The ShadowMusic Web Community

Hi Iain - isn't the Abbey Road track a different take? There's an extra 3 note 'melody bit' near the outro - which I rather cherish as three extras of that 'wonderful' tone.

Mike

Iain Purdon wrote:The unissued unaccompanied version on the "Shadows at Abbey Road" compilation runs a little slower but I think that's simply down to tape speed. If you run it at the "right" speed you can hear that it's the same version to which the orchestra was later added.

The undubbed version (take 8) from the CD "The Shadows At Abbey Road" is not the basic version to which the orchestra was added. The take to which it was added, is take 13, which appears in undubbed form on the CD "Everything Of Value - Rarities 2".

Performances with that X factor are superior I suppose even with a supposed glitch - but I wonder if any glitches were originally less audible in mono or on record.

I'm sure glitches and 'noises off' were not noticeable on mono, steam radios and Dansettes and yes they really do add something to the reality of the music.

Someone on You Tube said 'it sounds like they are right there in the room with you' (Atlantis I think?) - that's about it I reckon.


Mike

There's an (almost) fluffed note from Hank towards the end of the 1966 version of Razzmatazz, if i remember correctly.
I loved that during the 60's slight fluffs were left in the recordings, that simply doesn't happen now due to advances in technology i guess but sometimes on newer re-releases some fluffs are removed such as the vocal fluff at the end of Day Tripper!

Thanks for putting me straight, gentlemen. I got carried away with my theory!

I hear nothing other than Hank's palm not dampening the third and fourth strings as much as the first and the second. The two notes that precede the C in question also ring out more than they are cut off. They're not being completely palm-muted. You may think they're louder because they've been dropped-in, but that's not the case. It's because the volume on Hank's channel has been raised for that section of the tune to compensate for the lower volume of his damped notes. I have always seen that variation in volume and style of attack as Hank's way of expressing the melody; it's not a mistake in my book. Some of us have been copying the voicing of those notes for years.

There are many, many examples of Hank using this semi-palm-muting technique: he kills the note just enough to let the chatter of the echo cut through whilst letting the string continue to ring. Listen for it in Apache.

The louder note/s has/have absolutely nothing to do with 'dropping-in' during the post-production mix.

Thanks Justin, I’m more than happy to go with your analysis. It’s based on closer study than I gave it, backed with expertise that few possess to the degree that you do.

All good stuff - could notes actually be 'dropped in' anyway in 1961/2?

Mike

MikeAB wrote:All good stuff - could notes actually be 'dropped in' anyway in 1961/2?

Mike

That, I would imagine, is the pertinent question!

Would it have been deemed necessary, even if considered at all, to resort to such measures, given the technology of the period? Presumably, the only option available was the exacting and time consuming process of tape editing.

Bill