Indian instruments - Love You To

Actually ADT is meant to create just such an effect. The fact that the second vocal is behind on the line "so fast" but is caught up on the line "it's past" is entirely due to the oscillation of the ADT effect. I'm not 100% convinced that the acoustic guitar is on the same track as the vocal, but the effect of ADT on the guitar would be very different than on the vocal. I don't think it would be easy to discern differences between the two tracks.

But the biggest evidence that there is no second vocal recording, is that there is simply no room. Two of the three tracks are already being used by the bounce down and the overdubs, so there is no other track to put the vocals on.

 

I'm thinking that Lewisohn is a better writer than listener.

Okay guys- upon further scrutiny of this song I conclude that:

George's voice is manually double-tracked AND ADT'd.
Paul's vocal is ADT'd.
There is no fuzz bass OR bass guitar on the song.
There is only one sitar and one tamboura and one tambourine and ALL heavily ADT'd.

As a matter of fact I think the acoustic guitar is the only instument NOT ADT'd.

Peace Love and Hare Kirshner
Marky

 

Marky, I agree with you something is not quite right with what he says. And there's something odd about the ADT also. I was listening to the mono mix, and the line "so fast" is slow on both the stereo and mono mixes. If the ADT was used live onto the mix, it's just inconceivable that it would come out the same on both. So maybe there is a second vocal after all, but where would they have put it?

But there is one thing I have to disagree with you on. There is definitely a second guitar/bass fuzz instrument in there. The fuzz guitar on the refrain is on one track clearly. But there is also a guitar or bass with heavy effects that plays along with the sitar at the end of the song. That instrument, whatever it is, is on the same track as the sitar. It's not that clearly heard on the mono or stereo mix, but on the Yellow Submarine songtrack it is heard very clearly.

 

I can dig what you're saying, my friend I hear it too but I believe it is a fuzz guitar. There's nothing that sounds remotely like a bass or fuzz bass on the recording (to me anyway).

Do we even know which Beatles actually played on this track?
If I were to disregard Lewisohn completely (which I don't think we should do but...)
This would have made the most sense:
It seems to me that they would have taped a live 2 track of these instruments-
Sitar (George)
Tamboura (Paul)
Tablas (Anil)

George Martin could have mixed, added ADT and panned it while simultaneously recording it to tracks 1 and 2 (just naming those tracks for argument's sake). Or he could have used a track purely for ADT. Or he could have given each instrument their own track and had George and Paul sing on track 4. Then he would make a mix with those instruments (keeping in what McCartney vocal they were going to keep).

Is this possible at all? If so then...

This take is now reduced to 2 tracks of a fresh 4 track tape. Onto this take is added another Harrison vocal (track 3) and acoustic guitar (George) fuzz guitar (Paul) and tambourine (Ringo) on track 4.

This might not be right but it sure sounds like it could be.
That Recording Sessions book was like a bible to me back in the late 80's and onward. But I believe that Lewisohn dropped the proverbial "ball" on at LEAST a few of the tracks.

The only way we could really decipher if we could hear the takes still left in the can.

Peace Love and Bangor in the can
Marky

 

Right, that fuzz bass is on the right channel on the YS Songtrack, along with the second sitar, which doubles certain parts and hits a wrong note right after the third verse in that little "solo" part right before the last refrain (you can hear it on the Songtrack version). Thanks to Nick for spotting that!

The second vocal could have been on TRK 3 on take 7, the "unused" track. Look at where it is on the recording sheet, it's written directly across from RM3. It was pointed out to me that this might mean that TRK 3 wasn't used only on RM3, and that it could have been used on RM1 and RM2. If that was the case, then maybe that was the purpose of editing together all three mono mixes, to edit out the unwanted Paul vocal but leave in the part of TRK 3 that had George's "another vocal" on it. But then there's still the "two with ADT, one without" statement about the mono mixes to consider, and the fact that RM3 is marked "best."

Lewisohn doesn't say anything else about bass or fuzz guitar.

-Steve

 

I can add some more fuel to the fire....A few months before Anthology 2 was suppose to be released (remember McCartney had it pulled when he realized 3 Lennon songs started the proceedings...IN A ROW ) well, Musician magazine supposedly had a rough mix of the CD, when it still contained an "early" version of Granny Smith aka Love You To. The article says it features George on acoustic guitar and vocals, Paul on fuzz bass and harmony vocal, and tambourine. No sitar, no tamboura...nothing else. Now, of course it's conceivable that the re-mixed version could have flown-in the tambourine from latter in the multi's...simply to provide a rhythm...or the tambourine was indeed recorded earlier in the sessions. For some unknown reason, George vetoed the selection at that last minute. I believe, It's Only Love replaced it as it was not on this rough cassette mentioned. All Together Now and Here There and Everywhere were also scheduled to be on A2, but again were left off at the last minute...replaced by Within You, Without You and take 4 of Fool On The Hill. HTAE was issued on the Real Love CD5. Cheers, Ron

 

Lewisohn's publisher dropped the ball by hurrying him and limiting the length of the book. If only we could hear those takes....

-Steve

 

Hi Ron, which issue is this in? Do you know or do you have a copy? Does it specifically say "early" version?
-Steve

 

Well Steve that was true for the Recording Sessions book, but any corrections, deletions, updates should have been on Chronicles, IMO. This thread started off by wondering if George didn't play sitar on the recording...simply because Lewisohn mentions off-handedly that new documentation may indicate this to be true. The revised book certainly has new recording session sheets and tape box labels, so my conjecture all along has been Lewisohn should have either left that comment out entirely, OR showed said document. Saying he was hurried, while true, does not mean he should make statements that are different from those in his first book, without giving reasons or proof...all again, in my humble opinion. Ron

 

It says "early" version in quotes like that. I don't have the issue number but I'm sure I can find it...I'll post it when I do get it.....or send you a PM. Ron

 

Now for once that makes more sense rather than add to the confusion. It's possible that the fuzz bass was recorded with the early takes and then remained on the later takes. So Take 6 would have included the guide vocal, fuzz bass, 2 sitars, tamboura, etc. All that would have been bounced to 1 track (except for the guide vocal or the vocal would have been put on one track that was later erased). Then they would have added the electric guitar, tambourine, and acoustic guitar to another track. The vocal and background vocal would have been added to the third track, and the final track MUST have been used to double track part of the vocal (for some reason). Then they could have used ADT only on the parts of the song that did not have ADT. Another option is that they could have created the mix with ADT first, and then double tracked part of the vocal and then edited the two together. Whew! Does that make sense.

 

Makes sense to me

 

I think the problem with Lewisohn's take on it, is that it's not possible for the mix to sound the way it does if you follow his chain of events to the letter.

 

Thanks, Ron.
-Steve

 

I agree, his sequence of recording seems to be off a bit. That said, I still think the acoustic guitar is on the basic take. To me it makes sense to have a rhythmic foundation like that to hang the overdubs on.