It is very sloppy but it never affected my enjoyment of the song. My preferred version is the one on Anthology 3 - same take as the released version, minus all the overdubs. Beautiful, despite John's sloppiness.
@Helmuth Schulz - John's bass was definitely out of tune in the original recording. Have a look at the 2:44 mark for proof. I tried to emulate the 'amount' of intonation issues, but perhaps I went too far.
There’s a scene in the “Get Back” docco where Paul is instructing John how to play the bass on LAWR. John didn’t seem dismissive or upset. Paul was just trying to help him on how to play bass notes on a song Paul had written.
Yeah, it's a great scene. And let's not assume that for one minute, Paul the perfectionist, or George Martin would have let it pass if they weren't happy with it. I imagine it was quirkiness, if it's scene as 'off' bass playing by anyone else.
I suspect John Lennon was suffering from a malcontent personality - typical of many creative types and frustrated want-a-be. His own lyric "I'm just a jealous guy." John's malcontent behaviors grew more intense towards the break-up. Thus Paul became happier on his own - and was glad not to be working with John anymore - though he toyed with the idea of one more gig reunion. But as the years went by - Pual discovered he no longer needed the Beatles. And in December 1980 any chance was over. John started the Beatles and John's malcontent attitude ended the Beatles - Chapman simply was the nail in the coffin. But for "Real Love" & "Free as a Bird."
@@2DanTube Nicely put - it was a great dynamic which worked well until they all outgrew each other. John is barely recognisable in the Get Back clips, so gaunt and lacking the physical and creative robustness and confidence of the earlier years. Still made some cracking tunes though, even though George and Paul were on a roll. What's fascinating was how he seemed to spring to life when they were on the roof - it was quite a transformation.
The definitive LAWR for me will never be the Phil Spector version, with the over the top orchestra, but rather the version on "Let it be... Naked". A different take that is simply stunning. That version also features no mistakes from John, and is overall just a better arrangement IMO.
@quark10051005 - I don't believe that's the case based on what I've found: web.archive.org/web/20100131010312/mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_naked_truth_beatles/ web.archive.org/web/20031205205124/www.jp.dk/kultur/advsog/artikel:aid=2118846:fid=9828/ It was just a later take, and likely the last/final time the band ran through the song.
Ive been a Beatles fan since i was a little kid and this song was one of my early favorites. Always loved the pure emotion that it carries, and i also alwayys loved the wierd slides that John does on the bass on that exact moment, idk it brings a magic feel to the song.
The 'take' used on the album is basically an early run through...it just happened to have a great McCartney vocal. Lennon wasn't too sure of the chord changes at this point so the bass is a bit uneven. Don't forget that those tapes were lying around for many months. During that time the Beatles split. The reason McCartney rerecorded the bass on Let It Be was because it was going to be their final single. McCartney was unhappy with the choice of take on TLAWR and the overdubs used on the album. He preferred the 31st January version as heard on Let It Be...Naked. The bass is fine on that version! Also there was a big argument about the release date of LIB and the McCartney Lp hence why he had little or no involvement in the albums creation.
@@tillingspoon1592 That’s only half correct. Yes, they did do lots and lots of takes of these songs in rehearsals, but the version heard on Let It Be is a “rehearsal” version. It wasn’t being played in the moment with the intention of “this is a potential take for a record”.
Well, this is clearly the truth... so often an earlier take thats a better take is let down by one of the band who isnt quite there with the changes yet lol!
Not being a musician, I don’t have the musical theory to figure out what it was, but now that you demonstrate it, i understand the musical discomfort I always had when listening to it. The only “mistakes” that I like are the slides, which gave a distinctive style to this song, as it is never played like this anywhere, because McCartney would have never done it like that.
John was very into 'slide' at the time having just done the excellent slide guitar solo and fills on George's "For You Blue". It makes sense that he might just have been curious about what he could get away with, sliding into bass notes (given that rare opportunity play the instrument)
I had never heard this song before I started watching this video, but after listening to the original version I have to say the bass line sounds alright.
I'm a guitar player beginning to pick up bass, and I think this stands as a great example of how guitar & bass are different instruments. Sure, they look the same, and mechanically they're pretty similar, but the musicianship that goes into each calls upon different sensibilities. Lennon was a good guitarist (and obviously brilliant musician in general), but he wasn't a bassist, and this showed it. Not the sloppiness, which as you illustrate was just a product of a not-great take, but the choices. I like the subtle changes you make, because it's taking the same general musical ideas and not just playing them like a bassist but INTERPRETTING them like a bassist. You show the little contrasts that make up how to THINK like a bassist. Great video. I'll definitely be checking out more of your channel.
disagree. i play the guitar and i can play the bass line like this easily, and I bet John could. of course the guitar and the bass are different instruments, but it's a very easy bass line for a guitarist
@@segodnyamozhno That's actually not at all what I was saying. The playing itself wasn't what I was talking about, and yeah, it's not technically difficult to play. What I was saying was that the video illustrated how a guitarist and a bassist might COMPOSE the part differently, by THINKING of different things.
That is puzzling indeed, because he did replace the bass part in Let it Be (song). I think by the time Spector was brought in, nobody cared enough about all that material or project anymore, the band was in it's final days and they were occupied with other things.
I'm quite surprised to read some very negative comments to your video as I sensed in your endeavor a true humility and desire to do things properly. That was an instructive, daring but very interesting video. Maybe you could even have "corrected" this bass line by playing it the way Paul would have, mixing fonction with beauty and using more countermelodies and stuff like Paul used to do. Thanks for you work.
Oh, I liked this!! What a great video and lesson Luke. I'm wasn't that familiar with the song to notice this before so thanks for putting this together. Great lesson for any bassist and your tweaks certainly do make it a better bass line. I would cool with it if you did more of these. As for my take on what happened, you'd have to look how it was recorded. It sounds like John was still trying to figure out what to play. And it would be the producer's job to catch that. I'm thinking it was either recorded live and McCartney did such a great take they decided to leave the bass line, or maybe John was high on some kind of drugs
It could also be ALL of those things @Thomas Fioriglio. On the one hand, it still baffles me that this was OK-ed by so many people for release, but when you look at everything that was going on at the time with the band, I guess it's not so shocking.
Exactly - that's what I thought. He was high on drugs and he didn't care if the notes wasn't right. The Beatles must have agreed on this since they didn't changed it and made a new recording.
I don't think there's many more of these type of videos to do with the Beatles lol they were perfectionists! Especially Paul.. which baffles me about why if he didn't like this bassline why he would just overdub a proper one in? 🤔🤔🤔
@@RicardoMartinez-oh9sq I really wouldn't compare a metal band to the Beatles. Completely different genres of music. Also, Nightwish formed more than 20 years after the Beatles disbanded, how is that a contemporary band?
SCAMMER ALERT: There's an account that calls themselves "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦👉Luke_From_Become_A_Bassist" that's been leaving comments about winning a 'prize' on this video and others of mine. This person is *NOT* me, they are in no way affiliated with me and there is no prize. They are in fact a scammer, phishing for personal information. Please do not interact with them in any way other than to report, then block them. If you've been targeted by this account, I'm very sorry. I've deleted all their comments for now, but these people are like weeds - very hard to get rid of completely. I actually went on Telegram posing as a 'winner' (read: victim) to see what the scam was. I was hoping to waste a bunch of their time, but it turns out they're very lazy in their scamming, but still quite convincing. They use my profile picture from here and you would have no idea you weren't talking to me. Once again, my apologies!
I’m such a John Lennon fan that just to spite you for insulting this bass line I’m gonna purposely get myself scammed from this fella. Take that Luke (I forgot your name and can’t be bothered to check it)
I think he knew exactly what he was doing, everything you took out is for me everything that added character to the song. Those random slide ups aren’t random at all and in the mix seem quite importantly timed to my ear.
If you look at the song metaphorically “A Long and Winding Road” is a journey of ups and downs and is sometime discordant hence the choice of baseline which is sort of in most listeners’ subconscious. I have never thought it sounded bad and I sing an symphony choir and hear violins out of tune!
From a songwriting perspective, I'd say the best way to "fix" the Long and Winding Road bass is to see how Paul McCartney played it as a solo act (or with Wings). I'd say that's the way it "should" be played. I'd be curious if Paul's changed it at all over the decades; the longer he's been around, the more he's embraced the Beatles nostalgia, so my naive guess is these days it'd be pretty close to the original, while perhaps in the 70s/80s he spiced it up a bit.
Here's a live version Paul playing this song: th-cam.com/video/JFNaOm6U5n8/w-d-xo.html The issues I mention in the video are completely absent from this performance, which seems telling to me.
In all fairness, the take that was chosen for the album was not supposed to be the final album take. That was recorded on January 31 but not used until the “Naked” album
The bass is so understated in TLAWR that it's practically irrelevant. Paul's vocals and the orchestration clearly take center stage, the bass line is an afterthought. Moving on.
