I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

anyway I always assumed that pic was from the Every Little Thing session which is pretty amazing consistency for Capitol to have on a record that was chopped and assembled from other things

Xpost its because that one is https it needs to be http

the kicks are very consistent and sound like they're coming from a double-pedal.

Double bass drum pedals didn't exist until the '80s. And there are no photos nor any other documentation of Ringo ever playing a double-bass-drum setup. The "double kick" sound is Paul playing a muted string on his bass.

Louie Bellson was playing Gretsch double bass drum pedals of his own design in the 40s. http://drummagazine.com/double-bass-legends-a-short-history/

The article says Gretsch made Bellson's first double-bass kit, but not a double-bass pedal.

There's this, though:

Unbelievably, there were crude double pedals available even back then [early 1910s]. Alas, they were not remote pedals, and didn’t catch fire with players, even though they were made of wood.

I highly doubt Ringo was using one of these old-timey pedals, and anyway, the sound is closer to that of a muted bass than of a bass drum.

ugh, the cold light of 4/21. according to the authoritative sounding beatlesebooks.com,

"Ringo actually played on a set with two bass drums in order to get the quick paced 16th note fills as heard periodically during the song."

i sloppily used the word "double-pedal" upthread but i didn't specifically mean a single BD played with a double bass-drum pedal, i just meant playing bass drum(s) with two separate pedals, which was common at the time. like ginger baker:

http://i.imgur.com/oHIU7rL.jpg

wikipedia sez:
'The rapid 16th note bass drum fills were done on two bass drums according to The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn.[9]'

I stand corrected! Curious if it was an overdub or if he did it live. Either way, interesting that Ringo never really went further into double-bass land.

from http://www.idrummag.com/interviews/bakers-back/

Actually Moonie [Keith Moon] did it first. We were at a Duke Ellington concert where Sam Woodyard was playing. All of his drummers always played two bass drums and I was very impressed with Sam and some of the things he did with two bass drums. Moonie was there and I said, ‘I’m going to get two bass drums’ so I asked Ludwig to make me a kit whereas Moonie just went into the drum shop and bought two Premier kits and joined them together. So he actually did it before me, but we both got the idea at the same place and time.

Nick Mason of all people was doing it in the late 60s too

sounds like Sam Woodyard did it first lol

looks like woodyard was one of the first in the 40s, following louis bellson, who was apparently the first. from there it spread out among other drummers associated with tommy dorsey's band. here's buddy rich in 1949:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-zM45GpKiE
http://drummagazine.com/double-bass-legends-a-short-history/

Listening to sgt pepper following this thread, it's the first time I notice that some songs are simply guitar/bass/drums/piano (mainly) and could have been played live if they had still been touring or even on tv (for instance "with a little help", "getting better"...).
I had never thought about that considering the psychedelic, overdubs, no touring aspects of the album/era.
They have never performed anything from pepper (and revolver), even in video, have they ? This is weird since they made videos for "paperback" and "rain" and then for "hey jude", "revolution" (and of course "magical mystery tour" stuff).

That point feels significant for me, too, and adds to my enjoyment of the album. Obviously, it's not true for "She's Leaving Home," "Within You Without You," maybe "When I'm 64," but otherwise Sgt. Pepper does represent what the Beatles sounded like as a band at that time quite a bit.

They have never performed anything from pepper (and revolver), even in video, have they ? This is weird since they made videos for "paperback" and "rain" and then for "hey jude", "revolution" (and of course "magical mystery tour" stuff).

Yeah I know for "paperback" but indeed it's not on the album.
It's kinda sad in a way that they have never performed revolver and pepper tracks.
That reminds me of an interview of Macca during the pepper recording, I think, when he talked about not touring anymore and how the album would be their performance (iirc).

IIRC, Revolver was released at roughly the same time they were doing their final shows.

Yep, it was released in the US four days before their tour. Not a difficult decision: recording Revolver was fun and invigorating, but touring is a slog and we're getting death threats.

I'm trying to think when double bass became more defined as a technique. A lot of the jazz and jazz-influenced guys - or even Moon - sort of used them sporadically and sloppily, and not how they're used in metal or hard rock. Billy Cobham?

Re:drums ...I know someone who was asked by Paul to come and listen to him overdub some stuff while working on one of the David Kahne-produced solo albums. He told me that even though the entire experience of watching Paul working solo on music was wonderful and surreal the thing that struck him the most was how great he was on the drums.

Yeah, Paul is pretty great at everything. Pete Townshend, too!

More than anything, I think the summer tours of 1966 were what really broke up the Beatles.

