When you stop and consider how primitive the technology was when this was recorded it's absolutely astounding. No 64 track digital ProTools going on here. Four tracks. Physical tape edits with a razor blade. Almost no EQ to speak of. Once four tracks were finished they were pre-mixed and moved to another machine, after which they were done with no more changes possible. No endless tweezing to get a perfect note. Physically moving instruments and mics around the room to change the soundstage. Geoff Emerick deserves a ton of credit for his work on this album as well.
Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. The Beatles were the band they were precisely because of the lack of technology. They had to work out a way of achieving the sound they wanted with the tools at their disposal, and what a job they did! Nowadays most groups spend two years making an album and emerge from the studio with a highly polished turd.
They could create a faux eight-track with a technique called 'bouncing', where you record and fill all four tracks, condense it down to a single track or a two track on a second machine and have 2-3 tracks more to play with...problem with this technique is of course balance, synching and the danger of degraded signal...however, had they NOT done this, we would never have had Sgt Pepper at all, let alone the miracle stitching together of Strawberry Fields Forever's separate parts and takes. What the Beatles had to work with was effectively no more than a well-set out but primitive and limited home studio by today's standards - and with few of the effects and none of the computers.
Max Steele Strawberry Fields Forever is a stitching together of 2 or 3 takes, some in a different key and tempo, so speeds and tempo needed to be matched.
Bill Hi Bill. its actually 2 guitars playing Rhythm. Both John and George are playing on the Rhythm track. If you listen closely you can hear a chunky Epiphone Casino with the treble rolled of just chunken along on the chords while George plays some pentatonic licks on top with probably his start or SG. and then you have Paul's super compressed distorted lead track , probably played on his Casino or Esquire. So in total there is 3 guitars on this track
Actually. John played NO guitar on the final version this song, Just vocals. Its also Paul on the rhythm track(track 1) along with George. track 2 guitar is all Paul.
It's surprising how out of tune and sloppy the guitar playing sounds yet in the context of the song it sounds right. That was part of their genius I guess.
It's so clever that George Martin put the background noise onto its own separate track. It made me realize how constant the crowd chatter actually is throughout the song
Dani Garcia The same technique was used oddly enough in 1965 on the Beach Boys Party! album which used featured overdubbed “party” noises to make the recordings sound live.
@@ugeanspyrll6816 The Beatles or should i say Paul ----- was always listening to the Beach Boys. Paul had the knack of using one's idea's to create his own version--- which is what all the greats do.
I listend to this about 20 times already. It makes you appreciate the song and the Beatles even more. I never realized how raunchy those 2 guitars are in the song. No wonder Jimi Hendrix played Sgt. Pepper live.
When the Beatles first went to see Hendrix --- they had just released Sgt Pepper 3 days earlier. Hendrix OPENED with the song !!! Really blew their minds.
I agree it really sounds like a Hendrix song with the vocals and the guitars. You can see., Sgt. Pepper's influences began to affect everyone within days...the most important album in all of rock.
I found the stems to the entire album (as well as songs from all the albums, every song from Rubber Soul and Abbey Road), I'll make my own as soon as I find a good way to make the line thingies.
Bran Kep Almost true. Brian didn't play all the instruments on Beach Boy recordings. But yeah, I agree that Brian in one person encompassed all the talents of the Beatles plus George Martin. Plus I've always felt that the pinnacle of artistry in rock isn't Sgt. Pepper or Rubber Soul or Abbey Road or Revolver but SMiLE. The Beatles can't touch it. And I don't say that lightly. I'm a huge Beatle fan.
Lynn Turman He didn't play ALL of the instruments. On his most famous recordings in his peak (1965-1967) the tracks were played by the wrecking crew from LA, but Brian would often jump in on bass guitar or organ, during those sessions.
Frank Campbell Well put - that's the understatement of the century. He really was the '5th Beatle to a large degree. Anything requiring a written arrangement - Eleanor Rigby. String Sections. Horn sections .. that's a GM. He also performed a great deal of actual parts on the later recordings. Without him - no Beatles as we know them.
I agree. Just don't forget at least Paul and John, especially Paul was enjoying making his own stuff with classical touches even if Martin may have taught him things. And Martin had to learn that from somewhere too. It gets passed on to those who can understand it.
Never realized that Paul sings, "WHEN Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play". Never heard the word "when" in that previously. It's really subtle. Also, where's the Billy Shears part at the end?
only on the cd and digital versions on the original record its part of sgt. peppers also he used the billy shears part in the end he just didn't put the vocals
These are some of the albums released in 1967: The Doors Strange Days Between the Buttons Their Satanic Majesties Request Are You Experienced Axis: Bold as Love John Wesley Harding The Velvet Underground & Nico Smiley Smile Wild Honey Absolutely Free Safe As Milk Disreali Gears The Piper at the Gates of Dawn The Who Sellout Surrealistic Pillow ...and this one. I wonder if the Beatles even felt confident in Sgt. Pepper back then, given so many great albums that were made and released at the same time! :O
The Doors 1st album kicked ,67 off in January. Predating every thing. Peppers in June, Are you EXperienced in September along with Fresh Cream. Sell Out was a tremondous statement by the Who. But Revolver really was the turning point in popular music. For my money that was he most important game changer of all these masterpieces. Relesed on my birthday August 6 1966.
As a lifelong Beatlemaniac it's very hard to be impressed by Beatles related stuff after all these years - but this is AMAZING. Like being right there in the studio sitting alongside George Martin and Geoff Emerick.
I love Sgt. Pepper, and it's remained my favorite album ( by the Beatles or anyone else) since it was released. When it came out, it was just so DIFFERENT from what anyone else was doing (including being the first album to have the lyrics printed on the back cover). You really COULD sing along, as Paul invites you to do in the second verse of the theme song. The foldout, and the cutouts (including mustache and epaulets) really made you feel like you were part of the band. Plus, the Beatles and George Martin really raised the bar technologically. And, they raised the bar musically too...a lot of GREAT groups came out after Sgt. Pepper was released, because it inspired musicians to give their best shot. Sgt. Pepper Reprise remains MY favorite song of all time, and DAY IN THE LIFE is consistently praised as one of the best pop/rock songs ever recorded. Having said all that, individually these are generally not the Beatles' best songs. In fact, when SGT. PEPPER first came out, NONE of these songs were released as singles (George Martin himself didn't think they were strong enough). Personally, I have real trouble sitting through WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU and SHE'S LEAVING HOME and FIXING A HOLE. My favorite Beatle songs are actually from the HELP era, with some RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER thrown in. So...PEPPER is great taken as a whole, as the "concept album" that it was...taken individually, the songs are easily bested by other Beatles songs.
For me one of the most unique things about the Pepper sound is the snare. Gives the whole sound a sort of weird fairground dimension somehow. Or something.
I agree man, it's a really characteristic light snare, not too soft, not too rough. Fits the Beatles' harmonies the best IMO. Really defined the '60s psychedelic period
i think it's safe to say that regardless of how one may feel about ringo's technical proficiency, that he did in fact play the perfect drum parts to some of the best songs ever written and recorded ...