The song seems to have garnered quite a few plays over the years in spite of this which might also demonstrate something. Illuminated with a bright spotlight those do seem like defects although I'd never fixated on them before. To me the bassline sounds fine as a experiment with varying some attributes and having a bit too much fun with careless glisses like we all might during a rehearsal. Maybe they just focused limited resources on other issues that would have invited even greater scorn a few generations hence but I appreciate your exploration of this topic and promise to be more careful with glissandos in the future.
In his last interview about the Beatles (Playboy, 1980), John accused Paul of "subconscious sabotage," naming a number of songs. It's bizarre because this is the only incident in the Beatles where sabotage seems to have been the order of the day. Paul wrote four major songs for the LP and John wrote a ditty (Dig A Pony), having to resurrect Across The Universe from 11 months earlier. John also said (1970, Rolling Stone) that he was "stoned on H all the time and didn't give a s***" which is indicated on the 14 Jan "two junkies" interview that immediately preceded the session - he must have taken something potent to perform as we see him in Get Back. The terrible bass guitar playing may just have been H lowering his capabilities. The reference version of Long And Winding Road was recorded on 26 Jan - Phil Spector chose the version with the best overall feel and best lyric, and then smothered it with orchestra and choir presumably to hide John. Let It Be Naked features a take from four days later, with no Spector elements, worse lyric but at least John is in order.
I disagree, Paul wrote 5 major songs for the LP. Two of us, Let it be, Get back, I've got a feeling, LAWR. John had 'dig a pony' and that was it. Oh, and Don't let me down. One after 909 was from 1960. He wrote only the middle eight to IGAF and Across the universe a year earlier.
Never noticed the bass on that track.. the Piano and vocal are so otherworldly genius, it outshines anything. I think the bass playing of JL is a fun quirky document of time. He was probably bored of having to play bass on this ;)
Don't know of this is one of those instances but sometimes bands leave mistakes in due to the entire tracks vibe being spot on despite those mistakes. If you listen closely to some zeppelin tracks, even JPJ makes tiny errors here and there. But they stayed . And cover bands even add them in when they perform the tracks. Loving your vids mate. Ive studied McCartney for many years and learnt so many songs and every one surprises, inspires, and amazes me even after 100 plays
Never thought of this as sabotage, but have thought about John's harmony in the last few notes of Yellow Submarine chorus as a hilarious bit of sabotage.
I never noticed any "mistakes" before with the bass playing. Just thought it was McCartney being weird and using strange techniques. Made it sound very airy and magical, like it was floating in the clouds. Love the "wrong" notes, too. I don't think they sound wrong...just strange. The whole song sounds like it was very spontaneous, and done quickly in one take. A tear jerker for me!
Love your videos. Entertaining but also a lesson that I remember and use for my own songs (I play guitar but my bass is not quite there. I tend to follow the drums more but now I feel confident to branch out a bit.... make things interesting). Thanks.
As a bassist myself, I never questioned it but you're right about everything you pointed out. Why did John play it that way and why did they leave it? I think Mars 79 has the explanation. Those tapes were lying around for months and most likely, the one that was chosen had the McCartney vocal Spector wanted on the same track as the bass so, he made an arbitrary decision and that was that.
First off, I don't think ANY musician or artist should be held to such a standard as what would be considered beyond reproach. Secondly, as a bass player, it's REALLY obvious that Lennon was pretty clueless here - whether stylistically or musically speaking. Remember, he was a "lyric man," and the vast majority of Beatles tunes (like LAWR) with any sort of sophisticated harmony was Paul's doing (some George's too). And even with Paul's instruction, you can just hear that Lennon is just "playing notes," not really interpreting or feeling notes. There's no shame in correcting a lacking bass line. And I think you did a bang up job of it too by holding true to the approach that was taken in the song. And I agree on all points, it just really needed a couple bad note corrections as well as some subtle stylistic (we're talking TASTE, not pandering) changes. Great job!
I play 5 string basses, I have 2 Fender 5 string Jazz basses, I am use to these basses, they present me with better option's as a bass player. Back in the day 'The Beatles' had this 5 string, it is a right handed instrument, so that could mean either could play it. John was a right hander, Paul is left handed, but as he first played a right handed bass, it was a right hand bass, so he could play it upside down. Most left hander's are able to do this. The Beatles by this time, owned a wealth of guitars and basses so I figure this 5 string Fender belonged to them. Depending on how long they had this bass, as to if any of them really had a comfortable feel for the 5 string, and mastered it. As a player of 5 string basses, I definately took awhile to get used to them after playing 4 string basses for most of life. I've been playing 5 strings for going 45 years now, the hardest habit to over come, is the E string is the 2nd string, not the first as had always been the norm. For a long while, I'd be constantly hitting the wrong string, therefore playing the wrong notes in various position's, until I got it, could hear it, to understand it. I had to re educate my thinking, how I played. A 5 string gives me more options up the neck, so for me, I can use the bottom B to start and end bass pattern's along the finger board I know I can grovel around down the low end, but only when required. I use it tastefully, not over use it. As the bottom B runs off normally, positioning is never an issue. I never play the wrong string ever, as I am use to it. John Lennon would have had a similar experience getting use to a 5 string bass. It isn't the same as playing a 6 string guitar, totally different. Same is for a 6 string bass, not at all like a 6 string guitar. I believe Keith Richards has a 7 string guitar which he plays with 'The Rolling Stones'. The 'Let It Be' recording's were somewhat unfinished, somehow Phil Specter was given them, years before he devoured them with his mastering, whether he knew what he was doing? or not, he eventually managed to get all the credit for that release. At one stage, he was asked where the tape's were, he said he couldn't find them, so 'The Beatles set about recreating these songs that they already had put together earlier. We need to remember a lot of these songs were songs that didn't get to be selected for previous Album's, so like a lot of their work, these 'Get Back' session's are them recreating already written material, and finishing them off. As the film reveals. Some think that they just wrote a lot of them during that session, as you can see in the film, they are already familiar. A bit like digging into the vault, and resurrecting the shelf. Sometimes when one does this, it could be years passed, but you hear it all in a new light, new idea's formulate, they were all older, everything had changed.
1:17 I think that quote is taken from Ian MacDonald's book 'Revolution in the head'. It's a brilliant and exhaustive breakdown of every single song the Beatles recorded. However, he doesn't shy away from criticism, and Lennon's bass playing does come in for quite a lot of stick on this particular track. On the other hand, he does acknowledge that the basic track was essentially a 'run through' and never intended to be the finished master. Anyone who has seen the recent Peter Jackson film 'Get Back' can see/hear how chaotic most of the sessions for this album actually were. Personally, having grown up listening to all these songs (complete with the so-called 'mistakes') I find it hard to hear them in any other way.
John said in his last ever interview in dec 1980 (Playboy) that Paul would sub-consciously try to destroy some of his great songs. I think he referred to "Strawberry fields" and "Across the universe" as examples. He didn't explain how. Maybe his lousy bass playing on "The long and winding road" was payback time.Anyway Phil Spectors great production job on that song covered up his bad bass playing so is it really important now?
I think you guys are missing some of the most created Bass in the history of music. Lennon's Bass lines are perfect for that song along with the organ it takes you to a different place. It's perfect and not only do I think it was deliberate, I think McCartney was 100% onboard for the grove. Not everything is about being like a song should be. Your right in the sense that it makes non sense. But it not only works but works better than if you corrected it. It's a Beatles Masterpiece and I dont think for a minute that Lennon came up with that alone.
Variation in note length is called "texture". You don't often see it in bass lines but John is a guitar player who played bass for a song. I've been playing guitar for about 30 years. Two years ago I picked up bass and can't put it down. I also use texture in my bass playing. Also, those "wrong" notes may have been 100% intentional and the rest of the band may have noticed them and called them "genius". Sometimes playing out of key is the right thing to do. "What the song wants" is what the creators want out of the song. But here's an alternate theory: John had the blues, remembering his friend Stu Sutcliffe, who wasn't that great of a bass player but was a true friend and a talented artist who would have gotten 'good enough' by the time the Beatles got a break. So maybe it was sabotage. Personally, I like how it sounds. What matters to me more is how it sounds not what it looks like on paper or whether it follows the rules that were made to be broken in the first place.
Sutcliffe had no musical knowledge and couldn't play a note. Had he lived he would have been let go like Pete Best. No rip on him, he just wasn't a musician.
As always great content, Luke! I doubt John had any ill intent. But I love the bass work on the 1984 version from the "Give My Regards to Broadstreet" soundtrack.
He may have if he knew the Get Back tapes were being prepared for release, but John had sent them (without Paul's or regular producer, George Martin's knowledge) to Phil Spector for production.
On the Get Back doc , Paul tells John to just play single notes dead like that, As far as flat or sharp notes could be down to tiredness or boredom or not knowing the changes.
@Luke - Regarding your "Issue #3" and the length of notes. Twice, you refer to Lennon playing "whole notes" and then eighth notes. I don't know why you used the term "whole note" when you're clearly referring to quarter notes. It happens at around 4:10 into the video.
Ah - you're totally right @John Vice. That was definitely a slip of the tongue. The space that the notes occupy is *half* note, (starting his notes on beats 1 and 3) although sometimes he cuts them short to 8ths, quarters or dotted quarters. My apologies!