Listening to sgt pepper following this thread, it's the first time I notice that some songs are simply guitar/bass/drums/piano (mainly) and could have been played live

it was most the technology that was lacking, like perhaps technically they could "play it live" but the material required dynamics that couldn't be replicated live, not with constant screaming and mid-60s monitor tech. "A Day in the Life" would have to be on an electric keyboard using electric guitars, any fills Ringo does would have to be loud and leaden lest they evaporate into the sound of screaming fans. imaging trying to do the quiet part to "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" while you are having trouble hearing yourself scream the words to "Twist and Shout".

they could probably do a rough version of "Rain" but it really wouldn't be the same as the record, which had all kinds of crazy production tricks including backwards vocals. i guess they could do tape loops but syncing that live would be hell.

Best solution I can think of to perform the orchestrated stuff live using 1967 tech would be to have Paul play a Mellotron for brass/strings, and make some custom tapes with backwards guitar, tape loops, and other effects to replace the standard taped notes on the high end of the keyboard

I'm trying to think when double bass became more defined as a technique. A lot of the jazz and jazz-influenced guys - or even Moon - sort of used them sporadically and sloppily, and not how they're used in metal or hard rock. Billy Cobham?

― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, April 22, 2017 9:38 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It took me a good decade-plus to figure out exactly what Moon was doing with his double-bass setup. Live, he was constantly -- and thrillingly and bafflingly -- using them, sometimes as grace notes/flams, sometimes as heavy reinforcement, sometimes -- as on the studio "Join Together" -- simply alternating, always as color. The reason metal and hard rock drummers aren't using them the way Moon is is because none of those drummers want to take the necessary risks to attempt that approach. Even Neil Peart realized that Moon's approach was ultimately out of reach for him: "when I first got into cover bands that played Who songs, I discovered I didn't like playing like Keith Moon. That was the important lesson that I learned, and I preferred a more compositional and organized...just as your playing should be a reflection of your nature, so mine is."

To paraphrase Andre Previn's famous quote about Duke Ellington, Neil Peart can play a 20-minute solo on his gargantuan set and every drummer in the room will say, "Oh, yes, that's done like this." But Keith Moon dances through the kit for half a second and I don't know what it is.

not with constant screaming and mid-60s monitor tech.

I don't think monitors of any kind* appeared on the scene until 1969, and even then it was just side-stage speakers for the vocals.

*At the Beatles Atlanta show in 1965, a local sound engineer set them up with monitors, which they loved. Epstein offered the guy a job, and was turned down:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/24667227/beatles-atlanta-65-the-most-memorable-show-of-the-tour

Keith Moon was insane and I'd wager he never played the same part the same way twice.

they have never performed anything from pepper (and revolver), even in video, have they ?

Well, there are promo clips for Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields. The orchestra session/party for A Day In The Life was filmed for a TV special or something that didn't happen, and it's been circulated as the "video" for the song but I'm not sure when it was actually edited together as a thing... might be some affected retro-trippiness in that one. Anyway, none of those are really "performing" the songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM

"A Day in the Life" was made because Paul had recently got a 35mm camera was getting into home filmmaking. this led to "Magical Mystery Tour" but there was a time where they were planning on making an experimental film accompaniment to the entire "Pepper" project. it was probably only a thing for a week or so. it was 1967 and Paul ran the show and was super productive and i think this film was edited by him at the time. it is pretty terrific. some cool cameos in here from Mick Jagger and Keith Richards as well as i think The Fool, the artist collective that painted a lot of Beatle furniture (psychedelic pianos & a Rolls Royce) and designed the trippy sleeve for "Sgt. Pepper". (fwiw they have a wonderful album that is has a sort of bubblegum Incredible String Band flavor to it.)

this style of videos with no performance was kicked off in earnest with the clips for "Paperback Writer", "Day Tripper", and "Rain", songs all recorded during the "Revolver" sessions. they were pointedly NOT performing live on instruments for these videos. it was a new approach to pop presentation, the more abstract and sensational juxtaposed multi-media approach that MTV would use to great success. they were ahead of their time in this, and like other things that they were ahead of their time for it was an experiment that ended in disaster. "Magical Mystery Tour" was shown in b&w and panned, and their big Christmas single "Hello Goodbye", which depicted a full color performance of the "Sgt. Pepper" band, was botched. they were busted for i believe breaking BBC Union laws on miming, and re-cut and re-shot the film several times to try to appease regulations, all to no avail. so again they were too ahead of their time. "Hello Goodbye" ended up getting shown for the first time in 1968 as the soundtrack to a b&w film of people taking the train lol.

It may have been difficult to replicate 'A Day In The Life' live and it would have been expensive to try 'She's Leaving Home' or 'Within You Without You' live. All the others could have been performed live easily, with a bit of rearranging. I don't think that the production is all that essential to these songs - maybe it was in 1967... but y'know, it's not 1967 anymore. A lot of these songs stand up when shorn of their production, so the production doesn't matter. And thank fuck for that; because the production on Pepper sounds crude by 2017 standards and didn't sound ahead of its time as much as of its time, and I really wish people would stop pretending otherwise.

