nasty vinyl

Phew - thought I was tripping then - glad we were right

 

"Jules" became "Jude".

There's a whole bunch of things the Beatles helped change. Of course they were a bit of a boyband for starters - that's the way things were in the early sixties - they did what they were told, but with talent like that it wasn't too long before they took control themselves with quite astonishing results. Boybands still do what they are told, but the idea that a pop band might actually take creative control themselves was pretty new and the Beatles were instrumental in this I'd say.

The Stones realy are badly served aren't they. I have a copy of Sticky Fingers which was a 180g rerelease from Virgin and its dreadful, no top end at all, lumpy bass and a kind of ghostly sounding mid. Its like listening to it in the next room - doesn't rip your ears mind. A few months ago I was given an original pressing of the same and it sounds great. Maybe if Jagger weren't so obsessed with making milions and shagging young dolly birds, he'd have some time to do some bloody quality checks on what's being released in their name.

 

Beatles & Stones aren't mutually exclusive, both seminal bands. People who claim not to like the Beatles are either adopting an attitude for effect (hey everybody! look how discriminating I am!) or plain odd.

Led Zep & Genesis ARE mutually exclusive, at least in my book.

 

People who don't like the Beatles are odd (controversial but an element of truth)

People who don't like Led Zep are definitely odd if you ask me

and if it were true that Led Zep and Genesis are mutually exclusive that'd make all Genesis fans odd too (probably also true).

Do you think all these odd people are the same? Maybe we need some kind of odd people venn diagram?

I have a friend who likes the Beatles, Stones, Led Zep AND Genesis .... mind you he likes Norah Jones too ... and he is odd.

Me I like to think of myself as odd, but I don't like Genesis. Maybe I'm not ... maybe I'm just ordinary

 

OI - I really love Led Zep (for about half an hour), but "Lamb Lies Down..." is unarguably one of the best albums of all time...ever (and might even make it onto my desert island). One day I'm going to get it on something higher-fi that a rather worn out cass. tape I made in my student days :shame:

 

Well you Graham are clearly ODD!!!

 

Lol!

No need. They are already gathered together at another location discussing amplifiers, and handing out badges.

I'm on the Zep side, and struggle to find words to adequately describe Genesis.

 

'I want to hold your hand' was, I think, the first Beatles track recorded for stereo on a brand new 4 track machine at Abbey Road. The technology applied to 'pop' recordings in the UK in the early 1960s was generally crap and definitely wasn't very good when drums were being hit very hard or guitar amps turned right up, which was how the Beatles played live before they were famous.

Anyway it's of course possible that the early Rolling Stones recordings lost a lot on their way from the master tape but more likely that they're simply crap.

Just enjoy the music.

Paul

 

This really surprises me, I've found that original 'unboxed' Decca Stones LPs sound very good indeed. I've had two pass through over the past year, the first LP (which is just called The Rolling Stones) and Through a glass darkly (with the octagonal sleeve). Both were mono pressings and had a real sense of dynamics and solidity coupled with warmth and weight, and all this despite not being in visually great condition. The guitar is nicely aggressive just as it should be, but not harsh. I've got a mint 'narrow band' Decca label stereo repress of Big Hits (High tide and green grass) plus a pretty battered original 'unboxed' label mono press, I'll dig 'em out for a spin later on and see what gives.

Tony.

 

I've got what I presume is an early pressing of 'The Rolling Stones' LP. It's not in great condition (but for 50p I'm not complaining) but through the crackles it sounds fantastic! It's identifiably an early 60's recording but what life and vitality. On 'Route 66' the bass is so much stronger than any Beatles track of that time; you need to wait until Rubber Soul before they catch up (sonically).

 

Hi Dom,

Not fully correct. The Psychedelic music & movement more or less started in the states in the mid 60s. It was a mix of blues, folk, jazz styles mixed in with plenty of LSD that created weird & wonderful sounds.

There were a number of artists that were moving away from the usual rock & roll style patterns to a more free flowing sound & struture. There was a rise in the use of weird sounds & production techniques.

Bands like the Grateful Dead & Jefferson Airplane were leading from the front. A group called the Charlatans (not the UK version) helped to set the scene. They had style that was unconventional. They use outrageous dress and attitudes and took plenty of LSD. They also used a light show as part of there gigs. The group had a hippy following. They created a show in Victoria city Navada which had people from miles around attending. All this was too much for the police who ran them out of town. They took root in San Francisco & carried on there.

Also look at the likes of the Byrds, Beach Boys, Yardbirds, Cream, Pink Floyd, etc who were expanding the boundaries of Rock & Roll, Rhythm & Blues & Blues. The Psyc scene would have happened with or with the Beatles.

The Beatles copied large elements of American music. So when they hit the US, they gave back what the American already had. Which in turn helped some of these US artists gain a bigger foothold.

The CD, John Lennon's Juke Box, shows how much the Beatles borrowed. This was was featured on the South bank show with a recorded interview with John Lennon & featured interview with the artits on the cd. This illustrated how much they were influenced by so many different things.

I have to admit that I'm not that big a Beatles fan. Having said that I have most of their albums scattered around the house.

