The Beatles "She Loves You" Edit

[lukpac]

Does anyone know WHY these stick out like a huge sore thumb? I mean, listen to From Me To You. There are something like 4 edits in that song. Can you hear them at all? Nope. Yet the edits in SLY are loud and clear. What gives?

[Grant]

Most likely different takes edited together. I guess maybe they used two tape copies to choose from, or the engineer didn't take care to maintain the same settings between takes.

[Beagle]

I listened to SLY as a Capitol single I got for Xmas when I was about 5 years old. I played it over and over and over and I loved it and was very happy and content. It made me feel good when I listened to it.

Edits? Tape hiss? Alternate versions? Who knew? Who cared? It was human, sloppy, charming and oh sooo great.

[Bob Lovely]

All,

This was covered in a very recent thread where Steve fully detailed all the edits.

Bob :cool:

[Steve Hoffman]

Luke just wants to know WHY the edits in this song are so obvious.

Three things:

First, our old 45's had a top cut around 8K, and so did our phonographs! We didn't notice.

Second, for some reason "She Loves You" was recorded with different EQ settings, varying from take to take. Why? Don't know.

Third AND MOST IMPORTANT:

Every CD version (and some of the later 45 cuts of this song) have combined the mono channels during mastering, rendering each edit TWICE as annoying as it should be.

Case in point, the first edit, during the music after the intro. Because the song was mastered L+R (Mastering 101 NO NO), not only do we hear the splice, but we hear the before and after "out of phase" music as well.

Since we all know that edits are not made straight up and down, the mastering engineer should have chosen the left channel ONLY! The splices would have been hidden (except for the EQ change at the end).

CRAPPY MASTERING!

[RDK]

This is the kind of thing, Steve, that really pisses me off! As you say, this is a "Mastering 101 no no" and there's really no excuse for it. Why oh why are we (or more accurately the artists and record companies) trusting our musical heritage to bloody idiots!?

I can completely understand differing philosophies regarding noise reduction, equalization, digital processing, etc. - i may not agree with it, but i can understand it since it's so subjective - but this is mastering nuts-and-bolts stuff we're talking about here. Even a hi-fi idiot like myself knows enough not to combine mono tracks!!!

Ray

[Steve Hoffman]

Especially if there are splices on the tape.

Shee-it!!!!! :eek:

[Paul L.]

http://www.beatletracks.com/btsly.html

discusses the edits and whether or not the backing track is the same as used on Sie Liebt Dich.

Amazing how much analysis there has been of Beatles music.

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Second, for some reason "She Loves You" was recorded with different EQ settings, varying from take to take. Why? Don't know.

Pretty odd, considering in most/all other cases, the EQ remained the same for a particular song throughout the session...

[Vivaldinization]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
Luke just wants to know WHY the edits in this song are so obvious.

Three things:

First, our old 45's had a top cut around 8K, and so did our phonographs! We didn't notice.

Second, for some reason "She Loves You" was recorded with different EQ settings, varying from take to take. Why? Don't know.

Third AND MOST IMPORTANT:

Every CD version (and some of the later 45 cuts of this song) have combined the mono channels during mastering, rendering each edit TWICE as annoying as it should be.

Case in point, the first edit, during the music after the intro. Because the song was mastered L+R (Mastering 101 NO NO), not only do we hear the splice, but we hear the before and after "out of phase" music as well.

Since we all know that edits are not made straight up and down, the mastering engineer should have chosen the left channel ONLY! The splices would have been hidden (except for the EQ change at the end).

CRAPPY MASTERING!


Are you sure the LR combination is on all versions, though? The EP Collection/Red Album version makes the edits a whole lot less obvious..perhaps this one was done correctly?

-D

[Steve Hoffman]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Steve Hoffman:
"For some reason "She Loves You" was recorded with different EQ settings, varying from take to take. Why?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Luke states:

Pretty odd, considering in most/all other cases, the EQ remained the same for a particular song throughout the session...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve replies:

My personal theory as to why "She Loves You" has different pieces that have different sound is as follows:

I base this theory on Norman Petty's description to me of how Abbey Road engineers did things back then.