You don't realize how gritty and distorted the guitars are on this track until hearing them isolated. The finished product sounds so polished and smooth that it understates just how raw and rock'n'roll the guitars are.
Jack's Music Stuff Not that you were talking to me but sure. I may have the multitrack for it. Won’t get fancy colours for each wave form though like this one. I have no editing skills
Amazingly recorded on 4 track with overdubs. George Harrison, the silent one. George Martin, the invisible one. Simply amazing music that has stood the test of time.
Fantastic raw sound. This was early 1967!? Nobody was doing rock this hard back then. Sgt. Peppers LHCB was. The BEST and leaving all others further and further behind.
Listening to this, I could make a ton of comments, but 2 things immediately come to mind: (1) George's guitar track has an absolutely wonderfully fuzzy tone that makes me want to shout from the rooftops (2) To people who ACTUALLY believe that Paul McCartney died and that an impostor took his place for Sgt Pepper, please play the Beatles cover of "Long Tall Sally" and then listen to Paul McCartney's iso vocal track here, and then try to convince yourselves that it's two different people.
PicturesDexDimension When I wrote my comment I asked myself, if someone decided to reply in opposition, what would the argument be? I laughed when I read this because I could have almost written it myself as an exercise in debating both sides of an argument. It plays right into the need for myth making that is inherent in the human condition. You need another example? I could name a few, but listen to the vocal track on "Oh Darling". It was on the last album the Beatles recorded, hence no one could claim that James Paul McCartney (born 18 June 1942 and still very much alive, same guy who's been touring in South America for the past 2 weeks) had somehow managed to record a few songs before he was decapitated, as you 'Faulowers' enjoy believing. Same "sawdust" in the voice, as George Martin described. It's unmistakable, even with the echo on the voice (and don't start with the "they used echo to mask the voice" nonsense -- vocal echo had been used since the 1950's by almost every artist, and the Beatles were obviously using all sorts of effects in the studio on voices, instruments, and inventing effects-based sounds ever since 'Rain' used backwards tracking). As far as your "voice recognition studies": I've been playing guitar for 35 years and have a few CD credits under my belt, so I've logged some studio time. I am also good friends with someone who owns a recording studio. Using the latest in computer recording equipment, I saw a spectrogram analysis of multiple songs of both my own voice and the lead singers voice. They were all different, even within different takes of the same song. In fact, actual scientific studies -- that is, with strict controls, unlike the internet post that claims Paul's voice is different, which was done by some random person, not a scientist, with unknown motives, not using any standard controls -- have shown that the same singer, singing the same exact song on the same day, will produce different spectrogram patterns before warmup, then after stretching of throat muscles, then after warmup. To reiterate for clarity: Same singer, same day, same song, strict scientific study. The voice prints didn't match up perfectly. So when you are analyzing McCartney's voice (or any voice) from different years on different songs, you are going to get different patterns. I know the thing on the internet you read says that "If the voice prints do not match up, then the songs were sung by different people", but this is simply untrue. If you doubt this, go buy studio time at a local recording studio and (a) ask the sound engineer about this subject and (b) test it yourself. McCartney smoked a pack of cigarettes a day during the 60's, and his voice went though changes as all voices would from year to year even under the best of circumstances. But even if you'd have tested him from one day to the next, you'd see differences. The popular voice "analysis" regarding the 'Paul is Dead' theory is from 'Yesterday' (recorded 14 June 1965) and 'You Never Give Me Your Money' (recorded in stages from May - July 1969). So: FOUR YEARS separates the songs -- that's 30,000 cigarettes! -- and Yesterday is in the key of F while 'Money' is in A (specifically Am7). And gee. The voice prints didn't match up perfectly. So Paul is dead, according to you. I know this isn't enough to convince people, but it should be. With everything regarding the Beatles, every story, every lyric, every supposition gets blown out of proportion in nuclear fashion. People seem to have a NEED to believe Paul is dead. Read up on the need for human's to create myths and it becomes clear why this ever got as far as it did. But allow me to add one thing first. You will NEVER hear a serious, professional musician ever claim to believe in this. Why? Because they know how long it takes to become proficient at any musical discipline. You can't "fast track" it. You can't fake it. Musicians are like fingerprints, and they can spot phonies in an instant from a mile away, a la the 'Blink' principle. There are people out there who can do good celebrity impressions, sure. But there is no way to fool all the world's musicians about perhaps the most famous musician of the post-classical era. If you were a musician you would instinctively understand this and you'd feel embarrassed towards anyone who truly bought into this silly business. If Paul had been replaced, we'd know. Mick Jagger would know. Pete Townshend would know. Paul Simon, Ravi Shankar, Brian Wilson, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Roger Waters, Prince, Elvis Costello, Van Morrison, Jimmy Page, Ray Davies...they'd all hear it, see it, know it. And they wouldn't keep quiet about it.
shoesheep The entire world owes you a huge debt of gratitude, shoesheep, and for those of us who are reasonably intelligent as well as intensely passionate about everything Beatles, even more so...your explanations, based on authentic real-world first-hand experience and knowledgeable insights as a musician and recording artist are simply the MOST concise, comprehensive articulate and all-inclusive truly factual responses to the ridiculous myth-mongers who, as you made so perfectly clear in your post, seem to have somehow become emotionally invested in perpetuating every possible shred of disinformation, twisted and distorted "clues" and ultimately end up sounding as if they derive some sort of sick satisfaction, a perverse pleasure even, in clinging to their beliefs, unable or unwilling to acknowledge just how absurd, irrational and illogical their collective mind-set is so obviously misguided, so absolutely determined to deny the truth. I wish your eloquent post could be copied word-for-word and re-posted ad infinitum throughout the entire internet, and included along with every single reference to anything and anyone even remotely related to any "Paul-is-Dead" claim.
Three tracks really, if you don't count the audience sound effects... But you can;t give George all the credit - to make this all fit on four tracks required a lot of musical decisions that the group themselves definitely played a major role in - like the alternating between the lead guitar and the horns - they'd have had to work around the fact that both at once weren't technically feasible. Limitations give rise to innovation. 48 tracks give rise to indecision.
Rex Mundi Perhaps the knob twisting, yeah, but my point was that they had to make musical decisions based on the technical limitations of the time. The musical and the technical had to dovetail together to make this track. It was a team effort. And the Beatles did get involved in technical stuff along the way. Engineer Geoff Emerick in his memoir talked about how he and McCartney worked together for ages on trying to get a specific bass sound - that finally involved putting the bass amp in the middle of the room (Abbey Road studio only had the one big room), and placing two mics, one close and one a little distance away to get the bass sound you hear on Sgt Pepper. Emerick didn't come up with the solution all on his own. Most musicians, after they have made six or seven albums, (as the Beatles had by the time they made Sgt Pepper), become somewhat tech savvy about the recording process. They start out by having to deal with their own gear - amps and guitars and such - and they end up hanging out in the control room for hours on end... you eventually learn a few things about how it's done - particularly if you are a clever bloke, which the Beatles were.