I have some 60s pressings of Beatles & Stones albums, I don't think they sounded that bad.

SCIDB

 

I've had a look in my record collection under 'R' and I found the following Rolling Stones on Decca,

'Let it Bleed'
'Their Satanic Majesties Request'
'Beggars Banquet'
'Get Yer Ya-Yas Out'

And possibly one other I forget. All look quite old, 'TSMR' has the hole in the back for the red/blue dot. I don't have any early 60s stuff by the Stones in its original form.

Anyway none of them sound as good as (say) my yellow 'Revolver' which is not in great condition but leaps out of the speakers. Which proves precisely nothing.

Paul

 

Original 60s pressings are easy to spot – the label design has the 'unboxed' Decca logo, i.e. it doesn't have a box round it. The first few LPs had a brown /dark red background rather than the blue of the Big Hits (high tide and green grass) LPs I have photographed here.



The other geeky term that us record collectors use is 'deep groove', that refers to the groove stamped round the label visible in the unboxed copy and not in the 70s 'narrow-band' reissue next to it.

Its hard to compare these two sound wise as the original is mono and shagged, the reissue is stereo and mint. Even so the original has a warmth and roundness to the sound that is lost to quite a large degree on the 70s cut. I am a firm believer in 60s pressings when they are affordable – the valve technology used in creating them really suits the music. The difference is similar to that between yellow/black 60s Parlophone Beatles and the later reissues – the 60s cuts rock!

Tony.

PS if your TSMR is in good nick, on the 'unboxed' label and has the 3d cover its worth quite a few quid.

 

I've got an original Let It Bleed and IMHO it sounds superb.

Bob

 

I think mine are all worthless reproductions from the 70s.

It's cute the way they have Beatle photos on the front of TSMR...

Paul

 

She was definitely odd - tried to read my aura and got it all quite wrong indeed... I heard she was something to do with the Small Faces farm up the road from here (what's left of them). Claimed to know Macca well too

Check the "Pebbles" series of 60s surf/psychedelia LPs..

You must have a better pressing of "Fresh Fruit" than me - mines fiercely toppy with almost no bottom end. Still rocks mind - there aren't many songs more powerful than "Holiday in Cambodia"!

And as for being odd, no problem with that though I'd say "discerning and odd". Which is why I love Zep, but don't like Genesis at all (Phil Collins would be one of the first on the bus going over the cliff, along with Celine Dion and Mariah Carey)

 

Can't argue with that. Peter Gabriel could drive.

 

It's funny but I have two copies of The River, one sounds awesome and is an original with a gatefold sleeve. The other is obviously a late 80's version without the gatefold. The later one is all tizz and no bass. The earlier one sounds much better.
Anyway why wouldn't someone like Led Zep and Genesis, I do. And I like Yes too

 

I dunno, think the guy had the right idea myself!

I found the same thing with the River, the CD really is crap but that later pressing is almost as bad never heard a bad version of Darkness... though.

Still to get a non tape copy of the Lamb as yet, hopefully the next trip to MVE will see me solve that problem! Apparently The Musical Box are touring later this year presenting the full album, could be worth seeing.

Dom, the Stones SACDs do sound excellent. IMO you'd be better off buying 3 or 4 albums than laying out £20 or so on Hot Rocks.

 

I've been known to "see" some peoples' auras as well - some people just instantly stand out to me sharper against their background; the freakiest one was when I caught my mate Robbie with a dark purple one - full on agresssion - eek!

I also have a talent for feeling the vibe of houses; I can usually tell if a house has had a happy, laughter filled life, or whether its seen a lot of nasty actions. I'll usually not stay in a house of the latter type

SCIDB - you're right; I'd forgotton about the mid-60s american psyc (pre Doors/Love). That said, it was the Brits who invented phasing, flanging, artificial double tracking, etc; most of this was invented by the Beatles and their recording engineers. The Beatles also turned standard recording session practices on their heads.

I used to have the Hamlyn "Beatles complete recording sessions" book, which had every session they'd done, documented with explanatory notes. It got wasted in a flood (along with ALL my photo negs) back in 2000, but I digress. Two stories stuck in my mind - both to do with Lennon; they were trying out new recording techniques, and (I think) Geoff Emerick had put this very expensive microphone into a plastic bag and then inserted it into a bottle of water. The head of EMI walked in while Lennon was shouting at aforementioned mic-in-bottle, and they had to quickly stand round it to cover it up!

The other one was when John went missing, and George Martin asked where he was. Paul absent mindedly said "oh, he's on the roof, doing acid" and George pegged it up there to find John teetering on the edge of the roof of Studio 2 - totally off his face!

Here's one for you; was it The Small Faces (Itchycoo park) or Status Quo (Pictures of matchstick men) that first used phasing? They were both recorded on the same day at Trident studios, and I've always wandered which came first?

Mine's on CD; the vinyl is "In god we trust". I played that last night as it happens, and haaad iiiiit oooonnnnn thhhhhe wrrrrroooonnnnnggggg ssspppppeeeddddd for about 10 seconds; at 45 rpm it sounded MUCH better! Good old Martin Hannett overproduction comment - made me crack up!

BTW - I have "Goat's head soup" on 8track cartridge