Yeah, the bass playing is dismal -- but it seems Spector (rightly) buried a lot of it. Don't know why Paul didn't re-record the bass himself later, as he had in other instances. I really like the recommendations/corrections made in this video.
I've always thought John's bass part was quirky and inconsistent, but for me that's the charm. The song is so middle-of-the-road to begin with, so the idiosyncratic bass playing gives it some well-needed personality.
John and the other Beatles made numerous statements indicating how controlling Paul was. How he took charge over the Beatles after Brian died. They felt like he was treating them as a backup band starting with Magical Mystery Tour. Assuming that's true, it seems Paul would have all the chance in the world to replace John's bassline with his own. But he didn't. Did John not GAF because he knew Paul would likely overdub his playing anyway? Or did Paul leave the out of tune John Bass track in to make him look bad in comparison with Paul's normal acclaimed bass playing? They were definitely at odds during this time period.
I'm gonna be honest, this is not one of my favorite Beatles songs, but as I've aged I've come to appreciate it more. Never really paid any attention to the bass on it and now I can't stop laughing. It's so strange to me that Paul being as tightly wound as he was about his compositions allowed this. He would've raked George over coals for playing anything close to this bad but somehow Lennon gets a pass.
I think he was upset abt it actually, paul didnt like this take that phil spector picked, and this was an early take so probably john was being lazy bc they were still working it out, and he assumed this take wud never see the light of day
Vôtre analyse est très intéressante. En revanche, en ce qui concerne ce que pourrait être une meilleure ligne de basse, Paul l'a suffisamment reprise en concert pour qu'on puisse nous en inspirer.
This is fascinating... very interesting... but I'd say there are ENDLESS examples you could find of mistakes in a lot of Beatle songs... I think they LOVED making mistakes and leaving them in... did it all the time. Also, as far as coming in late... same thing. There's George's guitar solo in "All You Need is Love"...super behind the beat... which MAKES the solo, I'd say. I can't think of other examples right this minute, but... lots of them. Oh here's one; the way "I Want You (She's so heavy) ends... Boom! Over! When that record came out, everybody demanded a refund - till word got out. BTW, I can't stand The Long & Winding Road! Super Smaltzy, and I'll bet John hated it too... wouldn't be at all surprised if he was uninterested in taking it seriously.
Oh for sure. There's even sites where *uber* Beatles nerds catalogue all the 'mistakes': wgo.signal11.org.uk/html/alpha-index.htm There are plenty of them for sure, but the slow 'schmaltz' of The Long And Winding Road means that they're extra noticeable (even if Phil Spector did his best to cover them up).
I always hated LAWR and thought it schmaltzy as well but I think a lot of the reason for that is Spector's dreadful, cheesy orchestration. Somewhere on TH-cam I heard a different version without all the yucky strings and it was infinitely better IMHO, but still one of my least favorite Beatles' tunes.
@@emmo5637 This is the version I heard although I don't remember it being this short. Perhaps there's a longer version somewhere. Interesting to note that Lennon appears to be playing a Fender Jaguar, not bass. I'll check out Let It Be Naked version, thanks. th-cam.com/video/mVsiIxE_6OM/w-d-xo.html
I agree with what you are saying. But as you mentioned, I do believe that he was bored or mucking around. It is common knowledge that these recordings were demos/rehearsals(pre-production sessions). So it would stand to reason that John was aware that these were not final takes and therefore was not trying as hard as he may have, had these been "official takes for the album".
ปีที่แล้ว
Very nice take on the bass line. Being a bass player myself - jazz and swing mostly, I personally have big problem with John´s bass - not only in this song (well ... to be honest, I have my reservations to most of his production. But I keep in mind, what a great musician he was ). Although I consider myself Beatles lover (most of them I have on vynyl), there are few songs, which seem out of "Beatles tune" for me ... Long and winding road is one of them. I tried some variations to your - well done - line and most apetizing for my ears was when I used smooth nickel plated strings and threw away the pick - to get nice warm and round sound. I tried to make your part more "Abbey Road-ish", added few ornaments and also played around with adding some flageolets ... I slipped almost into fusion of Something and Dear Prudence. Which definitely suits my "jazzy" attitude and my feeling from the song. As for "correcting John" - I would not be afraid too much. Music is a creative field and one can definitely try to improve/correct or change great musicians work. As long as he does it with respect. Idolizing great ones and and making them untouchable can lead to catarsis and bias.
Given the timing of when this song was recorded at the very end of the Beatles time together as a group, along with Johns later comments about how much he couldn't stand Paul's elevator "Muzac" style of ballads I think it's pretty safe to say John was protesting through lack of effort. At worst specifically to protest Paul's ballad (Muzac to John) or at best out of boredom of playing bass in general/intoxication/ or just being tired or not "feeling it" that day for whatever reason. Which happens to everybody at some point. Personally my money is on John purposely protesting Paul's "Muzac" sounding ballads. I'm a MASSIVE Paul Mccartney fan and I can't say I blame John sometimes. In fact as soon as John died and Paul seemingly no longer feared or was effected by that type of criticism Paul went full "Muzac" in the 80s ending his time of chart topping hits pretty much for good.
I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't 100% all over it @A B. From what I can tell, the originally released performance was from an early-ish take of the song. It could be that he was still coming to terms with the harmony.
the bass as played by John is perfect. You are "normalizing" something without knowing what was the purpose of the bass in the song. Also consider that there is also the orchestra in this song and not only that is already long playing, but is in any case covering the bass line. Sorry, not to criticize you, you made a great video, but i feel your version is more boring than John's one.
@Emiliano Gabriele - Im not sure if you know the story, but this album was originally supposed to be stripped back and have zero overdubs. At the rime of recording this, there no intention of having an orchestra on the final recording, but Phil Spector heard the tapes and did everything he could to ‘cover up the mistakes’ (his words - I quote him in the video).
@@BecomeABassist i appreciate your work and, again, i am not here to criticize, your video is wonderful and i dont know the full story as you said. However i think that the way he plays (for exampe short notes), despite i agree with you that there should be a precise duration across the notes, makes the bass line interesting. In the end this is about the taste of everyone, among all the taste of the beatles, but i agree with you that the quality si little too poor.
To be fair...Lennon played a Fender Bass VI which was notorious for having dreadful intonation issues which made the instrument impossible to be 100% in tune the entire length of the neck. The bridge saddles don't have enough space back and forth for accurate intonation.
I don't believe that's accurate @davidbatinich1528. The Fender Bass VI that John used on this recording has a lowest E string that sounds at E1; the same range as a regular bass (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Bass_VI#:~:text=having%20six%20strings%20tuned%20E1%20to%20E3%2C ) It _is_ already tuned an octave lower than a regular guitar.
I’m just pondering here. Could they have been looking for that. The dissonance is magnificent, and I’ve written a couple bass lines for myself that feature an out of key part that when played for the first time sounds wrong. But as soon as you put it back in key it’s boring and almost impossible to enjoy. But the out of key A#, A#, A, A#, A, G, E it works and it’s the # that’s out of key.
I doubt it @troystanton254, simply because the later takes of the song (like the one that ended up on Let It Be...Naked) don't have the out of tune notes and the questionable rhythms on the original track. The 'Naked' take was recorded 5 days after the album version, and it sounds like Lennon just knows the song a little better by that point.
After hearing the original bass for over 50 years, the 'right' notes don't seem to follow the theme of the song and seem to lose any lasting effect...intentional or not, this is how it was recorded and how the listeners have been conditioned to hear it. When I first started playing bass around that time, not too many songs were in Eb and somehow it seemed unusual and acceptable...esp competing w the orchestration
Absolutely - there were three. John played on the track I feature in this video, plus a few others, George played on a bunch as well, and of course Paul McCartney played on the vast majority
@@BecomeABassist Hi bass is my second instrument , however i am limited . you did an excellent video and the change in bass playing in the beatles . Bernie purdie claims to have played a lot of drums on the tracks . it is possible that a session player played bass after 66 . thats what i can hear anyway .good video :)
By the looks of things, Bernard Purdie likely _did_ play some drums on some very early Beatles recordings when Pete Best was still drumming for them, but more than likely not anything that Ringo played on. This video (th-cam.com/video/hz9EGGiOuso/w-d-xo.html ) is very well researched and has the primary sources listed that backs up this assertion. And since the recordings that Purdie likely played on were from 1962 (pre-Ringo) and there is a _ton_ of *documented and credited* instances of session musicians playing on Beatles tracks (like Billy Preston playing on the Get Back Sessions, Eric Clapton on While My Guitar Gently Weeps, the string quartet on Eleanor Rigby or the entire orchestra on Day In The Life, plus both Paul And George playing drums on some Beatles tracks, plus John and George playing bass at different point), it seems unlikely that they would try to 'hide' session players being involved after 1966 for some arbitrary reason. In fact, they didn't hide the fact that they used studio musicians at all. Here's a list of hundreds of confirmed session musicians who played on Beatles tracks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_performed_on_Beatles_recordings As far as the bass being played by a session musician, I guess it's possible, but there's not really any evidence for it, and a big claim like that demands compelling evidence. There _is_ however, a ton of evidence for Paul being the bassist on the vast majority of Beatles tracks, with the remaining ones either lacking bass entirely or with John or George having played the bass.