Yep. Agree more than disagree. They were heavily involved but still think their input was artistic rather than technical ie letting Martin know when something sounded right, or asking him if he could create a sound like monks chanting on a mountain top (or whatever). Emerick and other engineers probably played a much bigger technical role than even george martin is prepared to admit. He was arguably more of a musicallyu trained arranger and mentor with a great ear than producer (wooo! controversy) - The fact lennon/Macca didn't learn all that much from Martin is fairly evident on their solo recordings, although Macca did a pretty good job producing himself. - Just my opinion of course.
Perfect imperfections. They put magic into every part. Having the EMI plate reverb printed on the vocal tracks, the UL Vox series amp sounds on the Casino and Strat and the sharing of tracks due to bouncing and mixdown instead of adding effects, cleaning up all the clams and extraneous noise and isolating everything made for the well blended sound we know and love.
As someone who was recording with bands at the time let me just say that 4 tracks was cutting edge. Some studios, Regent Sound in Denmark Street, London for instance, only had 2 tracks so you did the entire backing track for 4 to 6 musicians and then pre-mastered them and bounced them onto another recorder along with the vocals and sometimes did it again. Loss of bass response was a major problem along with tape hiss, but hey we got on with it. By the way, you couldn't drop in sections of go record the guitar later, it was all on the tape and that was it. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. The BBC did "live" recordings of bands in the way for many years. Would I go back and do it the same way ?, in a heart beat !
According to the Abbey Rd engineers who were there they synced up two 4 track machines for A Day in The Life and it was like using the studio as an instrument - even for the helpers like Geoff Emerick and a bit of luck played a role .
Indeed. Strawberry in Stockport was two 2-track machines for a long time. I started out using a bunch of cassette players in the 1970s... had to sync two up together. Simultneous pause-release was not really simultaneous so another method was needed. Remember those old massive double-adaptors? I'd read about the Geoff Emerick thing of syncing two 4-tracks, and I thought this'd be my version of that solution. Plug two of the three machines into the adaptor, rewind both and then switch both off. pres pause and play on both, and then release pause; switch on at the wall ... climb over mum and dad's bed to get to the school percussion stuff I'd nabbed for the weekend ... and off we go! :D Used that for three of the four songs in my music project. One was done using two mono Tandberg decks at school. Four original songs, one lead sheet. One reel-to-reel tape. Two months later, tape comes back from exam board: the examiners enjoyed the songs very much. They liked the fact that I'd done most of it myself on very limited equipment. 'Get in touch with the Denmark Street boys' was their PS. I got the highest examination mark in our region that year for music CSE. For ages, I was using 4-tracks on cassette; walk in the park, compared to the bedroom sessions (ooh-er!). Recently, a pal lent me his Zoom R16.Moped up and down an airport runway! Got some results from the R16 on my channel. Only used 8 tracks ... all I needed. What you say about the having to be get it right in the process ... even with 4-track, that's spot on. Can't fix it in the mix, really. I actually think that trainee recording engineers should be taken through the whole thing of 2-tracks x2 first, and then one four-track machine. After that - an 8-track. I think that the learning to make creative decisions in the process would get them keener, really. More oriented to getting things right earlier on in the recording process. What do you think?
Well this confirms Ringo had a metronome implant at some point during his many hospitals stays. Even after silences he pick up attacks at exactly the same dynamic as he left off. And Paul's vocals, why even bother. They were SCARY! Oh, the term is ping-ponging at least in the USA.
Hearing the song like this really makes you appreciate every little bit of detail and effort they put into this, which just makes the Beatles even MORE amazing.
Crazy how the tracks are cut and other instrument parts are put together like that. Much harder to put songs together back then. Being limited makes you have to be more creative. To everyone with limited resources in any situation,keep on keeping on. The most important part is not the newest technology.
I think that "Sgt Peppers" and "A day in the life" are two masterpieces They were at the top of the world in 1967. I'm old enough that I buy this album and listen to it on my turntable in 67. I was 12 years old. I'm still waiting for and album like this.
This is spectacular. They created these recordings in the mid 60's using 2 or 3 4 track analog 2" magnetic tape machines, recorded individual instruments on separate tracks then mix them down onto 1 of the 4 master tracks. Then do that process again for the vocals and horns, etc. Getting everything to line up with a tape cutter and razor blade with no digital manipulation must have been tedious as hell. Thanks so much for posting this.
metafis that’s definitely a Lennon guitar part it contains all the same types of phrasing as use on She Said She Said and Paul didn’t play on that track, the rhythmic idiosyncrasies are John’s they occur again and again in his playing. Listen to his playing on Strawberry fields and I feel fine, they’re replicated in this track.
yeah I know the arpeggio's, but on this track it's george playing it. pretty well documented. Otherwise George would not be playing at all. I doubt that is the case
I just came across this and I was amazed at the subtle nuances brought out listening to this isolated 4 track cut. Absolutely beautiful, thank you for posting this as it reflects very accurately the genius that was and still is Sir George Martin and of course the Lads.
Thanks a lot! The Blue track reveals that Sgt. Peppers is as modern a piece of acid rock as anyone recorded in 1967. The Red track reveals the fantastic vocal work by Paul, and the great harmonies on this piece. CSN&Y eat your heart out!!
The 2-singer part of the vocals is soo amazing. Amazing Everly Bros-like harmony or something akin. What an strange and amazing song and such disparate pieces and when reassembled, sounds just perfect. Hearing the parts separated like this gives me new appreciation as well.
So the Beatles weren't a Heavy Rock Band Hey. Sure they were, they just also liked doing heaps of other things as well. The Beatles Rocked Hard. Thanks for this so much.
I never heard that slight dissonance in the chorus before. Really interesting! It gets lost in the instrumentation usually, I suppose. Thank you so much for this!
I keep coming back to this vid, playing it loud. Track 1 is the most rawly funky, chunky, rockin' thing I've ever heard, and I've been around the block a few times. Was there anything even remotely like it in terms of raw funk-rock before this? Then on top of it they laid down brass band music reminiscent of something from 1912. Who else would have thought of putting those two motifs together?! All hail the Beatles!
The deeper & behind the scenes of their arrangements I go, the more I discover a new love & appreciation for these guys - even with 6 plus decades of history, The Beatles are still happening right now !
All done with four tracks. My Roland VS-840EX is considered archaic using zip drive and I can ping up to 36 tracks total. The lads did it all with only four. Remarkable. Everything I ever learned about production and recording I learned from the Beatles and George Martin.
I remember when I first heard these stems, and I was blown away by the vocal harmonies, especially at 5:38 in this video . . . such interesting choices that you may not think sound good when soloed but when put in the context of the song those weird dissonant notes add a fullness to the song
From someone who uses Protools, the idea of 4 tracks just seems impossible. I guess it's 2 x4 tracks though. So 8-track ultimately. I still can't believe they nailed it so well with such basic tools. Wild.