Hmmm, what would be an example of a Sgt. Pepper song that you think works in spite of its production?

Tim, do you really think the production is essential to these songs and that they don't stand up when shorn of their production?

I'd say the production is definitely essential to a few... Good Morning Good Morning, Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better

or perhaps I should say the ARRANGEMENTS are essential

Y'see, that's where I'd disagree, because if the production was really that essential, the songs would fall to pieces without it. For example, the only thing added to 'Good Morning Good Morning' was animal noises and horns, and the song still works without them. The rest of them could be sung with just an acoustic guitar and voice and it would still hold up.

The production is probably the most essential on 'A Day In The Life', but most of the record is just standard Beatles material with a couple of things grafted on that the song would equally work well without.

IMHO the songs would all "work" with more basic arrangements, but it'd be a very very different listening experience, and much less of a thrilling mind-expanding journey or gauzy dreamy good trip or whatever.

I'd argue that the production on Sgt. Pepper's ceased to be "mind expanding" decades ago, as advances in recording technology have rendered it more and more of an antique with each passing year. Also, as much as a lot of these songs would work/hold up well when shorn of their production, I also think it's the weakest collection of material they put out post-Help! ...

it would have been expensive to try 'She's Leaving Home or 'Within You Without You' live

string quartet can play SLH. hire Indian musicians a la Concert for Bangladesh. the problem is 1967 concert sound technology vs. uncontrollably screaming crowds.

I'd say the production is definitely essential to a few... Good Morning Good Morning, Lovely Rita, Fixing a Hole, Getting Better

― Darin, Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:28 PM (thirty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

or perhaps I should say the ARRANGEMENTS are essential

Fixing and Hole and Getting Better both feature cool minimalist syncopated New Wave guitar arrangements that were written by rehearsing the songs over and over again. the upcoming box set will have a lot of these early takes, and you can hear for yourself. i think if they rehearsed Getting Better a bunch (and they did) that it would sound pretty futuristic, especially in 1967.

a lot of the production was simply amplification. you can't play acoustic guitar w no accompaniment quietly while singing at Shea Stadium with no monitor. it was technologically impossible in 1967, regardless of whether it is 2017 now.

Oh man, now there I've gotta differ, YS and LIB fall farrr short, and it at least ties with AR. As for mind expanding, I partly was thinking in the context of imaginary 1967 live performances and what they'd be like, and I do think it'd have been far less of an experience without all the sonic embellishments (ditto the Revolver songs imo). But also my own listening experiences... this album has a lot of flavor and mood and color, very warm, very enveloping. Doesn't feel antiquey to me but YMMV.

Xpost to turrican

xpost:

Well firstly, what makes you think that Beatles audiences in late 1967 or early 1968 would have been full of people screaming uncontrollably? Different times, people would surely have calmed their tits by then.

Was there any screaming when Lennon played Toronto in '69? When Wings played universities in the early '70s? If The Beatles had played in front of an audience instead of on the rooftop in '69, I'd put a safe bet on there being no screaming then, either.

Fixing and Hole and Getting Better both feature cool minimalist syncopated New Wave guitar arrangements

Hmm. Yeah, no.

i am torn between wanting to demonstrate that the guitar plucks of getting better really are forward-thinking vs the conversation that all of this is ludicrous

conversation = realization

zen koan #2379

xp you a pro at harshing the Beatle buzz

I also think it's the weakest collection of material they put out post-Help! ...

You honestly rate Let it Be higher than Pepper?!

Oh man, now there I've gotta differ, YS and LIB fall farrr short, and it at least ties with AR.

I don't really consider Yellow Submarine to be a proper album, and I think Abbey Road is a superior collection of material and has aged better. Let It Be could have been a better final product than it is, but I prefer to listen to it over Sgt. Pepper's these days without a doubt.

As for mind expanding, I partly was thinking in the context of imaginary 1967 live performances and what they'd be like, and I do think it'd have been far less of an experience without all the sonic embellishments (ditto the Revolver songs imo). But also my own listening experiences... this album has a lot of flavor and mood and color, very warm, very enveloping. Doesn't feel antiquey to me but YMMV.

― long dark poptart of the rodeo (Doctor Casino), Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:18 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It probably sounded incredible to 1967 audiences, but that was 50 years ago. From where I'm sitting now, in 2017, it sounds like a record made in 1967, and there's no real getting around that.

well congrats on your ability to perceive the passage of time

what do you think is better than the Beatles? honestly curious, give us an album.