love and looks
A few days ago I finally got around to picking up the Beatles’ Love CD that I mentioned previously. It turns out it’s everything I imagined and more. I’ve heard it three times in four days, and the only thing that keeps me from playing it more is that when it’s on I can’t do anything else but listen.
Three things hit me immediately: one, Paul McCartney is an even better bassist than I realized, and that’s saying something; two, Ringo is an effing genius, no ifs, ands, or buts; and three, George Martin wrote some of the finest, most emotional string arrangements I’ve ever heard. Bonus points to the amazing Abbey Road engineers whose quality work can now be even more appreciated—these tracks sound like they were recorded yesterday.
I don’t want to rave on forever about this; I’d rather listen to the CD again. This review by Ken Tucker on Fresh Air pretty much sums up how I feel about it.
In other music news, thanks to my friend Gary Charlson I now have CDs from one of my favorite bands of the early ’80s, Staten Island’s own Dirty Looks (don’t confuse them with the later hard rock band from Pennsylvania. These guys were on the English punk label Stiff Records).
I had the first album on vinyl; the freshly re-issued CDs include that, some live tracks, and the second album, which I never even knew about. Dirty Looks combined pop vocals with punk urgency, and their anthem “Let Go” is one of the most fun songs I’ve ever played in a band. “Don’t you know that rock’n’roll is still the best drug” pretty much says it all, to this day.
Comments
Pat,
I've always felt Ringo was highly under rated. I'm glad you as a drummer confirm this. Lennon once said the only drummer he would want behind him is Ringo.
By the way have you seen Zak playing with The Who? He does Keith Moon better then Keith Moon could do Keith Moon.
As far as the enginers at Apple studios go (and George Martin) the things they did with the limited technology they had back then is most amazing. I feel very spoiled with Digital Performer because I have all the virtual tracks and effects I could ever want. Back then they were able to do what we do with a zillion tracks in 16. I sometimes think the production pool (and creativity) is actually diluted by technology. I always go back to the production of U2's Boy, which was done for $50,000 in a simple studio as my bench mark.
I could go on for hours on this subject so I'll stop here with my two cents.
All the best,
Andy
Posted by: Andy Prebish | March 5, 2007 09:34 PM
Thanks for the comments, Andy.
There's a long-running thread in interviews I've read with famous engineers and producers. Many of them mention how the limitations of technology, such as the number of tracks on a tape machine, forced them to make decisions early on and to make the recording process as efficient as possible.
The tendency these days, with Pro Tools, Digital Performer, Logic Pro, or whatever, is to keep everything and delay decision-making until the last possible moment. Which can make the mixing process a nightmare, because you don't remember why you did something before, or which parts you really really liked. Worse, you don't play to a specific concept of the song--because you don't have one--and when it comes time to mix there isn't really an optimal performance to choose from once you've finally decided on your approach.
Over and over in these interviews I read that "limitations are a good thing," and it's hard to disagree.
Incidentally, the Beatles only had access to 16 tracks on their final recordings. Sgt. Pepper's famously was recorded on only 4 tracks! Talk about limitations!
I too could go on for hours about this kind of thing (and often have), so I'll stop as well.
Posted by: pat | March 9, 2007 09:56 AM