"She Loves You" was recorded on Twin-Track, with one "bounce" (or was it two?) Then, ALL THE TAKES WERE MIXED TO MONO, each with a little different EQ, compression, etc. George Martin was to choose which one he liked. He decided that he liked a little from this one and a little from that one, etc. So, instead of going back to the twin-track final, the engineer just spliced together various parts of the already mixed song.

When the pieces were cut together, so what if the sound changed a bit? One take even had a mic pushed closer to Ringo's closed hi-hat (the most obvious mic change at the end of the song).

The editor didn't seem to care, or perhaps his "monitor" only went up to 5K.

This theory must hold some water, or the song "I Call Your Name" would have matched, stereo vs. mono intros. Instead, the "I Call Your Name" stereo intro is different, proving that the MULTI-TRACK was unedited, and that the song in stereo was pieced together from different stereo mixes from different takes. Proving that they indeed mixed all good takes and edited them to create a final master, instead of editing a multi-track or twin-track original and mixing straight.

How that theory?

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
"She Loves You" was recorded on Twin-Track, with one "bounce" (or was it two?) Then, ALL THE TAKES WERE MIXED TO MONO, each with a little different EQ, compression, etc. George Martin was to choose which one he liked. He decided that he liked a little from this one and a little from that one, etc. So, instead of going back to the twin-track final, the engineer just spliced together various parts of the already mixed song.

This theory must hold some water, or the song "I Call Your Name" would have matched, stereo vs. mono intros. Instead, the "I Call Your Name" stereo intro is different, proving that the MULTI-TRACK was unedited, and that the song in stereo was pieced together from different stereo mixes from different takes. Proving that they indeed mixed all good takes and edited them, instead of editing a multi-track or twin-track original.

Well, that's certainly the case for the 4-track material - only in RARE cases was the 4-track edited. Most often the mixes were edited together...

However, I know it wasn't the case at least some of the time with the twin-track stuff. Take From Me To You. On that the twin-track session tape was the one that was edited. That's why there's a complete "take 8" on the tape, an unnumbered take after that, and various other takes that sound edited - the edits were made right on the session tape.

Now, I don't know if that was always the case for the early stuff (for instance, the edits must have been made at the mixdown stage for Hold Me Tight), but it was at least some of the time...

Either way - can you really hear the edits in those other songs as clearly? Nope. Money was edited in mono. Does the edit stick out? No.

[Steve Hoffman]

I think George Martin heard the mixes of "She Loves You" and went "Woha, this could be a smash hit" (or something like that :) ), and only then decided to do a little post production editing to "tune" a phrase or two.

Maybe the engineer did a "mock up" edit from the mono mix varients just to see what it would sound like, and GM said go with it. Who knows?

But this is a unique case in Beatles editing, and the above really can be the only logical explaination.

FWIW, I never even heard an edit in that song until I bought the reissue Parlophone 45 Record Box at Tower in the (I think) late 1970's. Even on that cutting they incorrectly combined the two mono channels which made the splices stick out for the first time (at least to me).

[lukpac]

Do you have a version where the splices aren't as noticeable? Ie, like an original single?

It's so odd that not only does the song kind of sound like crap, but all session documentation is lost, as are the tapes.

[Michael]

[QUOTE][i]
Either way - can you really hear the edits in those other songs as clearly? Nope. Money was edited in mono. Does the edit stick out? No.

Different EQ's of the Edit Pieces on "She Loves You". If you listen to the "Boots" you can plainly hear that the echo effects were added during the recording sessions. Not only in the final mix. Listen to the "Do You Want To Know A Secret" Sessions. There's quite a bit of echo on their speaking banter with George Martin! In the US they added more!

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by lukpac
Do you have a version where the splices aren't as noticeable? Ie, like an original single?

It's so odd that not only does the song kind of sound like crap, but all session documentation is lost, as are the tapes.

Well, I have an original Parlophone single, original US Swan, Canadian Capitol, etc. They sound pretty good, edit wise, but no musical tones over like 6,000 cycles.:eek:

But the fact of the matter is this. It's possible that the actual edit points have "bled" on the original tape. If so, the replacement splices would be much more "there".

That, and combining the two mono channels spells disaster on the CD version.

However, how does the CD EP box version sound? That was made with a mono copy tape of the original edited mono master, and, (depending on how it was mastered to CD), might sound like the original tape BEFORE it "bled".

Anyone want to check?