If only everybody still had to work like that - it would focus the process enormously and force performers and engineers to get their work right in the first place! Also introduces a healthy dose of fairchild compression and tape distortion into proceedings, which in combination with expert playing adds up to records that sound gloriously saturated and thick. I love digital recording technology but it is so open ended and versatile that it can completely sidetrack a band's creative process.
When you listen to isolated tracks like this its a full display of the sheer musicianship of the individual. Not to mention the unmistakable tones and raw sound of vintage instrumentation. The warmth and depth of the bass, the brilliant cutting tones of the guitars along with the delicate sensitivity of wax potted pick-ups. The sound of a slightly muffled, coated drumhead paired with maple shells of a 60's Ludwig drum kit makes for a softer but still massive attack. These are all the benefits of analog tracking that is missing from modern day digital recordings, and will never be the same again. The end result is a well preserved time capsule that will stand the test of time, and will please the ears of generations to come. The commercialized trash that makes up radio today is light years away from standing up to this kinda stuff. THIS dear friends....is music.
I don't think anyone could "do this on his computer". In the same way that you can't unmix a cake, you can't separate audio tracks out from a master. Someone has managed to get access to the original 4 track recording, probably on Protools. Given the security they must have at Abey Road, thereby hangs a tale. Any answers out there?
George Martin was a master of the stems on a 4-track because he had to be. It is a great tool to learn from. Those who vote negative are not understanding how important role Martin had as an engineer and his creative mind to produce a complex vision. He was brilliant. A peek into a brilliant mind we can all learn from. His final mix had profound impact as a result.
Just crazy that Martin and Emerick managed to get basically the whole thing onto only 3 tracks. Modern producers with Pro Tools and dozens of tracks at their disposal could learn a few things from this.
I had NO IDEA this track was so FUNKY! I had always heard it as a rock n' roll track...but that's some SERIOUS GROOVE going on in the green line...motown level stuff. Brilliant.
Whats funny is that this is one of the most straight forward stereo recordings of their catalog post rubber soul. This is very educational for people just learning about live recording in a studio. The rabbit hole goes very deep. Some people never quite touched the ground.
When you stop and consider how primitive the technology was when this was recorded it's absolutely astounding. No 64 track digital ProTools going on here. Four tracks. Physical tape edits with a razor blade. Almost no EQ to speak of. Once four tracks were finished they were pre-mixed and moved to another machine, after which they were done with no more changes possible. No endless tweezing to get a perfect note. Physically moving instruments and mics around the room to change the soundstage. Geoff Emerick deserves a ton of credit for his work on this album as well.
Necessity is indeed the mother of invention. The Beatles were the band they were precisely because of the lack of technology. They had to work out a way of achieving the sound they wanted with the tools at their disposal, and what a job they did! Nowadays most groups spend two years making an album and emerge from the studio with a highly polished turd.
They could create a faux eight-track with a technique called 'bouncing', where you record and fill all four tracks, condense it down to a single track or a two track on a second machine and have 2-3 tracks more to play with...problem with this technique is of course balance, synching and the danger of degraded signal...however, had they NOT done this, we would never have had Sgt Pepper at all, let alone the miracle stitching together of Strawberry Fields Forever's separate parts and takes. What the Beatles had to work with was effectively no more than a well-set out but primitive and limited home studio by today's standards - and with few of the effects and none of the computers.
vsmicer Can you briefly explain the story you mentioned behind the strawberry fields recording?
Max Steele
Strawberry Fields Forever is a stitching together of 2 or 3 takes, some in a different key and tempo, so speeds and tempo needed to be matched.
Guy Fawkes the bouncing smooths the attack on the guitars kinda melds it all together even Paul says so
When the vocal harmonies kick in, you really hear what made The Beatles as great as they were.
tp10488 ...imitate the vocal harmonies of Beach Boys?
AmoK 19 that's exactly what they were inspired by!!
Both groups were imitating the vocal harmonies of the Everly Brothers.
Because the lead guitar is truly nothing spectacular! I love you, John! Sorry to be critical. It's not like I can play like that! 😃🙃😇😳
Sue DeSimone it wasn't meant to be "spectacular"
Unbelievable rhythm guitar.
Bill Chunky and funky!
Bill Hi Bill. its actually 2 guitars playing Rhythm. Both John and George are playing on the Rhythm track. If you listen closely you can hear a chunky Epiphone Casino with the treble rolled of just chunken along on the chords while George plays some pentatonic licks on top with probably his start or SG. and then you have Paul's super compressed distorted lead track , probably played on his Casino or Esquire. So in total there is 3 guitars on this track
For real
Actually. John played NO guitar on the final version this song, Just vocals. Its also Paul on the rhythm track(track 1) along with George. track 2 guitar is all Paul.
It's surprising how out of tune and sloppy the guitar playing sounds yet in the context of the song it sounds right. That was part of their genius I guess.
It's so clever that George Martin put the background noise onto its own separate track. It made me realize how constant the crowd chatter actually is throughout the song
was that the yellow line?
Dani Garcia The same technique was used oddly enough in 1965 on the Beach Boys Party! album which used featured overdubbed “party” noises to make the recordings sound live.
@@ugeanspyrll6816 The Beatles or should i say Paul ----- was always listening to the Beach Boys. Paul had the knack of using one's idea's to create his own version--- which is what all the greats do.
Mr. G.Martin was a one off genius
I listend to this about 20 times already. It makes you appreciate the song and the Beatles even more. I never realized how raunchy those 2 guitars are in the song. No wonder Jimi Hendrix played Sgt. Pepper live.
3 guitars
actually 4. The power chords in the middle are an over dub from supposedly george but here it sounds like it might be part of Pauls lead
When the Beatles first went to see Hendrix --- they had just released Sgt Pepper 3 days earlier. Hendrix OPENED with the song !!! Really blew their minds.
I agree it really sounds like a Hendrix song with the vocals and the guitars. You can see., Sgt. Pepper's influences began to affect everyone within days...the most important album in all of rock.
The production and mix is so perfect that the raunchiness blends in so well. They are so raw and visceral here isolated! Sounds so damn good.
Please do this for the whole album! I will marry you, whoever you are!
George Martin.
I found the stems to the entire album (as well as songs from all the albums, every song from Rubber Soul and Abbey Road), I'll make my own as soon as I find a good way to make the line thingies.
Marry me ;)
William Powell You didn’t upload anything -_-
@@nightcorenation8201 put them in a Google drive and send them over lmao
astonishing stuff..its like deconstructing a beautiful dream..and when you hear every part..its just as beautiful..
A beautiful dream indeed. Pure genius.
3:12 Best distortion I've heard in a long time!!!
Would call this a fuzz by the modern definitions, but it fits
6:02 I hear Ringo in the lower register
Finger snaps at 5:26 keeping time while singing...so cool to hear those little details on isolated tracks like this.
And the out of tune vocals ar 5:37 on “sit back and....”
@@BillMadeMovies Wow. Great ear
@@BillMadeMovies sounds like Paul the one
Unreal vocals of Paul
What
It's John singing this.
