9

8 10 2009

lennon #9 dream

If he were alive today, 10/9/09, John Lennon would be 69.  He was born in Liverpool England on October 9, 1940.

The number 9 turns up in a lot of things related to John, some of that, of course, was intentional on his part.  But the recurrence of the number as it relates to him is interesting. His second son, Sean Lennon, was born on his 35th birthday, 10/9/75 (happy birthday to him as well.)  His first wife, Cynthia, was born on 10/9/39.

Then there are the songs: “Revolution 9,” “One after 909,” “#9 Dream.”  John “divorced” the Beatles in September 1969.  09/09/09, of course, was the release date of Beatles Rock Band and the remastered album catalog, a happy coincidence.

Be all that as it may, today is his birthday.  I will remember this flawed but brilliant man and express my gratitude for all the wonderful music he gave us.

Advertisements




Another Beatles unreleased track has surfaced: Revolution 9 (alternate mix)

2 03 2009

This is definitely different than the White Album version of  “Revolution 9” but not drastically different.

Questions abound as to the legitimacy of this as a genuine Beatles take/mix or whether it is an “outfake.”





“Beatles historian” thinks “Revolution 1” Take 20 may be the real deal

27 02 2009

Here’s an interesting article that’s a few days old.  Richie Unterberger, author of the book The Unreleased Beatles: Music And Film, believes “Revolution 1” Take 20, which found its way onto the internet this week, is the “real deal.”  The article explains why and discusses other Beatles unreleased tracks like the 27 minute take of “Helter Skelter” and “Carnival of Light.”

http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/beatles-expert-discusses-unreleased-revolution-1-197926

About Revolution 1, he said

With technology these days, it certainly seems theoretically possible to manufacture and overdub some effects that are heard on the circulating version,” says Unterberger. “A particular feature of this circulating recording is the weird, unclassifiable flowing and ebbing swell of a note that occurs throughout – it’s what I call a ‘train-passing-by’ sound. It seems like it could be an electronically manipulated effect or perhaps even a distorted snatch of a harmony vocal.”

Even so, Unterberger believes the sounds were indeed made by The Beatles themselves. “When I hear them, they don’t sound impossible to me that they could have been part of the original recording – The Beatles were coming up with all kinds of unpredictable and futuristic effects in the studio, especially in their final years.

A few days ago, I was not so sure that this new discovery was nothing more than a brilliant “outfake” but people that know the Beatles lost studio work better than I do seem to think it’s likely a legit Beatles product.  I think the fact that EMI had the file pulled from youtube within a day is quite telling.

apple-record





The video is gone, but you can listen to “Revolution 1” Take 20 here

25 02 2009

Ahh, the internet.  Try as they might, the mighty corporate giants of the world can’t keep stuff off the internet once it finds its way onto it.

EMI had youtube pull the “Revolution 1” leak, but other websites have very good quality audio versions.  Here’s one.  Listen and enjoy.

http://www.4shared.com/file/88782849/252f484d/BEArevo.html

LOOKS LIKE THE RIAA HAD THE MP3 PULLED, TOO!  MUST BE THE REAL DEAL.





The newest development in the “Revolution 1” leak story

24 02 2009

Many of you know that yesterday an alleged previously unreleased version of “Revolution 1,” take 20 to be exact, was “leaked” onto the internet and caused something of a firestorm.

I doubted the authenticity of this thing as a Beatles mix.  Sure, it is Beatles music and incorporates elements of both the released “Revolution 1” and “Revolution 9.”  My suspicion was, and still is, that this “newly discovered” Beatles take is a modern mash-up.

But, EMI has pulled the video from youtube.  Perhaps that is only because the mpeg includes, at least in part, previously released material.  But, perhaps it’s because take 20 is authentic.  Why would EMI worry if this were nothing more than a mash-up?

Hmmm. Wondering.





Beatles “Revolution 1” take 20 a hoax?

24 02 2009

It’s all over the ‘net.  Previously unreleased “Revolution 1” Take 20 is creating quite a stir.  I’ve read numerous blogs and articles about it and am surprised at how few people recognize what it is.

This first part is nothing more than the version of “Revolution 1” that found its way onto the White Album sans the electric guitar licks.  There’s additional studio chatter in the beginning of the song.

What is unique about is how “Revolution 1” bleeds into “Revolution 9.”  Surprisingly, a lot of fans (casual observers, perhaps) don’t recognize that the loops are lifted straight from “Revolution 9.”  There’s nothing new in the loops as far as I can tell.

The world awaits confirmation as to the authenticity of this take.  My belief, and I could be wrong, is that this is nothing more than a mash-up done by an audio-savvy fan.  There are a lot of great song mash-ups out there, and this sounds like one of them.

One of the reasons I believe this is not the take in the form in which it was recorded or mixed by the band is that Beatles fans have dig up damn near everything the Beatles done in the studio.  So many bootlegs of their session work exist and have existed for decades.  How is it that this missing take 20 mix stayed hidden for 41 years?  I think this would have found its way onto the Anthology series had it been an authentic Beatles mix.

We’ll see what the surviving Beatles have to say about it, hopefully in the next few days.