[Joel Cairo]

I don't happen to have a copy of the CD EP box at this point, but one of the things that was being touted on it's release was that "She Loves You" was noticeably improved.

But as you point out, Steve, if they truly used the original EP master, that **should** be the case, for the reasons that you stated.

- Kevin

[Steve Hoffman]

I miss Allen Ludden.
------------------------------------------------------

Well, I went upstairs and checked the Beatles EP box.

"She Loves You" is MUCH BETTER! The splices are pretty much hidden and even the "Pride can hurt you too" edit piece with the extra cymbal splatter at the end is less obvious.

So, if you added a filter around 7k (like on the 45's), you wouldn't even notice that the song was edited....

As for the bad sound quality on this song (and "I'll Get You"), well this is the worst case of the dreaded MONO BEATLES' SPLATTER that one will hear on a Beatles' tape. The limiter is overloading and distorting, and the 1K eq that they are adding to the music doesn't help.

Try pulling out 2db@Ik and 1db@4k if you have a parametric. It helps.;)

[Humorem]

I just got back from a car trip during which I listened to a tape I made from the MOFI Beatles box of the first two albums, side one of Hard Day's Night and all the singles that were recorded at that time, sourced from about a dozen different compilation pressings and sets.

On my cheap Walkman, the edits in She Loves You are awful hard to hear; just one sticks out badly.

But that music still has a hold on me after all these years. It's still fresh. I believe, after listening to this tape twice through recently, that the first album is the better of the first two, with by far the best "sing along" quality of any Beatles record. And better sound too, with less of that subgeneration-tape harmonic distortion on the vocals that plagues their early recordings.

And when Hard Day's Night starts, you immediately recognize that this is a band that has just made a quantum leap to another level. (Plus the vocals are in the center!)

Playing these albums is like discovering the Beatles all over again. What a thrill. Almost makes fighting the traffic in Orange County tolerable. Almost.

TP

[Grant]

Well, it's done, unless someone is willing to go in and mess with it on a DAW, that's the way it is, so enjoy. Good song!

[lukpac]

Originally posted by Grant
Well, it's done, unless someone is willing to go in and mess with it on a DAW, that's the way it is, so enjoy. Good song!

Well, re-doing the edits on the original tape and properly playing it back would help...

[Paul L.]

Steve,
Wasn't the EP box set the one you threw out the window? Or did you go out later and pick it back up?

[Bob Lovely]

All,

I am truly amazed at the volume of discussion over a pretty poorly recorded, poorly mastered early Beatles hit. Historically, it is a "fun record" representative of their early period but hardly their creative peak. I like "She Loves You" but it has not held up as well as some of their other early period recordings as a listening experience. Perhaps, the poor quality recording influences the durability. Sometimes, I believe that we (me included) have a "romantic" attachment to the Beatles that is bigger than the reality of the level of their creativity and output in late 1963. I have always really enjoyed the Beatles but I have never put them on a pedestal either. I saw the Beatles as individually talented muscians whose "sum" talent was greater than the individual parts. In other words, a unique combination of talent, abilities and personalities that worked extremely well as a team for a number of years. I was 13 when the Beatles "hit the scene" and at the time, their music in 1964, did not seem any better or more creative than other better Top 40 artists of the period such as the Four Tops, Supremes, Temptations, Rolling Stones or the Dave Clark Five.

As teenagers we talked more about their haircuts, dress and TV appearances in 1964 than we ever did about their music. By the 1965, 66 the discussions shifted more toward the musical content of their album releases.

One viewpoint from someone who was there in real time....

Bob :)

[Grant]

Good points, Bob!

I just got through replying to a new member who doesn't hold the Beatles in such high regard. I still think they were very creative and talanted but it took George Martin and perhaps some drugs to bring it out of them!

I took it all in when I was there the first time. I was a toddler but really listened to it all from the Temptations to the Rolling Stones to Tom Jones to Dionne Warwick to...whomever! But I listen to that stuff today and I still hear the magic!

[Todd Fredericks]

I think "She Loves's (Luv's) You" hold's up very well. All the energy, excitement and "pump" still pours out of that song. It's a damn well-written song musically and also the concept, lyrics, etc. I still love the opening drums (very powerful). It's a good early Beatles power-lunch...

Todd

I wasn't there but I caught the re-runs...