Regarding the take on "Let It Be...Naked". This was another case of Glyn Johns screwing up the Get Back project and selecting inferior earlier takes! He did the same thing with "Two Of Us" which was recorded along with "The Long And Winding Road" and "Let It Be" on January 31,1969 at Apple Studio's.
John’s bass performance is very unique to me. In a sweet ballad like this, it doesn’t sound bery good. ButI found his style to be more fitting for a Helter Skelter, because the aggressive/ wildin out nature of the song matches with his clunky playstyle. Great vid 👍
I agree 100% @Crust Binwahh. The Helter Skelter performance definitely has timing and intonation issues, but the whole point of that song was to be as loud and boisterous as possible and it translates to feeling really good. I don't think that works though when it's a sweet ballad, like you said.
Not being a bass player, I never had a problem with it - at least not consciously. I did think there was way too much orchestra, and maybe that was to cover up the bass on this take, on which Paul happened to sound his best. It almost sounds like John was trying to do something like what Paul did on Something - but with no clue how. We wasn’t a bass player. Maybe he was bored, tired, or subconsciously sabotaging it by just not doing his best. We won’t ever know.
I don't think any of them were considering that the version which actually saw release was going to be the 'master' and I doubt John sabotaged the song on purpose, even if he might have been a little bored with it. I think a bigger question is why Glyn Johns chose the version recorded on 26 January rather than a later version recorded on 31 January; i.e. the version taht appears on "... Naked". At the end of the day, none of it really matters because the bass isn't that prominent and isn't that important in the context of the song. It really wouldn't matter if there was no bass at all.
The Eb-7 over Ebmaj7 is not a "wrong note" in my opinion. It's not the same 7 as Paul play's surely, but it's just as much a leading tone to the 5th of the following Ab, as Paul's would be a intention of sinking to the third. Thereby you get a double tension that makes the mid high and highs of the Ab to be more solid, anticipated and the feeling of a fatter Ab in my opinion. Pitch is another thing, where cent's off or sharp can brighten or fatten up a idea. Much as the downward-modulation in Penny Lane makes you feel more "Home again", as it draw you deeper down to your "roots".
It largely was @Lewis F - no dodgy notes, timing is a lot cleaner, although there's still some things that I'm not _personally_ a fan of (the stabby slides still somewhat remain)
Copied and pasted from another comment, but it was likely a mixture of a number of things including: #1 - Paul specifically didn’t know that the tapes had been sent for production and by the time he found out it was basically finished. He initially signed off on it, but then took issue with it. #2 - With the way things were recorded for a live feel, it’s possible that Lennon’s bass and MaCartney‘s vocals bled into each others mics a fair bit, which would make it impossible to isolate and remove the bass line. #3 - When selecting it takes for the album, it’s likely that the Spector chose the take with his favourite vocal performance rather than whole band performance. Then he simply went to work covering up the bass part as much as he could. Finally enough, when Paul spearheaded to the ‘Naked’ project, an entirely different take was used - one that was recorded five days after the album version where John seems more comfortable with the song. #4 - Apathy. All of this was happening while the band was essentially imploding. While Paul did go back and record Lennons bass on Let It Be (possibly because it was the lead single from the album), he didn’t do the same for The Long And Winding Road. In fact, Paul initially tried to block the release of the entire album, and when that failed, he scheduled his solo album to be released before Let It Be and announced he left the band.
It's probably just a version where he's still working things out a bit on the bass, playing to follow along, they probably just felt it was the best take as a band for whatever reason, vocals/piano, and they picked it with that in their heads and not bass. It's Spector that sabotaged it, the naked version is awesome.
I think Spector liked everything about the take except for the bass and had the vision to turn it into an orchestral track. He probably didn't use the other one because the overdubs would've been much less appropriate.
I disagree, weirdness is something intentional in many John classic such Walrus for instance, and D features in the chord Eb7+. There are no excuses for the tunning though, although they didn't have this fantastic tuners we have today, a producers should have been aware of that. The wrong note that turns the C♯m into A7+ is magical, probably came from a mistake.
To be fair, I don't think the LAWR was meant to have orchestra pieces. It was added later by Spector. Which is also why the Let It Be Naked sessions were released. John was probably attempting Strategic Busyness to fill in the gaps in the song. Ofcourse bad execution since he probably wasn't fluent with the instrument.
what did George do in this song? I think he could also play the bass in this song. Or is the bass neccesarly need in this song? They had a philharmonical orchestra.
I never noticed any of this because I've never gotten past the first line. As soon as it always came on, I'd roll my eyes and hit skip. I could always tell it was a McCartney Vanity Song. I have that reaction to a lot of his stuff.
I had a post from the early 80's that said Lennon was lazy on the bass line of that song willingly, but there's a snippet from Get Back that Peter Jackson made sure to leave in which Paul guides John to make it as simple as possible , I just don't know if it was because of some limitation he thought Lennon might have.
I just listened to both the Spector and the Naked versions...and I don't hear the badness...yeah there's some funky choices like the slides up, but it's all part of the charm of the song to me. 🤔
The Naked version is actually a different take that was recorded a few days _after_ the version that came out on Let It Be. It's a much 'cleaner' take from John; it seems like he just knows the song a little better, which would make sense since he'd have played it a bunch between the album version and the Naked version.
Definitely out of tune. Not so much wrong notes. I think you were right and saying that Lennon made some strange choices, , and he was quite capable of making strange choices because he didn’t know better. He knew enough from playing the piano to know what the basement was gonna sound like. That sounds to me like Len and trying to add interest to the beautiful but conventional Melody line by adding some deceptive or complicating harmonic notes in the base. It never spoiled the song for me, simply made it more interesting.
What do you think? Does this bass line actually deserve the hate it gets? Or do you think it’s not that bad?
Its a good bass line
John´s Bass is in Tune, your´s is not, sorry...
The bassline doesn't bother me but the vocal is so dominant in the mix that unusually for me I don't pay any attention to the bass at all.
It is very sloppy but it never affected my enjoyment of the song. My preferred version is the one on Anthology 3 - same take as the released version, minus all the overdubs. Beautiful, despite John's sloppiness.
@Helmuth Schulz - John's bass was definitely out of tune in the original recording. Have a look at the 2:44 mark for proof. I tried to emulate the 'amount' of intonation issues, but perhaps I went too far.
There’s a scene in the “Get Back” docco where Paul is instructing John how to play the bass on LAWR. John didn’t seem dismissive or upset. Paul was just trying to help him on how to play bass notes on a song Paul had written.
Yeah, it's a great scene. And let's not assume that for one minute, Paul the perfectionist, or George Martin would have let it pass if they weren't happy with it. I imagine it was quirkiness, if it's scene as 'off' bass playing by anyone else.
"Play Like me" what a great input
@@tikvision with a shit-hot bass player like Paul, indeed. He'd have played it himself if he could.
I suspect John Lennon was suffering from a malcontent personality - typical of many creative types and frustrated want-a-be. His own lyric "I'm just a jealous guy." John's malcontent behaviors grew more intense towards the break-up. Thus Paul became happier on his own - and was glad not to be working with John anymore - though he toyed with the idea of one more gig reunion. But as the years went by - Pual discovered he no longer needed the Beatles. And in December 1980 any chance was over. John started the Beatles and John's malcontent attitude ended the Beatles - Chapman simply was the nail in the coffin. But for "Real Love" & "Free as a Bird."
@@2DanTube Nicely put - it was a great dynamic which worked well until they all outgrew each other. John is barely recognisable in the Get Back clips, so gaunt and lacking the physical and creative robustness and confidence of the earlier years. Still made some cracking tunes though, even though George and Paul were on a roll. What's fascinating was how he seemed to spring to life when they were on the roof - it was quite a transformation.
If you're listening to this song
You may think the chords are going wrong
But they're not, we just wrote it like that
I wrote the bass line, perfection! -Yoko Ono
Well, it’s only a northern song after all..
It doesn’t really matter what chords I play, what words I say or time of day it is
Best answer.
Thanks, George
The definitive LAWR for me will never be the Phil Spector version, with the over the top orchestra, but rather the version on "Let it be... Naked". A different take that is simply stunning. That version also features no mistakes from John, and is overall just a better arrangement IMO.
@Jack Patrick - I agree. It seems like John just knew the song a little better by that point.
@@BecomeABassist I think on Naked they digitally fixed the bass line
@quark10051005 - I don't believe that's the case based on what I've found:
web.archive.org/web/20100131010312/mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_naked_truth_beatles/
web.archive.org/web/20031205205124/www.jp.dk/kultur/advsog/artikel:aid=2118846:fid=9828/
It was just a later take, and likely the last/final time the band ran through the song.
@@BecomeABassist Trust me they fixed bits & bobs on pro tools.