@@First-Name--Last-Namelol, you’re deaf
i love the way john and paul's voices harmonize with each other.
It's their secret weapon from the start.
Yes, totally agree.. On this song --- there are 4 beatles singing * and John's track is doubled at some places for a total of 5 vocal tracks.
Wow, on the blue track you can really hear fret squeak and crackling from the amp. It's amazing how well that can be covered up by layering.
+Clarissa McPigeon You can also hear how screamingly mean the guitar sound was.... Hendrix was never raunchier.
His name is Billy. Read the book..
George Martin was The Beatles secret weapon
He was the 5th Beatle if anybody was...
Lynn Turman Brian Wilson did the job of all 5 beatles and still made the better album
Bran Kep Almost true. Brian didn't play all the instruments on Beach Boy recordings. But yeah, I agree that Brian in one person encompassed all the talents of the Beatles plus George Martin. Plus I've always felt that the pinnacle of artistry in rock isn't Sgt. Pepper or Rubber Soul or Abbey Road or Revolver but SMiLE. The Beatles can't touch it. And I don't say that lightly. I'm a huge Beatle fan.
Lynn Turman He didn't play ALL of the instruments. On his most famous recordings in his peak (1965-1967) the tracks were played by the wrecking crew from LA, but Brian would often jump in on bass guitar or organ, during those sessions.
Frank Campbell Well put - that's the understatement of the century. He really was the '5th Beatle to a large degree. Anything requiring a written arrangement - Eleanor Rigby. String Sections. Horn sections .. that's a GM. He also performed a great deal of actual parts on the later recordings. Without him - no Beatles as we know them.
That was interesting, George Martin was indeed a genius. Reminder: he came from a classical background. Thanks for the video.
I agree. Just don't forget at least Paul and John, especially Paul was enjoying making his own stuff with classical touches even if Martin may have taught him things. And Martin had to learn that from somewhere too. It gets passed on to those who can understand it.
IT WASNT PAUL
Actually isolated tracks like this show me personally how much the boys were in charge of their own sound. This track is rock solid, love it.
soolan11 George Martin was nothing without the Beatles Perhaps a footnote at best.
Mark Heller The Beatles were nothing without George Martin
Yes Peter, I think Ringo is THE most underrated man in rock. What he played suited the Beatles music perfectly.
0:47 haha Paulie's little scream
I liked it very much !
@@candidoj I bet ya do buddy
ellielovesbands reminds me of Michael Jackson
@@candidoj I bet so
So cute!
These are probably the best electric guitar sounds I've ever heard.
Paul McCartney solo voice! Ouf! What a voice from the young Paul!
It's just music writing in its finest, plain and simple. Sgt. Pepper is the Mona Lisa in musical form.
Reynaldo Dizon Completely
Reynaldo Dizon this song and album were anything but simple
That's true, too.
Got it wrong. It is not the music that is simple. The album is just SIMPLY MAGNIFICENTLY HARNESSED TO PERFECTION.
Never realized that Paul sings, "WHEN Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play". Never heard the word "when" in that previously. It's really subtle. Also, where's the Billy Shears part at the end?
Josh Zook The Billy Shears portion is apart of the track "With A Little Help From My Friends"
only on the cd and digital versions on the original record its part of sgt. peppers also he used the billy shears part in the end he just didn't put the vocals
Josh Zook I don't hear him say 'when'
Asaf Cohen actually on my CD player Sgt. Peppers ends pauses for a second then with
A little help from my friends starts with Billy shears
From 6:16 he says "the one and only Billy Shears"
George Martin is definitely the 5th Beatle, hands down!
robert avila
George Martin and the production team, tape splicers, engineers etc
G.Martin is the 5 Beatles
These are some of the albums released in 1967:
The Doors
Strange Days
Between the Buttons
Their Satanic Majesties Request
Are You Experienced
Axis: Bold as Love
John Wesley Harding
The Velvet Underground & Nico
Smiley Smile
Wild Honey
Absolutely Free
Safe As Milk
Disreali Gears
The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
The Who Sellout
Surrealistic Pillow
...and this one.
I wonder if the Beatles even felt confident in Sgt. Pepper back then, given so many great albums that were made and released at the same time! :O
I'd probably guess, Yes.
The Doors 1st album kicked ,67 off in January. Predating every thing. Peppers in June, Are you EXperienced in September along with Fresh Cream. Sell Out was a tremondous statement by the Who. But Revolver really was the turning point in popular music. For my money that was he most important game changer of all these masterpieces. Relesed on my birthday August 6 1966.
Niamh O'Connor John Lennon always preferred Pet Sounds by The Beach Boys because he thought that that was more of a concept album as Sgt. Peppers.
Some really great albums there, but yes, I think the Beatles knew they were easily still on top!
Such a pity Brian Wilson's Smile project crashed. Smile is by far superior to that Pepper thing.
As a lifelong Beatlemaniac it's very hard to be impressed by Beatles related stuff after all these years - but this is AMAZING. Like being right there in the studio sitting alongside George Martin and Geoff Emerick.
I love Sgt. Pepper, and it's remained my favorite album ( by the Beatles or anyone else) since it was released. When it came out, it was just so DIFFERENT from what anyone else was doing (including being the first album to have the lyrics printed on the back cover). You really COULD sing along, as Paul invites you to do in the second verse of the theme song. The foldout, and the cutouts (including mustache and epaulets) really made you feel like you were part of the band. Plus, the Beatles and George Martin really raised the bar technologically. And, they raised the bar musically too...a lot of GREAT groups came out after Sgt. Pepper was released, because it inspired musicians to give their best shot. Sgt. Pepper Reprise remains MY favorite song of all time, and DAY IN THE LIFE is consistently praised as one of the best pop/rock songs ever recorded. Having said all that, individually these are generally not the Beatles' best songs. In fact, when SGT. PEPPER first came out, NONE of these songs were released as singles (George Martin himself didn't think they were strong enough). Personally, I have real trouble sitting through WITHIN YOU WITHOUT YOU and SHE'S LEAVING HOME and FIXING A HOLE. My favorite Beatle songs are actually from the HELP era, with some RUBBER SOUL and REVOLVER thrown in. So...PEPPER is great taken as a whole, as the "concept album" that it was...taken individually, the songs are easily bested by other Beatles songs.
Buffalo Springthorpe I'm fixing a hole where the rain walks in
Buffalo Springthorpe expertly said
Buffalo Springthorpe Great coment, but I love both She's Leaving Home and Within You Without You
Buffalo Springthorpe my only real caveat with what you've said, is listing Sgt Peppers Reprise as your favorite song of all time.
My favourite in this album is hands down being for the benefit of mr. Kite
For me one of the most unique things about the Pepper sound is the snare. Gives the whole sound a sort of weird fairground dimension somehow. Or something.
I agree man, it's a really characteristic light snare, not too soft, not too rough. Fits the Beatles' harmonies the best IMO. Really defined the '60s psychedelic period
Geoff Emerick gets all the credit. He revoultionized how drums were recorded.
