was done via an edit;other than that (or anecdotal info)
it is merely the best guess.
============================================================

>>"Can't buy me love" seems to have traces of another guitar solo.  Listen
>>carefully in stereo-- at one point especially the guitar seems to be in
>>two places in the mix.

>I was under the impression that the guitar solo was double-tracked. [Grabs
>Lewisohn]  Mentions nothing except a guitar overdub.  Perhaps that's what
>happened; the guitar solo was essentially double-tracked...once on the live
>take, and once on the overdub.

Essentially right, although the part is not an exact double-track, at
one point the two parts diverge . . . this was part of a discussion
regarding the use or non-use of the 12 string Rickenbacker on this
song . . . here's my theory of the recording:
============================================================
The basic tracks are recorded on two-track with the same track
assignments as "Sie Liebt Dich," namely "the rhythm left/vocals right
pattern of their earlier two-track tapes."  Lewisohn does say that the
vocals for SLD were overdubbed, so either the Pathe Marconi studios
had 2-tracks that could record each track separately and in sync with
the other, something it seems that Abbey Road didn't have earlier on,
or it was done via sound-with-sound.  Unlike SLD, the vocals are done
live (do the outtakes confirm this?) so that a fair amount of the bass
and drums leak onto the vocal track (there seems to be little or no
George on the rhythm track--assuming the acoustic is John).  Now it's
time for "a vocal overdub by Paul and a lead guitar overdub by George"
as reported in Lewisohn.  If I'm not mistaken, Paul double-tracks
pretty much the whole thing and there's no other singing.  So his
"vocal overdub" is the double track and is done by bouncing to a
second machine, the rhythm track being copied across without change
and the vocal track being copied across with the live double-track
vocal mixed in.  Now in the final stereo mix this track is placed in
the center and so is (part) of the guitar solo, so at some point the
solo ends up on this track too, either cut at the same time as one of
the vocal tracks--i.e. done at the same time as the rhythm track and
just mixed onto the track with the live vocal or done at the same time
as the double track vocal (this gets my vote*)--or maybe added
in via another bounce (less likely).  

[*During the guitar solo there is a weird sound on the basic rhythm
track;there is a possibility that George was playing a solo live but
mixed onto the vocal track that was then mixed out and replaced with a
new one during the first bounce when the double-track vocals were
done--the weird sound may be leakage from this abortive solo.]

But we're not done yet!  If you listen to the solo carefully you'll
discover that it too is double-tracked.  At first I thought it was
just clever use of tape echo to simulate double-tracking (I believe
this technique was used on "I Saw Her Standing There") with the echo
panned all the way to the right.  But closer inspection reveals that
there are actually two guitars which at one point in the middle quit
playing identical parts and do a brief call-and-response thing (that
neither of them is a 12-string is apparent from the way the bends
sound).  Since one is in the center of the stereo mix, and the other
hard right, you can hear the call-and-response bounce between these
two locations in the stereo spectrum.  My hypothesis is that "jangly"
guitar (also hard right) in the choruses was done in the same pass as
the solo double-track.  So taking the tape with rhythm left,
double-tracked vocal+guitar solo right, another 2-track-to-2-track
bounce was performed with rhythm hard left, double-tracked
vocal+guitar solo _center_ (leaving the instrumental leakage onto the
original vocal track audible on the right, where there's not much
happening), and the new live "jangly" guitar/solo double-track hard
right.  Tonally this checks out since the "jangly" guitar has the kind
of trebly sound you get when you turn the guitar's volume down--he
turns up for the solo double-track and down for the "jangly" bits.

I'd say that it was all done (as Lewisohn reports) on 29 Jan and that
a likely excuse for not mentioning the doubled solo would be less
clear studio documentation than when at home at Abbey Road.

The doubled part of solo is clearly _not_ the 12, and the "jangly"
guitar and the solo double-track are in the same stereo positioning
suggesting that they were done at the same time.  (If the solo
double-track was done earlier, why would the vocals have been put in
the center?  Why not just add the solo double track to the vocal/solo
track and keep the hard right/hard left setup for later [mono]
balancing?)  To dub the "jangly" part separately and end up with the
stereo mix that exists would have required enough effort that I doubt
it would have slipped past whoever was writing things down.

If the solo doubling was done separately from the "jangly" part there
will have existed hard evidence in the form of a tape that has one
part and not the other.  As to whether it still exists or anyone could
be persuaded to look for it . . . maybe just asking a George (or Mark
for that matter--he may know more than is in the Book) is the easiest!
:-)
============================================================

#dan

Clever:         dbk@cs.umd.edu    | "Softly her tower crumbled in the 
Not-so-clever:  uunet!mimsy!dbk   |  sweet silent sun." - Nabokov