Ive been a Beatles fan since i was a little kid and this song was one of my early favorites. Always loved the pure emotion that it carries, and i also alwayys loved the wierd slides that John does on the bass on that exact moment, idk it brings a magic feel to the song.
I never noticed but I think you are right.
The slides are like little Beatle-y snippets that remind you of their Beatle DNA
Reminds me of the bass riffing on dig a pony
The 'take' used on the album is basically an early run through...it just happened to have a great McCartney vocal. Lennon wasn't too sure of the chord changes at this point so the bass is a bit uneven. Don't forget that those tapes were lying around for many months. During that time the Beatles split. The reason McCartney rerecorded the bass on Let It Be was because it was going to be their final single. McCartney was unhappy with the choice of take on TLAWR and the overdubs used on the album. He preferred the 31st January version as heard on Let It Be...Naked. The bass is fine on that version! Also there was a big argument about the release date of LIB and the McCartney Lp hence why he had little or no involvement in the albums creation.
What so I need to listen to the original release version?
I don’t know man, they rehearsed songs a long time before trying to do a take, I doubt they even made a take before they at least learned it.
@@tillingspoon1592 That’s only half correct. Yes, they did do lots and lots of takes of these songs in rehearsals, but the version heard on Let It Be is a “rehearsal” version. It wasn’t being played in the moment with the intention of “this is a potential take for a record”.
@@a.m.son222 Exactly.
Well, this is clearly the truth... so often an earlier take thats a better take is let down by one of the band who isnt quite there with the changes yet lol!
The mistakes and bizarre glissandos are part of the song to me. I love it as it is.
Agree. But also, kids, don't think bass is easy enough that taking heroin won't matter ...
I agree. It lends itself to the sadness of the he song.
@@Larrymh07 great way to put it
@@vyaj Thank you, Tim!
@@davidmason7765 As a bass player I represent that statement! 😃
Not being a musician, I don’t have the musical theory to figure out what it was, but now that you demonstrate it, i understand the musical discomfort I always had when listening to it.
The only “mistakes” that I like are the slides, which gave a distinctive style to this song, as it is never played like this anywhere, because McCartney would have never done it like that.
Same
Not sure why Mr. Genius McCartney accepted this version!
John was very into 'slide' at the time having just done the excellent slide guitar solo and fills on George's "For You Blue".
It makes sense that he might just have been curious about what he could get away with, sliding into bass notes (given that rare opportunity play the instrument)
McCartney does slides a lot, especially on the White Album and Dear Prudence in particular.
I had never heard this song before I started watching this video, but after listening to the original version I have to say the bass line sounds alright.
Good video. Don't fret. The song went to #1 and all of us non-musicians don't notice it.
The Beatles never did anything the "right" way, did they? That might be why they were so good and considered musical geniuses.
I'm a guitar player beginning to pick up bass, and I think this stands as a great example of how guitar & bass are different instruments. Sure, they look the same, and mechanically they're pretty similar, but the musicianship that goes into each calls upon different sensibilities. Lennon was a good guitarist (and obviously brilliant musician in general), but he wasn't a bassist, and this showed it. Not the sloppiness, which as you illustrate was just a product of a not-great take, but the choices. I like the subtle changes you make, because it's taking the same general musical ideas and not just playing them like a bassist but INTERPRETTING them like a bassist. You show the little contrasts that make up how to THINK like a bassist.
Great video. I'll definitely be checking out more of your channel.
disagree. i play the guitar and i can play the bass line like this easily, and I bet John could. of course the guitar and the bass are different instruments, but it's a very easy bass line for a guitarist
@@segodnyamozhno That's actually not at all what I was saying. The playing itself wasn't what I was talking about, and yeah, it's not technically difficult to play.
What I was saying was that the video illustrated how a guitarist and a bassist might COMPOSE the part differently, by THINKING of different things.
@@GregMcNeish that's true. sorry for misunderstanding
@@segodnyamozhno All good. Keep on rockin'
Why didn't Paul just replace the bass line?
That is puzzling indeed, because he did replace the bass part in Let it Be (song). I think by the time Spector was brought in, nobody cared enough about all that material or project anymore, the band was in it's final days and they were occupied with other things.
I'm quite surprised to read some very negative comments to your video as I sensed in your endeavor a true humility and desire to do things properly. That was an instructive, daring but very interesting video. Maybe you could even have "corrected" this bass line by playing it the way Paul would have, mixing fonction with beauty and using more countermelodies and stuff like Paul used to do. Thanks for you work.
Oh, I liked this!! What a great video and lesson Luke. I'm wasn't that familiar with the song to notice this before so thanks for putting this together. Great lesson for any bassist and your tweaks certainly do make it a better bass line. I would cool with it if you did more of these.
As for my take on what happened, you'd have to look how it was recorded. It sounds like John was still trying to figure out what to play. And it would be the producer's job to catch that. I'm thinking it was either recorded live and McCartney did such a great take they decided to leave the bass line, or maybe John was high on some kind of drugs
It could also be ALL of those things @Thomas Fioriglio. On the one hand, it still baffles me that this was OK-ed by so many people for release, but when you look at everything that was going on at the time with the band, I guess it's not so shocking.
Exactly - that's what I thought. He was high on drugs and he didn't care if the notes wasn't right. The Beatles must have agreed on this since they didn't changed it and made a new recording.
I don't think there's many more of these type of videos to do with the Beatles lol they were perfectionists! Especially Paul.. which baffles me about why if he didn't like this bassline why he would just overdub a proper one in? 🤔🤔🤔
I think its a nice change for their more polished sound.
I love those slides up the neck to nowhere in the song. Without it it sounds like something is missing
If you listen to contemporary bands like Finland's Nightwish, Let it Be sounds an amateurish album.
@@RicardoMartinez-oh9sq shut up nerd.
@@RicardoMartinez-oh9sq I really wouldn't compare a metal band to the Beatles. Completely different genres of music.
Also, Nightwish formed more than 20 years after the Beatles disbanded, how is that a contemporary band?
John brings his soul to this bass line. "There are no wrong notes" - Miles Davis
SCAMMER ALERT: There's an account that calls themselves "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦👉Luke_From_Become_A_Bassist" that's been leaving comments about winning a 'prize' on this video and others of mine. This person is *NOT* me, they are in no way affiliated with me and there is no prize. They are in fact a scammer, phishing for personal information. Please do not interact with them in any way other than to report, then block them.
If you've been targeted by this account, I'm very sorry. I've deleted all their comments for now, but these people are like weeds - very hard to get rid of completely.
I actually went on Telegram posing as a 'winner' (read: victim) to see what the scam was. I was hoping to waste a bunch of their time, but it turns out they're very lazy in their scamming, but still quite convincing. They use my profile picture from here and you would have no idea you weren't talking to me.
Once again, my apologies!
Apologies? You did nothing wrong - someone else did!
A good explanation and a good response to the situation
I’m such a John Lennon fan that just to spite you for insulting this bass line I’m gonna purposely get myself scammed from this fella. Take that Luke (I forgot your name and can’t be bothered to check it)
Thank you very much Paul McCartney for releasing the clean version of this song on Let It Be Naked.
I think he knew exactly what he was doing, everything you took out is for me everything that added character to the song. Those random slide ups aren’t random at all and in the mix seem quite importantly timed to my ear.
If you look at the song metaphorically “A Long and Winding Road” is a journey of ups and downs and is sometime discordant hence the choice of baseline which is sort of in most listeners’ subconscious. I have never thought it sounded bad and I sing an symphony choir and hear violins out of tune!
From a songwriting perspective, I'd say the best way to "fix" the Long and Winding Road bass is to see how Paul McCartney played it as a solo act (or with Wings). I'd say that's the way it "should" be played. I'd be curious if Paul's changed it at all over the decades; the longer he's been around, the more he's embraced the Beatles nostalgia, so my naive guess is these days it'd be pretty close to the original, while perhaps in the 70s/80s he spiced it up a bit.
Here's a live version Paul playing this song: th-cam.com/video/JFNaOm6U5n8/w-d-xo.html
The issues I mention in the video are completely absent from this performance, which seems telling to me.
This was seriously enlightening! I LOVE your revised baseline!
In all fairness, the take that was chosen for the album was not supposed to be the final album take. That was recorded on January 31 but not used until the “Naked” album
The bass is so understated in TLAWR that it's practically irrelevant. Paul's vocals and the orchestration clearly take center stage, the bass line is an afterthought.
Moving on.
The song seems to have garnered quite a few plays over the years in spite of this which might also demonstrate something. Illuminated with a bright spotlight those do seem like defects although I'd never fixated on them before. To me the bassline sounds fine as a experiment with varying some attributes and having a bit too much fun with careless glisses like we all might during a rehearsal. Maybe they just focused limited resources on other issues that would have invited even greater scorn a few generations hence but I appreciate your exploration of this topic and promise to be more careful with glissandos in the future.
I just discovered your channel, it's amazing!
I just have to ask, what strings are you using?