The only working version of this song in TH-cam
Well no go on the beatles official channel bro
DazzXY the comment was 2 years ago
8:38 if you look at the yellow you can see that the applauding stops for a second. I never noticed that.
i think it's safe to say that regardless of how one may feel about ringo's technical proficiency, that he did in fact play the perfect drum parts to some of the best songs ever written and recorded ...
He handled Lennon-McCartney songs better than anyone else could have.
You don't realize how gritty and distorted the guitars are on this track until hearing them isolated. The finished product sounds so polished and smooth that it understates just how raw and rock'n'roll the guitars are.
Enjoying it on his 50 anniversary
roberto chiang He's not a real person.
@@4pri792 haha
I remember that day
@@gooolixx I'm sure you do
Can you do one on I Am The Walrus?
Jack's Music Stuff Not that you were talking to me but sure. I may have the multitrack for it. Won’t get fancy colours for each wave form though like this one. I have no editing skills
AHH hell yaeh
Amazingly recorded on 4 track with overdubs. George Harrison, the silent one. George Martin, the invisible one. Simply amazing music that has stood the test of time.
Do you know, is Harrison on blue line?
It isn't. That's Paul on guitar.
Thank you, but which part plays George?
Fantastic raw sound. This was early 1967!? Nobody was doing rock this hard back then. Sgt. Peppers LHCB was. The BEST and leaving all others further and further behind.
Listening to this, I could make a ton of comments, but 2 things immediately come to mind: (1) George's guitar track has an absolutely wonderfully fuzzy tone that makes me want to shout from the rooftops (2) To people who ACTUALLY believe that Paul McCartney died and that an impostor took his place for Sgt Pepper, please play the Beatles cover of "Long Tall Sally" and then listen to Paul McCartney's iso vocal track here, and then try to convince yourselves that it's two different people.
PicturesDexDimension When I wrote my comment I asked myself, if someone decided to reply in opposition, what would the argument be? I laughed when I read this because I could have almost written it myself as an exercise in debating both sides of an argument. It plays right into the need for myth making that is inherent in the human condition.
You need another example? I could name a few, but listen to the vocal track on "Oh Darling". It was on the last album the Beatles recorded, hence no one could claim that James Paul McCartney (born 18 June 1942 and still very much alive, same guy who's been touring in South America for the past 2 weeks) had somehow managed to record a few songs before he was decapitated, as you 'Faulowers' enjoy believing. Same "sawdust" in the voice, as George Martin described. It's unmistakable, even with the echo on the voice (and don't start with the "they used echo to mask the voice" nonsense -- vocal echo had been used since the 1950's by almost every artist, and the Beatles were obviously using all sorts of effects in the studio on voices, instruments, and inventing effects-based sounds ever since 'Rain' used backwards tracking).
As far as your "voice recognition studies": I've been playing guitar for 35 years and have a few CD credits under my belt, so I've logged some studio time. I am also good friends with someone who owns a recording studio. Using the latest in computer recording equipment, I saw a spectrogram analysis of multiple songs of both my own voice and the lead singers voice. They were all different, even within different takes of the same song. In fact, actual scientific studies -- that is, with strict controls, unlike the internet post that claims Paul's voice is different, which was done by some random person, not a scientist, with unknown motives, not using any standard controls -- have shown that the same singer, singing the same exact song on the same day, will produce different spectrogram patterns before warmup, then after stretching of throat muscles, then after warmup.
To reiterate for clarity: Same singer, same day, same song, strict scientific study. The voice prints didn't match up perfectly.
So when you are analyzing McCartney's voice (or any voice) from different years on different songs, you are going to get different patterns. I know the thing on the internet you read says that "If the voice prints do not match up, then the songs were sung by different people", but this is simply untrue. If you doubt this, go buy studio time at a local recording studio and (a) ask the sound engineer about this subject and (b) test it yourself.
McCartney smoked a pack of cigarettes a day during the 60's, and his voice went though changes as all voices would from year to year even under the best of circumstances. But even if you'd have tested him from one day to the next, you'd see differences. The popular voice "analysis" regarding the 'Paul is Dead' theory is from 'Yesterday' (recorded 14 June 1965) and 'You Never Give Me Your Money' (recorded in stages from May - July 1969). So: FOUR YEARS separates the songs -- that's 30,000 cigarettes! -- and Yesterday is in the key of F while 'Money' is in A (specifically Am7).
And gee. The voice prints didn't match up perfectly. So Paul is dead, according to you.
I know this isn't enough to convince people, but it should be. With everything regarding the Beatles, every story, every lyric, every supposition gets blown out of proportion in nuclear fashion. People seem to have a NEED to believe Paul is dead. Read up on the need for human's to create myths and it becomes clear why this ever got as far as it did.
But allow me to add one thing first. You will NEVER hear a serious, professional musician ever claim to believe in this. Why? Because they know how long it takes to become proficient at any musical discipline. You can't "fast track" it. You can't fake it. Musicians are like fingerprints, and they can spot phonies in an instant from a mile away, a la the 'Blink' principle. There are people out there who can do good celebrity impressions, sure. But there is no way to fool all the world's musicians about perhaps the most famous musician of the post-classical era. If you were a musician you would instinctively understand this and you'd feel embarrassed towards anyone who truly bought into this silly business.
If Paul had been replaced, we'd know. Mick Jagger would know. Pete Townshend would know. Paul Simon, Ravi Shankar, Brian Wilson, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, Roger Waters, Prince, Elvis Costello, Van Morrison, Jimmy Page, Ray Davies...they'd all hear it, see it, know it. And they wouldn't keep quiet about it.
PicturesDexDimension PS here's the TH-cam ID for the 'Oh Darling' track separation: 0_CukD_tvA8
shoesheep The entire world owes you a huge debt of gratitude, shoesheep, and for those of us who are reasonably intelligent as well as intensely passionate about everything Beatles, even more so...your explanations, based on authentic real-world first-hand experience and knowledgeable insights as a musician and recording artist are simply the MOST concise, comprehensive articulate and all-inclusive truly factual responses to the ridiculous myth-mongers who, as you made so perfectly clear in your post, seem to have somehow become emotionally invested in perpetuating every possible shred of disinformation, twisted and distorted "clues" and ultimately end up sounding as if they derive some sort of sick satisfaction, a perverse pleasure even, in clinging to their beliefs, unable or unwilling to acknowledge just how absurd, irrational and illogical their collective mind-set is so obviously misguided, so absolutely determined to deny the truth. I wish your eloquent post could be copied word-for-word and re-posted ad infinitum throughout the entire internet, and included along with every single reference to anything and anyone even remotely related to any "Paul-is-Dead" claim.
*****
Well, we can safely say, that very much like John and George; Paul - and indeed Ringo will NEVER die.
Your daft. That's hype.
I was expecting something a bit less literal lol. Like analysis.
Also holy shit, this video is 8 years old and JUST NOW went really viral.
