Beatles "Sexy Sadie" extended version, for those that have not heard this.
who?
RichL
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-BE-x-k4es&feature=related
I like that one, Jeff. The only thing I didn't like was that it seemed
George's guitar is pushed down in the mix.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
Something sounds odd about it. I think it's the regular studio version
up to minute 3, then it cross-fades to a minute of a different
performance. This may be an "outfake" created by a fan sometime
recently.
Still, it's interesting to hear those few extra unfamiliar seconds.
richforman
> On 22 Jul 2009, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> rec.music.beatles:
>
> > who? <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-BE-x-k4es&feature=related
>
> > I like that one, Jeff. The only thing I didn't like was that it
> > seemed George's guitar is pushed down in the mix.
>
> Something sounds odd about it. I think it's the regular studio version
> up to minute 3, then it cross-fades to a minute of a different
> performance. This may be an "outfake" created by a fan sometime
> recently.
>
Nah, it's a real alternate or early mix, I have heard it on Chris
Carter's Breakfast with the Beatles on XM Sirius.
richforman
The Walrus was Danny
> Nah, it's a real alternate or early mix, I have heard it on Chris
> Carter's Breakfast with the Beatles on XM Sirius.
Sounds real to me.
Danny
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
>> >> �http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-BE-x-k4es&feature=related
> Nah, it's a real alternate or early mix, I have heard it on Chris
> Carter's Breakfast with the Beatles on XM Sirius.
OK, but don't you hear a splice at 3.00?
Jeff
> On 22 Jul 2009, richforman <rforma...@msn.com> wrote in
> rec.music.beatles:
>
> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-BE-x-k4es&feature=related
> > Nah, it's a real alternate or early mix, I have heard it on Chris
> > Carter's Breakfast with the Beatles on XM Sirius.
>
> OK, but don't you hear a splice at 3.00?
There is no spice. I've owned this recording since 1994, and like
you, I thought there was a splice. But after you listen to it
over and over again...you'll hear there is no splice. The
Beatles just removed that portion of the song, or Martin
did.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> There is no spice. I've owned this recording since 1994, and like
> you, I thought there was a splice. But after you listen to it
> over and over again...you'll hear there is no splice. The
> Beatles just removed that portion of the song, or Martin
> did.
If so, that would be a splice.
Jeff
> On 22 Jul 2009, Jeff <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
Well this version was the original take. The released
version has a splice.
Jeff
wrote:
It is real, and nothing to get hanged about. :-)
Jeff
Jud McCranie
<yourimag...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Well this version was the original take. The released
>version has a splice.
It sounds to me like 16 seconds are taken out of this version to make
the released version.
--
Replace you know what by j to email
ermitano
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Jeff
>
> >Well this version was the original take. The released
> >version has a splice.
>
> It sounds to me like 16 seconds are taken out of this version to make
> the released version.
> --
> Replace you know what by j to email
this is the version from "peter seller tapes", right?
brilton
That's what I'm assuming.
Nil
rec.music.beatles:
> Well this version was the original take. The released
> version has a splice.
I suppose the released version has even more edited out, but I'm pretty
sure something has been edited out of the middle of this version, too.
The transition at minute 3 sounds awkward and artificial, and I think I
hear a second or two where you can hear two drum tracks where the two
sides of the edit are cross-faded.
Jeff
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT), Jeff
>
> >Well this version was the original take. The released
> >version has a splice.
>
> It sounds to me like 16 seconds are taken out of this version to make
> the released version.
> --
> Replace you know what by j to email
Something like that. I have not counted the seconds. :-)
Jeff
Jeff
> On 22 Jul 2009, Jeff <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
You might be right Nil, even though I have never come across a version
that was longer than this one, and I've had this version in my
collection
since 1994. I think I might have sent you the MP3 of "It don't come
easy" with Harrison on Lead vocal. From listening to that, (and you
can tell it's the same version as Ringo's only longer) I can't even
imagine how, (with all of the splices) how it was possible to
determine what parts were to be taken out, and what parts
were to be used for a song for Ringo? I rack my brain on how
someone figured this one out. LOL
Jeff