In his last interview about the Beatles (Playboy, 1980), John accused Paul of "subconscious sabotage," naming a number of songs. It's bizarre because this is the only incident in the Beatles where sabotage seems to have been the order of the day. Paul wrote four major songs for the LP and John wrote a ditty (Dig A Pony), having to resurrect Across The Universe from 11 months earlier.
John also said (1970, Rolling Stone) that he was "stoned on H all the time and didn't give a s***" which is indicated on the 14 Jan "two junkies" interview that immediately preceded the session - he must have taken something potent to perform as we see him in Get Back. The terrible bass guitar playing may just have been H lowering his capabilities.
The reference version of Long And Winding Road was recorded on 26 Jan - Phil Spector chose the version with the best overall feel and best lyric, and then smothered it with orchestra and choir presumably to hide John. Let It Be Naked features a take from four days later, with no Spector elements, worse lyric but at least John is in order.
Poor Paul. Imagine how successful he’d have been without this “sabotage.”
I disagree, Paul wrote 5 major songs for the LP. Two of us, Let it be, Get back, I've got a feeling, LAWR. John had 'dig a pony' and that was it. Oh, and Don't let me down. One after 909 was from 1960. He wrote only the middle eight to IGAF and Across the universe a year earlier.
Never noticed the bass on that track.. the Piano and vocal are so otherworldly genius, it outshines anything.
I think the bass playing of JL is a fun quirky document of time. He was probably bored of having to play bass on this ;)
Don't know of this is one of those instances but sometimes bands leave mistakes in due to the entire tracks vibe being spot on despite those mistakes. If you listen closely to some zeppelin tracks, even JPJ makes tiny errors here and there. But they stayed . And cover bands even add them in when they perform the tracks.
Loving your vids mate. Ive studied McCartney for many years and learnt so many songs and every one surprises, inspires, and amazes me even after 100 plays
Yes, Squire's isolated bass on Roundabout is a bit scrappy, but great energy
Never thought of this as sabotage, but have thought about John's harmony in the last few notes of Yellow Submarine chorus as a hilarious bit of sabotage.
Oh my god FINALLY someone mentions this I first noticed that awhile back and cannot I hear it
Which harmony?
@@AngeloFonta I’m not sure of the note but John’s harmony goes downwards to some weird low note on the “ine” part of submarine
@@Bubdiddly are you talking about the Revolver version?
@@AngeloFonta probably. I’d have to check
I never noticed any "mistakes" before with the bass playing. Just thought it was McCartney being weird and using strange techniques.
Made it sound very airy and magical, like it was floating in the clouds. Love the "wrong" notes, too. I don't think they sound wrong...just strange.
The whole song sounds like it was very spontaneous, and done quickly in one take. A tear jerker for me!
Love your videos. Entertaining but also a lesson that I remember and use for my own songs (I play guitar but my bass is not quite there. I tend to follow the drums more but now I feel confident to branch out a bit.... make things interesting). Thanks.
As a bassist myself, I never questioned it but you're right about everything you pointed out. Why did John play it that way and why did they leave it? I think Mars 79 has the explanation. Those tapes were lying around for months and most likely, the one that was chosen had the McCartney vocal Spector wanted on the same track as the bass so, he made an arbitrary decision and that was that.
First off, I don't think ANY musician or artist should be held to such a standard as what would be considered beyond reproach. Secondly, as a bass player, it's REALLY obvious that Lennon was pretty clueless here - whether stylistically or musically speaking. Remember, he was a "lyric man," and the vast majority of Beatles tunes (like LAWR) with any sort of sophisticated harmony was Paul's doing (some George's too). And even with Paul's instruction, you can just hear that Lennon is just "playing notes," not really interpreting or feeling notes.
There's no shame in correcting a lacking bass line. And I think you did a bang up job of it too by holding true to the approach that was taken in the song. And I agree on all points, it just really needed a couple bad note corrections as well as some subtle stylistic (we're talking TASTE, not pandering) changes. Great job!
macfan says
@@titochristian1968 Just objective views on bass playing having been a player and educator myself for 30+ years. I rarely even listen to McCartney.
I have the slides in my head and it just doesn't sound complete without them. But thanks for the details!
I play 5 string basses, I have 2 Fender 5 string Jazz basses, I am use to these basses, they present me with better option's as a bass player.
Back in the day 'The Beatles' had this 5 string, it is a right handed instrument, so that could mean either could play it. John was a right hander, Paul is left handed, but as he first played a right handed bass, it was a right hand bass, so he could play it upside down. Most left hander's are able to do this.
The Beatles by this time, owned a wealth of guitars and basses so I figure this 5 string Fender belonged to them.
Depending on how long they had this bass, as to if any of them really had a comfortable feel for the 5 string, and mastered it.
As a player of 5 string basses, I definately took awhile to get used to them after playing 4 string basses for most of life. I've been playing 5 strings for going 45 years now, the hardest habit to over come, is the E string is the 2nd string, not the first as had always been the norm.
For a long while, I'd be constantly hitting the wrong string, therefore playing the wrong notes in various position's, until I got it, could hear it, to understand it.
I had to re educate my thinking, how I played.
A 5 string gives me more options up the neck, so for me, I can use the bottom B to start and end bass pattern's along the finger board I know I can grovel around down the low end, but only when required. I use it tastefully, not over use it.
As the bottom B runs off normally, positioning is never an issue. I never play the wrong string ever, as I am use to it.
John Lennon would have had a similar experience getting use to a 5 string bass.
It isn't the same as playing a 6 string guitar, totally different. Same is for a 6 string bass, not at all like a 6 string guitar.
I believe Keith Richards has a 7 string guitar which he plays with 'The Rolling Stones'.
The 'Let It Be' recording's were somewhat unfinished, somehow Phil Specter was given them, years before he devoured them with his mastering, whether he knew what he was doing? or not, he eventually managed to get all the credit for that release.
At one stage, he was asked where the tape's were, he said he couldn't find them, so 'The Beatles set about recreating these songs that they already had put together earlier.
We need to remember a lot of these songs were songs that didn't get to be selected for previous Album's, so like a lot of their work, these 'Get Back' session's are them recreating already written material, and finishing them off. As the film reveals. Some think that they just wrote a lot of them during that session, as you can see in the film, they are already familiar.
A bit like digging into the vault, and resurrecting the shelf.
Sometimes when one does this, it could be years passed, but you hear it all in a new light, new idea's formulate, they were all older, everything had changed.
1:17 I think that quote is taken from Ian MacDonald's book 'Revolution in the head'. It's a brilliant and exhaustive breakdown of every single song the Beatles recorded. However, he doesn't shy away from criticism, and Lennon's bass playing does come in for quite a lot of stick on this particular track. On the other hand, he does acknowledge that the basic track was essentially a 'run through' and never intended to be the finished master. Anyone who has seen the recent Peter Jackson film 'Get Back' can see/hear how chaotic most of the sessions for this album actually were. Personally, having grown up listening to all these songs (complete with the so-called 'mistakes') I find it hard to hear them in any other way.
John said in his last ever interview in dec 1980 (Playboy) that Paul would sub-consciously try to destroy some of his great songs. I think he referred to "Strawberry fields" and "Across the universe" as examples. He didn't explain how. Maybe his lousy bass playing on "The long and winding road" was payback time.Anyway Phil Spectors great production job on that song covered up his bad bass playing so is it really important now?
I think you guys are missing some of the most created Bass in the history of music. Lennon's Bass lines are perfect for that song along with the organ it takes you to a different place. It's perfect and not only do I think it was deliberate, I think McCartney was 100% onboard for the grove. Not everything is about being like a song should be. Your right in the sense that it makes non sense. But it not only works but works better than if you corrected it. It's a Beatles Masterpiece and I dont think for a minute that Lennon came up with that alone.
Variation in note length is called "texture". You don't often see it in bass lines but John is a guitar player who played bass for a song. I've been playing guitar for about 30 years. Two years ago I picked up bass and can't put it down. I also use texture in my bass playing. Also, those "wrong" notes may have been 100% intentional and the rest of the band may have noticed them and called them "genius". Sometimes playing out of key is the right thing to do. "What the song wants" is what the creators want out of the song. But here's an alternate theory:
John had the blues, remembering his friend Stu Sutcliffe, who wasn't that great of a bass player but was a true friend and a talented artist who would have gotten 'good enough' by the time the Beatles got a break. So maybe it was sabotage.
Personally, I like how it sounds. What matters to me more is how it sounds not what it looks like on paper or whether it follows the rules that were made to be broken in the first place.
Sutcliffe had no musical knowledge and couldn't play a note. Had he lived he would have been let go like Pete Best. No rip on him, he just wasn't a musician.
John was also using a Fender Bass VI on the original recording
Absolutely @PhantomDetectivesLLC - I point that out at the 0:52 mark.
As always great content, Luke! I doubt John had any ill intent. But I love the bass work on the 1984 version from the "Give My Regards to Broadstreet" soundtrack.
Surely if that was not the intended bass line Paul (the perfectionist) would have insisted on adding the correct bass line...?
He may have if he knew the Get Back tapes were being prepared for release, but John had sent them (without Paul's or regular producer, George Martin's knowledge) to Phil Spector for production.