Oh My fucking gawd, George's lead along with the horn section on the same track.......only 4 tracks? George Martin, you were truly a GENIUS
Three tracks really, if you don't count the audience sound effects... But you can;t give George all the credit - to make this all fit on four tracks required a lot of musical decisions that the group themselves definitely played a major role in - like the alternating between the lead guitar and the horns - they'd have had to work around the fact that both at once weren't technically feasible. Limitations give rise to innovation. 48 tracks give rise to indecision.
*****
I doubt The Beatles had much involvement on the technical side. Recording, bouncing and special effects was all George Martin and his engineers.
Rex Mundi Perhaps the knob twisting, yeah, but my point was that they had to make musical decisions based on the technical limitations of the time. The musical and the technical had to dovetail together to make this track. It was a team effort. And the Beatles did get involved in technical stuff along the way.
Engineer Geoff Emerick in his memoir talked about how he and McCartney worked together for ages on trying to get a specific bass sound - that finally involved putting the bass amp in the middle of the room (Abbey Road studio only had the one big room), and placing two mics, one close and one a little distance away to get the bass sound you hear on Sgt Pepper. Emerick didn't come up with the solution all on his own.
Most musicians, after they have made six or seven albums, (as the Beatles had by the time they made Sgt Pepper), become somewhat tech savvy about the recording process. They start out by having to deal with their own gear - amps and guitars and such - and they end up hanging out in the control room for hours on end... you eventually learn a few things about how it's done - particularly if you are a clever bloke, which the Beatles were.
Yep. Agree more than disagree. They were heavily involved but still think their input was artistic rather than technical ie letting Martin know when something sounded right, or asking him if he could create a sound like monks chanting on a mountain top (or whatever). Emerick and other engineers probably played a much bigger technical role than even george martin is prepared to admit. He was arguably more of a musicallyu trained arranger and mentor with a great ear than producer (wooo! controversy) - The fact lennon/Macca didn't learn all that much from Martin is fairly evident on their solo recordings, although Macca did a pretty good job producing himself. - Just my opinion of course.
people always forget to give geoff emerick credit
Perfect imperfections. They put magic into every part. Having the EMI plate reverb printed on the vocal tracks, the UL Vox series amp sounds on the Casino and Strat and the sharing of tracks due to bouncing and mixdown instead of adding effects, cleaning up all the clams and extraneous noise and isolating everything made for the well blended sound we know and love.
As someone who was recording with bands at the time let me just say that 4 tracks was cutting edge. Some studios, Regent Sound in Denmark Street, London for instance, only had 2 tracks so you did the entire backing track for 4 to 6 musicians and then pre-mastered them and bounced them onto another recorder along with the vocals and sometimes did it again. Loss of bass response was a major problem along with tape hiss, but hey we got on with it. By the way, you couldn't drop in sections of go record the guitar later, it was all on the tape and that was it. Sometimes it worked sometimes it didn't. The BBC did "live" recordings of bands in the way for many years. Would I go back and do it the same way ?, in a heart beat !
According to the Abbey Rd engineers who were there they synced up two 4 track machines for A Day in The Life and it was like using the studio as an instrument - even for the helpers like Geoff Emerick and a bit of luck played a role .
Indeed.
Strawberry in Stockport was two 2-track machines for a long time. I started out using a bunch of cassette players in the 1970s... had to sync two up together. Simultneous pause-release was not really simultaneous so another method was needed. Remember those old massive double-adaptors? I'd read about the Geoff Emerick thing of syncing two 4-tracks, and I thought this'd be my version of that solution. Plug two of the three machines into the adaptor, rewind both and then switch both off. pres pause and play on both, and then release pause; switch on at the wall ... climb over mum and dad's bed to get to the school percussion stuff I'd nabbed for the weekend ... and off we go! :D
Used that for three of the four songs in my music project. One was done using two mono Tandberg decks at school. Four original songs, one lead sheet. One reel-to-reel tape. Two months later, tape comes back from exam board: the examiners enjoyed the songs very much. They liked the fact that I'd done most of it myself on very limited equipment. 'Get in touch with the Denmark Street boys' was their PS.
I got the highest examination mark in our region that year for music CSE.
For ages, I was using 4-tracks on cassette; walk in the park, compared to the bedroom sessions (ooh-er!). Recently, a pal lent me his Zoom R16.Moped up and down an airport runway! Got some results from the R16 on my channel. Only used 8 tracks ... all I needed.
What you say about the having to be get it right in the process ... even with 4-track, that's spot on. Can't fix it in the mix, really. I actually think that trainee recording engineers should be taken through the whole thing of 2-tracks x2 first, and then one four-track machine. After that - an 8-track. I think that the learning to make creative decisions in the process would get them keener, really. More oriented to getting things right earlier on in the recording process. What do you think?
The best rock album ever only record with 4 tracks
Three tracks. The 4th track is only the crowd. Fascinating.
Well this confirms Ringo had a metronome implant at some point during his many hospitals stays. Even after silences he pick up attacks at exactly the same dynamic as he left off. And Paul's vocals, why even bother. They were SCARY! Oh, the term is ping-ponging at least in the USA.
3:26 lo que escucha el señor que se sienta al lado de ti en el camión.
8:08 como lo escuchas tu en tus audífonos
JAJAJA SIII XD
Hearing the song like this really makes you appreciate every little bit of detail and effort they put into this, which just makes the Beatles even MORE amazing.
This is so hypnotizing to stare at...great vid btw :)
specially medicated!!!
paul's voice amazing
It starts with some pretty basic pop rock structure but goes to a whole other solid level.
Macca singing in his Long Tall Sally voice
Can't stop watching this-year was 1967..incredible even today.. 2020
Over 50 years ago.
Crazy how the tracks are cut and other instrument parts are put together like that. Much harder to put songs together back then. Being limited makes you have to be more creative. To everyone with limited resources in any situation,keep on keeping on. The most important part is not the newest technology.
A pleasant, intuitive and visual lesson in music and music production. Thanks.
this was the very first album i ever purchased when i was just a young lad. and the rest is rock and roll history. 🪲 🎼 🎵 🎶 🎸
I think that "Sgt Peppers" and "A day in the life" are two masterpieces They were at the top of the world in 1967. I'm old enough that I buy this album and listen to it on my turntable in 67. I was 12 years old. I'm still waiting for and album like this.
I was born in 1955 as well ------------ but I didn't hear it until 1970. I still listen to it a couple times a year.
This is spectacular. They created these recordings in the mid 60's using 2 or 3 4 track analog 2" magnetic tape machines, recorded
individual instruments on separate tracks then mix them down onto 1 of the 4 master tracks. Then do that process again for the vocals and horns, etc. Getting everything to line up with a tape cutter and razor blade with no digital manipulation must have been tedious as hell. Thanks so much for posting this.
The most amazing part of this is the vocal harmonies.. Outstanding! Lary
Pauls little "Owww" at :47 shows how much fun they were having.
Lennon's rhythm guitar....GodAlmighty....gives me wood every time.
