From: jwlr@gauguin.cc.rochester.edu (James Willer)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Sound bytes for Let It Be
Date: 8 Sep 92 01:44:59 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Sep4.214054.6201@news.columbia.edu> brennan@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Joseph Brennan) writes:

>James Willer (jwlr@gauguin.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
>>: Recently someone asserted that the talking during "For You
>>: Blue" was not recorded during the song, but mixed in later
>>: by Phil Specter.

>That was me.  Lewisohn, "The Beatles Recording Sessions" p.166: "The
>sixth take was included on the _Get Back_ album and -- with further
>editing and remixing -- on _Let It Be_." 

>hinz@picard.med.ge.com (David Hinz Mfg 4-6987) writes:
>>I don't think Phil Specter is good enough to get the timing & rythym(SP!)
>>as good as it is for these comments.  It would be EXTREMELY difficult.

>No, I think they could do it.  The cut and repeat jobs on "I me mine"
>and "Let it be" are excellent (technically!) and cutting the first and
>last lines out of "Dig a pony" can't have been so easy either.  That

Well, *anything* is possible. But some are less likely than others.
I think Mr. Hinz would agree with me when I say that there is a *big*
difference between the kind of 'cut and paste' editing of IMM/LIB 
and the kind of 'roll the tape and we'll drop in this bit of conversation
that just happens to match the rhythm of the song' that you are implying
on FYB.

>is, I agree that it was difficult to do, but disagree that it was so
>difficult that it defies belief.  Besides, Lewisohn practically says
>they did it.  Although under March 25 1970, he says the song
>"presented no special problems", he also reports the final version is
>an edit of two mixes (intro and body), as if that were nothing!  Under

Yes. As pointed out above, that kind of 'cut and paste' can be done
with relative ease and was quite commonplace among The Beatles' output.
That says *nothing* about dropping conversation into the middle of a
song, while the music is still rolling! (can be done, but NOT easily,
and certainly unlikely that it would go without comment!)

>March 30, we find unknown further time being spent on "For you blue",
>a day when Spector was fiddling around with editing in spoken remarks.
>Maddenly, though, Lewisohn is not totally explicit about what was done.

>>On a bootleg (I think it's Kum Back, snarfed from the Get Back acetate
>>I believe) you can hear what is obviously someone's drink being consumed,
>>the sound of ice in a glass is unmistakable!  George starts the song a
>>few times, screwing up and enjoying it.

>That's the "Get back" album tape compiled May 28 1969; "Kum back",
>based on its song selection, originates in the mix tapes made March
>10-12 1969.  One difference is that the GB tape includes the ice cubes
>and the "QUIET PLEASE!" being shouted off mike, which is not on the KB
>version.  However, note that on May 7 1969, spoken word remarks were
>-added- to the completed mixes.  The absence of an explicit remix
>entry for "For you blue" means GB should be the same mix as KB, but
>since it does differ, I wonder whether the ice cubes, shout, and even
>the false start belong there.  I'm not saying they don't, but saying
>I'm keeping my mind open.

As another poster pointed out, these are two *different* takes. As I 
have noted noted previously, Lewissohn gets a bit sloppy about the
takes involved in the 'Get Back' sessions. For instance, he asserts
that the versions of Get Back from the album and single are two
completely different takes, which is doubtful. (How many hours of
tape were there?) 

I'm keeping mine open, as well, but the consensus seems to go against
likelyhood of George's comments being dubbed into FYB.

					Jamesa Willer
{the opinions above are probably NOT those of
 anyone at all}