@@BecomeABassist Actually Paul was shocked with the end product.
On the Get Back doc , Paul tells John to just play single notes dead like that, As far as flat or sharp notes could be down to tiredness or boredom or not knowing the changes.
I have listened to it hundreds of times and again to the remastered 2009 after listening to you. And it sounds ok to me
you could ask why Paul didn't go back in the studio and play the bass part himself?
What happened on "Let It Be ... Naked"? It seems they fixed some of the issues?
@Luke - Regarding your "Issue #3" and the length of notes. Twice, you refer to Lennon playing "whole notes" and then eighth notes. I don't know why you used the term "whole note" when you're clearly referring to quarter notes. It happens at around 4:10 into the video.
Ah - you're totally right @John Vice. That was definitely a slip of the tongue. The space that the notes occupy is *half* note, (starting his notes on beats 1 and 3) although sometimes he cuts them short to 8ths, quarters or dotted quarters. My apologies!
Yeah, the bass playing is dismal -- but it seems Spector (rightly) buried a lot of it. Don't know why Paul didn't re-record the bass himself later, as he had in other instances. I really like the recommendations/corrections made in this video.
I've always thought John's bass part was quirky and inconsistent, but for me that's the charm. The song is so middle-of-the-road to begin with, so the idiosyncratic bass playing gives it some well-needed personality.
I always took it as an intentional "souring" of an overtly sweet tune. Never knew that John was playing the bass line.
In the remastered version, there are distinct ghost lyrics at 3:15.
John and the other Beatles made numerous statements indicating how controlling Paul was. How he took charge over the Beatles after Brian died. They felt like he was treating them as a backup band starting with Magical Mystery Tour. Assuming that's true, it seems Paul would have all the chance in the world to replace John's bassline with his own. But he didn't.
Did John not GAF because he knew Paul would likely overdub his playing anyway? Or did Paul leave the out of tune John Bass track in to make him look bad in comparison with Paul's normal acclaimed bass playing? They were definitely at odds during this time period.
I'm gonna be honest, this is not one of my favorite Beatles songs, but as I've aged I've come to appreciate it more. Never really paid any attention to the bass on it and now I can't stop laughing. It's so strange to me that Paul being as tightly wound as he was about his compositions allowed this. He would've raked George over coals for playing anything close to this bad but somehow Lennon gets a pass.
It was Lennon. He wasn't going to have a go at him at all.
I think he was upset abt it actually, paul didnt like this take that phil spector picked, and this was an early take so probably john was being lazy bc they were still working it out, and he assumed this take wud never see the light of day
I've never noticed this before. And I've heard this song many times.
Vôtre analyse est très intéressante. En revanche, en ce qui concerne ce que pourrait être une meilleure ligne de basse, Paul l'a suffisamment reprise en concert pour qu'on puisse nous en inspirer.
I love your suggestions.😀 You "made it better."🎸
Haha!!! I just did my best to not 'make it bad'.
This is fascinating... very interesting... but I'd say there are ENDLESS examples you could find of mistakes in a lot of Beatle songs... I think they LOVED making mistakes and leaving them in... did it all the time. Also, as far as coming in late... same thing. There's George's guitar solo in "All You Need is Love"...super behind the beat... which MAKES the solo, I'd say. I can't think of other examples right this minute, but... lots of them. Oh here's one; the way "I Want You (She's so heavy) ends... Boom! Over! When that record came out, everybody demanded a refund - till word got out. BTW, I can't stand The Long & Winding Road! Super Smaltzy, and I'll bet John hated it too... wouldn't be at all surprised if he was uninterested in taking it seriously.
Oh for sure. There's even sites where *uber* Beatles nerds catalogue all the 'mistakes': wgo.signal11.org.uk/html/alpha-index.htm
There are plenty of them for sure, but the slow 'schmaltz' of The Long And Winding Road means that they're extra noticeable (even if Phil Spector did his best to cover them up).
Fancy anyone asking Spectre about making mistakes!?
I always hated LAWR and thought it schmaltzy as well but I think a lot of the reason for that is Spector's dreadful, cheesy orchestration. Somewhere on TH-cam I heard a different version without all the yucky strings and it was infinitely better IMHO, but still one of my least favorite Beatles' tunes.
@@hqhq4611 have you heard the version on let it be naked. i’m pretty sure it’s an alternate take and without the orchestration.
@@emmo5637
This is the version I heard although I don't remember it being this short. Perhaps there's a longer version somewhere. Interesting to note that Lennon appears to be playing a Fender Jaguar, not bass. I'll check out Let It Be Naked version, thanks.
th-cam.com/video/mVsiIxE_6OM/w-d-xo.html
Actually it sound great to me
I agree with what you are saying. But as you mentioned, I do believe that he was bored or mucking around. It is common knowledge that these recordings were demos/rehearsals(pre-production sessions). So it would stand to reason that John was aware that these were not final takes and therefore was not trying as hard as he may have, had these been "official takes for the album".
Very nice take on the bass line. Being a bass player myself - jazz and swing mostly, I personally have big problem with John´s bass - not only in this song (well ... to be honest, I have my reservations to most of his production. But I keep in mind, what a great musician he was ).
Although I consider myself Beatles lover (most of them I have on vynyl), there are few songs, which seem out of "Beatles tune" for me ... Long and winding road is one of them.
I tried some variations to your - well done - line and most apetizing for my ears was when I used smooth nickel plated strings and threw away the pick - to get nice warm and round sound. I tried to make your part more "Abbey Road-ish", added few ornaments and also played around with adding some flageolets ... I slipped almost into fusion of Something and Dear Prudence. Which definitely suits my "jazzy" attitude and my feeling from the song.
As for "correcting John" - I would not be afraid too much. Music is a creative field and one can definitely try to improve/correct or change great musicians work. As long as he does it with respect. Idolizing great ones and and making them untouchable can lead to catarsis and bias.
Given the timing of when this song was recorded at the very end of the Beatles time together as a group, along with Johns later comments about how much he couldn't stand Paul's elevator "Muzac" style of ballads I think it's pretty safe to say John was protesting through lack of effort. At worst specifically to protest Paul's ballad (Muzac to John) or at best out of boredom of playing bass in general/intoxication/ or just being tired or not "feeling it" that day for whatever reason. Which happens to everybody at some point. Personally my money is on John purposely protesting Paul's "Muzac" sounding ballads. I'm a MASSIVE Paul Mccartney fan and I can't say I blame John sometimes. In fact as soon as John died and Paul seemingly no longer feared or was effected by that type of criticism Paul went full "Muzac" in the 80s ending his time of chart topping hits pretty much for good.
Clearly he didn’t know the chord changes. Simple as that.
I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't 100% all over it @A B. From what I can tell, the originally released performance was from an early-ish take of the song. It could be that he was still coming to terms with the harmony.
the bass as played by John is perfect. You are "normalizing" something without knowing what was the purpose of the bass in the song. Also consider that there is also the orchestra in this song and not only that is already long playing, but is in any case covering the bass line. Sorry, not to criticize you, you made a great video, but i feel your version is more boring than John's one.
@Emiliano Gabriele - Im not sure if you know the story, but this album was originally supposed to be stripped back and have zero overdubs. At the rime of recording this, there no intention of having an orchestra on the final recording, but Phil Spector heard the tapes and did everything he could to ‘cover up the mistakes’ (his words - I quote him in the video).
@@BecomeABassist i appreciate your work and, again, i am not here to criticize, your video is wonderful and i dont know the full story as you said. However i think that the way he plays (for exampe short notes), despite i agree with you that there should be a precise duration across the notes, makes the bass line interesting. In the end this is about the taste of everyone, among all the taste of the beatles, but i agree with you that the quality si little too poor.
To be fair...Lennon played a Fender Bass VI which was notorious for having dreadful intonation issues which made the instrument impossible to be 100% in tune the entire length of the neck. The bridge saddles don't have enough space back and forth for accurate intonation.
A little note... The fender 6 string bass John is using is meant to be tuned a octave lower...... This is from a book on the Beatles instruments
I don't believe that's accurate @davidbatinich1528. The Fender Bass VI that John used on this recording has a lowest E string that sounds at E1; the same range as a regular bass (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Bass_VI#:~:text=having%20six%20strings%20tuned%20E1%20to%20E3%2C ) It _is_ already tuned an octave lower than a regular guitar.
I’m just pondering here. Could they have been looking for that. The dissonance is magnificent, and I’ve written a couple bass lines for myself that feature an out of key part that when played for the first time sounds wrong. But as soon as you put it back in key it’s boring and almost impossible to enjoy. But the out of key A#, A#, A, A#, A, G, E it works and it’s the # that’s out of key.
I doubt it @troystanton254, simply because the later takes of the song (like the one that ended up on Let It Be...Naked) don't have the out of tune notes and the questionable rhythms on the original track. The 'Naked' take was recorded 5 days after the album version, and it sounds like Lennon just knows the song a little better by that point.
Never took much notice of the bass, more interested in the vocals and piano.
