| Author | Message | ||
     XY765 Member Username: Judge Post Number: 528 Registered: 01-2006 |
The Beatles: A fascinating, 10-minute 'Revolution' mysteriously appears Feb 23, 2009, 06:03 PM | by Rob Brunner Over the past couple of days, Beatles fanatics have been chattering about an amazing outtake that recently leaked onto the Internet. The 10-minute-plus recording of "Revolution" (embedded below) offers a fascinating look at the wildly ambitious plans the band originally had for the song, eventually included in much shorter form on The White Album. "As someone who's heard, I'd say, 99.8 percent of the Beatles music that has leaked onto bootleg, this is really interesting," says Richie Unterberger, author of the book The Unreleased Beatles. According to Mark Lewisohn's definitive book The Beatles: Recording Sessions, this unheard version was recorded on May 30 and 31, and June 4, 1968. Strangely, John Lennon recorded his vocals while lying flat on his back, hoping it might make his voice sound different. The song starts off very similar to the version that was eventually released, but halfway through it veers off in all sorts of strange directions, adding whooping vocals, tape loops, and other sonic embellishments. It sounded great, as you can hear above, but there was a problem: The band quickly realized "Revolution" had potential as a single, and a 10-minute running time would make that impossible. The solution? They chopped it in half. The first part became "Revolution 1," while the rest served as the basis for the "Revolution 9," an experimental noise-fest that has long baffled many fans. Mystery solved! When you listen to this complete 10-minute version, suddenly "Revolution 9" starts to make a lot more sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDvzHqytw p8 How the track leaked after all this time is hard to say. It's possible -- but highly improbable -- that one of the few people with access to EMI's vaults swiped it. More likely, it came (indirectly) from Lennon himself. According to Lewisohn's book, Lennon took a copy of the song home with him from the studio after the June 4 session. It's possible that the recording sat in his apartment in the Dakota for years, and somebody -- the cable guy? The dog walker? -- recently stole it. "That's not so far-fetched," says Unterberger. "John kept a lot of his tapes. Who knows if it was someone rummaging through Yoko's stuff in an unauthorized capacity, but it's possible that she still had that tape." But whatever happened, we're grateful. It's not often that completely new Beatles material trickles out, and we're eager for anything that helps solve the endless mysteries of the band's ever-elusive genius. So what do you think? Is this better than the two songs it became, "Revolution 1" and "Revolution 9"? Or would you rather keep listening to the originals? http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/02/ beatles-revolut.html | ||
| XY765 Unregistered guest |
Looks like EMI pulled it before I had a chance to listen to it.. | ||
| Geoff Holmes Member Username: Geoff Post Number: 461 Registered: 05-2005 |
EMI have already closed it down: BASTARDS!!!!!! | ||
| spence Member Username: Spence Post Number: 2928 Registered: 05-2005 |
Funny how when someone being beaten up or worse stays on Youtube but as soon as you mention the beatles, its off | ||
| Rob Brookman Member Username: Rob_b Post Number: 1359 Registered: 08-2006 |
That's so true, Spence! | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 409 Registered: 04-2005 |
It's all over the internet if you want to hear it; it's quite interesting, but several commentators are saying that it is not necessarily genuine. And yesterday an 'alt mix' of "Revolution 9" appeared on YouTube; to these less than expert ears it certainly sounds pretty suspect ! Back to the more-is-less argument; I have copies of the Anthology CDs and several bootlegs but whilst they are interesting if I want to listen to the Beatles they are certainly not the first choice. There appear to be those fans who are waiting for the release of the 27 minute version of 'Helter Skelter' as if it is the holy grail; given that the Fab Four were not known for their instrumental and improvising skills let it rest in the archives please. We are not talking John Coltrane here! I don't know how YouTube's deletion policy works exactly, but I imagine if EMI start throwing their legal weight around there will be action ? I don't really see any great conspiracy theory. Spence, last time I checked out Paul Haig on YouTube there was a particularly dodgy montage of semi-naked women (using one of his instrumentals) that appeared. Simply in the interests of good-taste it should be pulled... | ||
| spence Member Username: Spence Post Number: 2935 Registered: 05-2005 |
To be honest, I never liked the track (revolution), thought it was shite, for me, all the rediscovered/unreleased stuff that came about years ago is mighty fine, well some of it, i don't really have a desire to see what's been eft in the cupboard regarding the beadles!!! Re Youtube policy and all that, its all bollocks, there's copyright infringement on such a massive scale, that there's not enough sun years left to sort it. No one, and this includes the companies themselves have an effin clue what's going on with ANYTHING!! Take a show over here called Watchdog. Basically a consumer watchdog programme, flagged up that some seriously fu*kin nasty knives, lock, flick you name it, even knives made out of carbon (a stealth knife they call it) that avoid detection by metal detectors were available to buy through ebay (UK), even though ebay has banned the sale of any knives other than cutlery. The guy from ebay came on the TV, saying yes thay are banned, they'll look into it etc etc etc, and they will put measures in place to ban them. Too fu8kin late mate when your mother has been mugged for a quid or your, god forbid, child ends up in hospital with stab wounds. Andrew, what paul H tune features the scantily dressed females? | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 410 Registered: 04-2005 |
Spence, It was 'Paradise Angel', but looks as if it has gone from YouTube. If you are really interested this saved page gives you an idea of the sheer horror. Can't imagine that a debonair gentleman like Mr Haig had anything to do with it. http://www.midomi.com/index.php?action=m ain.artist_videos&name=PaulHaig&video_id =01e9752ec1368a9136330e80465e3c4e&from=a rtist I think that unless you are talking legal action for copyright infringement, it takes a certain number of people to mail YouTube about a clip before it is removed. But I have no idea what their criteria is for removal. Anyone else know ? | ||
| skulldisco Member Username: Skulldisco Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2008 |
Beatles leak, Beatles pish - same thing really! | ||
| Andrew Kerr Member Username: Andrew_k Post Number: 411 Registered: 04-2005 |
We can safely assume that your name won't be the first on the list then Kevin ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009 /mar/04/beatles-higher-education-liverpo ol-university |