Pauls rhythm guitar(if you are talking about the blue track). John didnt play guitar on this song, just Paul and George.
metafis that’s definitely a Lennon guitar part it contains all the same types of phrasing as use on She Said She Said and Paul didn’t play on that track, the rhythmic idiosyncrasies are John’s they occur again and again in his playing. Listen to his playing on Strawberry fields and I feel fine, they’re replicated in this track.
ROCKSTARCRANE there’s even a half quote from I feel fine in there at the end
that's what I have read
yeah I know the arpeggio's, but on this track it's george playing it. pretty well documented. Otherwise George would not be playing at all. I doubt that is the case
0:47 just wow. I never thought the guitar lick sounds this cool when isolated. They truly are masters.
This should put to rest the question of Ringo being a good drummer. He was great!
I just came across this and I was amazed at the subtle nuances brought out listening to this isolated 4 track cut. Absolutely beautiful, thank you for posting this as it reflects very accurately the genius that was and still is Sir George Martin and of course the Lads.
The first track, the green one where the Beatles play all together is simply
thrilling
Thanks a lot! The Blue track reveals that Sgt. Peppers is as modern a piece of acid rock as anyone recorded in 1967. The Red track reveals the fantastic vocal work by Paul, and the great harmonies on this piece. CSN&Y eat your heart out!!
the vocal track is incredible...solo & harmonies...The Beatles rule
When all 3 voices came in on the chorus, It gave me goose bumps. Nobody else can sing together like John, Paul and George.
The 2-singer part of the vocals is soo amazing. Amazing Everly Bros-like harmony or something akin. What an strange and amazing song and such disparate pieces and when reassembled, sounds just perfect. Hearing the parts separated like this gives me new appreciation as well.
So the Beatles weren't a Heavy Rock Band Hey.
Sure they were, they just also liked doing heaps of other things as well.
The Beatles Rocked Hard. Thanks for this so much.
demonsbutterfly Huh, is actually consider this a harder rock track of theirs.
Fascinating! Having played about with four tracks in youth, it is mind blowing to me what they able to achieve with such basic technology.
I love 3:05-3:23
man I really wish he did more of these, it makes learning the separate instruments of each song way easier
The Beatles were such gods.
beatlesloversprims are*
I never heard that slight dissonance in the chorus before. Really interesting! It gets lost in the instrumentation usually, I suppose. Thank you so much for this!
I keep coming back to this vid, playing it loud. Track 1 is the most rawly funky, chunky, rockin' thing I've ever heard, and I've been around the block a few times.
Was there anything even remotely like it in terms of raw funk-rock before this? Then on top of it they laid down brass band music reminiscent of something from 1912. Who else would have thought of putting those two motifs together?!
All hail the Beatles!
Horns in F in four parts, like a real Lonely hearts Club Band would have sounded from that era.
The best deconstructing job I've heard. Great job.
5:22 extreme complex part. This is art.
The deeper & behind the scenes of their arrangements I go, the more I discover a new love & appreciation for these guys - even with 6 plus decades of history, The Beatles are still happening right now !
great lessons in recording
All done with four tracks. My Roland VS-840EX is considered archaic using zip drive and I can ping up to 36 tracks total. The lads did it all with only four. Remarkable. Everything I ever learned about production and recording I learned from the Beatles and George Martin.
Can you do With a little help from my Friends please!
I remember when I first heard these stems, and I was blown away by the vocal harmonies, especially at 5:38 in this video . . . such interesting choices that you may not think sound good when soloed but when put in the context of the song those weird dissonant notes add a fullness to the song
From someone who uses Protools,
the idea of 4 tracks just seems impossible. I guess it's 2 x4 tracks though. So 8-track ultimately. I still can't believe they nailed it so well with such basic tools. Wild.
they would bounce down tracks
If only everybody still had to work like that - it would focus the process enormously and force performers and engineers to get their work right in the first place! Also introduces a healthy dose of fairchild compression and tape distortion into proceedings, which in combination with expert playing adds up to records that sound gloriously saturated and thick. I love digital recording technology but it is so open ended and versatile that it can completely sidetrack a band's creative process.
they change the concept of rock band for ever!!!!
When you listen to isolated tracks like this its a full display of the sheer musicianship of the individual. Not to mention the unmistakable tones and raw sound of vintage instrumentation. The warmth and depth of the bass, the brilliant cutting tones of the guitars along with the delicate sensitivity of wax potted pick-ups. The sound of a slightly muffled, coated drumhead paired with maple shells of a 60's Ludwig drum kit makes for a softer but still massive attack. These are all the benefits of analog tracking that is missing from modern day digital recordings, and will never be the same again. The end result is a well preserved time capsule that will stand the test of time, and will please the ears of generations to come. The commercialized trash that makes up radio today is light years away from standing up to this kinda stuff. THIS dear friends....is music.
I don't think anyone could "do this on his computer". In the same way that you can't unmix a cake, you can't separate audio tracks out from a master. Someone has managed to get access to the original 4 track recording, probably on Protools. Given the security they must have at Abey Road, thereby hangs a tale. Any answers out there?
u r silly
Sorry, I only speak English.
You, my good sir, are silly.
And this is this channel's only video. Spooky.
Patrick Allen
So where is it from?
George Martin was a master of the stems on a 4-track because he had to be. It is a great tool to learn from. Those who vote negative are not understanding how important role Martin had as an engineer and his creative mind to produce a complex vision. He was brilliant. A peek into a brilliant mind we can all learn from. His final mix had profound impact as a result.
Revolutionary! How about that George Martin? Produced each and every record they did.
He was the Fifth Beatle, along with Geoff Emerick.
He didn't produce the original LET IT BE album. That was Phil Spector.
***** Thanks for the clarification. I grew up listening to the original LP so to me, that'll always be the "best" version. :)
¡El summun de la creatividad, de la belleza, de la perfección, del Arte, de lo maravilloso, de lo fantástico!
¡Verdaderamente, estremecedor!
Just crazy that Martin and Emerick managed to get basically the whole thing onto only 3 tracks. Modern producers with Pro Tools and dozens of tracks at their disposal could learn a few things from this.
Its sad there aren’t more of these I love them
1000 years from now people will still be listening to the beatles.
I love how you can hear the bleed from the headphones when everything else is quiet
My fave fab is George. Thanx ha ha
Brilliant. I have always thought that this is one of the most harmonically interesting and rich rock tunes ever. AND the reprise.
This was ahead of it's time
it all. omes together so well. musicians are amazing
It was the 60s... Damn it has to be mind blowing back then.
I had NO IDEA this track was so FUNKY! I had always heard it as a rock n' roll track...but that's some SERIOUS GROOVE going on in the green line...motown level stuff. Brilliant.
This is utterly amazing - effectively a new Beatles track! Have you done this for any of their other songs?
Whats funny is that this is one of the most straight forward stereo recordings of their catalog post rubber soul. This is very educational for people just learning about live recording in a studio. The rabbit hole goes very deep. Some people never quite touched the ground.
Strongly recommend you listen to this on a different sound source, it will jump out at you trust me.
do more beatles songs