"The Long Unwinding Bass Strings ! ? "
After hearing the original bass for over 50 years, the 'right' notes don't seem to follow the theme of the song and seem to lose any lasting effect...intentional or not, this is how it was recorded and how the listeners have been conditioned to hear it. When I first started playing bass around that time, not too many songs were in Eb and somehow it seemed unusual and acceptable...esp competing w the orchestration
Hi is it possible there was more than one bass player on beatles recordings ?
Absolutely - there were three. John played on the track I feature in this video, plus a few others, George played on a bunch as well, and of course Paul McCartney played on the vast majority
@@BecomeABassist Hi bass is my second instrument , however i am limited . you did an excellent video and the change in bass playing in the beatles . Bernie purdie claims to have played a lot of drums on the tracks . it is possible that a session player played bass after 66 . thats what i can hear anyway .good video :)
By the looks of things, Bernard Purdie likely _did_ play some drums on some very early Beatles recordings when Pete Best was still drumming for them, but more than likely not anything that Ringo played on. This video (th-cam.com/video/hz9EGGiOuso/w-d-xo.html ) is very well researched and has the primary sources listed that backs up this assertion.
And since the recordings that Purdie likely played on were from 1962 (pre-Ringo) and there is a _ton_ of *documented and credited* instances of session musicians playing on Beatles tracks (like Billy Preston playing on the Get Back Sessions, Eric Clapton on While My Guitar Gently Weeps, the string quartet on Eleanor Rigby or the entire orchestra on Day In The Life, plus both Paul And George playing drums on some Beatles tracks, plus John and George playing bass at different point), it seems unlikely that they would try to 'hide' session players being involved after 1966 for some arbitrary reason. In fact, they didn't hide the fact that they used studio musicians at all. Here's a list of hundreds of confirmed session musicians who played on Beatles tracks: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_performed_on_Beatles_recordings
As far as the bass being played by a session musician, I guess it's possible, but there's not really any evidence for it, and a big claim like that demands compelling evidence. There _is_ however, a ton of evidence for Paul being the bassist on the vast majority of Beatles tracks, with the remaining ones either lacking bass entirely or with John or George having played the bass.
Regarding the take on "Let It Be...Naked".
This was another case of Glyn Johns screwing up the Get Back project and selecting inferior earlier takes!
He did the same thing with "Two Of Us" which was recorded along with "The Long And Winding Road" and "Let It Be" on January 31,1969 at Apple Studio's.
I'm pretty sure it sounds so bad because it's literally take 1, so I just think he didn't have the bass line down yet. Its in part 3 of the doc
I think I remember in the Get Back doc John and George talking about how much they hate playing bass
I doubt it was intentional. I think he just phoned the performance in. George, however, was a decent bassist.
John’s bass performance is very unique to me. In a sweet ballad like this, it doesn’t sound bery good. ButI found his style to be more fitting for a Helter Skelter, because the aggressive/ wildin out nature of the song matches with his clunky playstyle. Great vid 👍
I agree 100% @Crust Binwahh. The Helter Skelter performance definitely has timing and intonation issues, but the whole point of that song was to be as loud and boisterous as possible and it translates to feeling really good. I don't think that works though when it's a sweet ballad, like you said.
Not being a bass player, I never had a problem with it - at least not consciously. I did think there was way too much orchestra, and maybe that was to cover up the bass on this take, on which Paul happened to sound his best. It almost sounds like John was trying to do something like what Paul did on Something - but with no clue how. We wasn’t a bass player. Maybe he was bored, tired, or subconsciously sabotaging it by just not doing his best. We won’t ever know.
For me . I just love the slides. The guys were megastar musitions. I think Lenon was just like …” Here have that PAUL” 😁
I don't think any of them were considering that the version which actually saw release was going to be the 'master' and I doubt John sabotaged the song on purpose, even if he might have been a little bored with it. I think a bigger question is why Glyn Johns chose the version recorded on 26 January rather than a later version recorded on 31 January; i.e. the version taht appears on "... Naked". At the end of the day, none of it really matters because the bass isn't that prominent and isn't that important in the context of the song. It really wouldn't matter if there was no bass at all.
The melody is lovely.
The Eb-7 over Ebmaj7 is not a "wrong note" in my opinion. It's not the same 7 as Paul play's surely, but it's just as much a leading tone to the 5th of the following Ab, as Paul's would be a intention of sinking to the third. Thereby you get a double tension that makes the mid high and highs of the Ab to be more solid, anticipated and the feeling of a fatter Ab in my opinion. Pitch is another thing, where cent's off or sharp can brighten or fatten up a idea. Much as the downward-modulation in Penny Lane makes you feel more "Home again", as it draw you deeper down to your "roots".
I've always liked slides, and I wonder if this is where I got that from lol
Never realized these bass line mistakes were there. Paul's
piano was loud
Absolutely @Kathy Hollenbach - the mix and orchestration do a great job of hiding these issues.
Was it corrected on Let It Be Naked
It largely was @Lewis F - no dodgy notes, timing is a lot cleaner, although there's still some things that I'm not _personally_ a fan of (the stabby slides still somewhat remain)
wow. now i have to ask: why on earth did Paul allow this to get released?
Copied and pasted from another comment, but it was likely a mixture of a number of things including:
#1 - Paul specifically didn’t know that the tapes had been sent for production and by the time he found out it was basically finished. He initially signed off on it, but then took issue with it.
#2 - With the way things were recorded for a live feel, it’s possible that Lennon’s bass and MaCartney‘s vocals bled into each others mics a fair bit, which would make it impossible to isolate and remove the bass line.
#3 - When selecting it takes for the album, it’s likely that the Spector chose the take with his favourite vocal performance rather than whole band performance. Then he simply went to work covering up the bass part as much as he could. Finally enough, when Paul spearheaded to the ‘Naked’ project, an entirely different take was used - one that was recorded five days after the album version where John seems more comfortable with the song.
#4 - Apathy. All of this was happening while the band was essentially imploding. While Paul did go back and record Lennons bass on Let It Be (possibly because it was the lead single from the album), he didn’t do the same for The Long And Winding Road. In fact, Paul initially tried to block the release of the entire album, and when that failed, he scheduled his solo album to be released before Let It Be and announced he left the band.
It's probably just a version where he's still working things out a bit on the bass, playing to follow along, they probably just felt it was the best take as a band for whatever reason, vocals/piano, and they picked it with that in their heads and not bass. It's Spector that sabotaged it, the naked version is awesome.
I think Spector liked everything about the take except for the bass and had the vision to turn it into an orchestral track.
He probably didn't use the other one because the overdubs would've been much less appropriate.
I disagree, weirdness is something intentional in many John classic such Walrus for instance, and D features in the chord Eb7+. There are no excuses for the tunning though, although they didn't have this fantastic tuners we have today, a producers should have been aware of that. The wrong note that turns the C♯m into A7+ is magical, probably came from a mistake.
Making a mistake on a recording is like spitting into eternity
I don't know who originally said this but this is a great point
they just needed yoko to add the backing voices ...wow master
To be fair, I don't think the LAWR was meant to have orchestra pieces. It was added later by Spector. Which is also why the Let It Be Naked sessions were released. John was probably attempting Strategic Busyness to fill in the gaps in the song. Ofcourse bad execution since he probably wasn't fluent with the instrument.
what did George do in this song? I think he could also play the bass in this song. Or is the bass neccesarly need in this song? They had a philharmonical orchestra.
The original recording didn’t have any orchestra - that was added much later by Phil Spector
@@BecomeABassist Oh, Thank you.
I never noticed any of this because I've never gotten past the first line. As soon as it always came on, I'd roll my eyes and hit skip. I could always tell it was a McCartney Vanity Song. I have that reaction to a lot of his stuff.
Link?
Nice job! Good analysis also. People underestimate the craftsmanship required to play really good bass lines.
I had a post from the early 80's that said Lennon was lazy on the bass line of that song willingly, but there's a snippet from Get Back that Peter Jackson made sure to leave in which Paul guides John to make it as simple as possible , I just don't know if it was because of some limitation he thought Lennon might have.
John always sucked on bass, just listen to first takes of Fixing a Hole.
I just listened to both the Spector and the Naked versions...and I don't hear the badness...yeah there's some funky choices like the slides up, but it's all part of the charm of the song to me. 🤔
The Naked version is actually a different take that was recorded a few days _after_ the version that came out on Let It Be. It's a much 'cleaner' take from John; it seems like he just knows the song a little better, which would make sense since he'd have played it a bunch between the album version and the Naked version.
And years later Lennon had the temerity to suggest Paul sabotaged his work…
This is how it happend. Leave like it is. Disharmony is flavour, and rememder the the art of recording in these days.
Definitely out of tune. Not so much wrong notes. I think you were right and saying that Lennon made some strange choices, , and he was quite capable of making strange choices because he didn’t know better. He knew enough from playing the piano to know what the basement was gonna sound like. That sounds to me like Len and trying to add interest to the beautiful but conventional Melody line by adding some deceptive or complicating harmonic notes in the base. It never spoiled the song for me, simply made it more interesting.