1966
Notes on 1966:
Who, listening to pop music in those days, will forget the sounds of 1966? Pop music decided to grow up that year and it wasn't just the Beatles bringing the new sounds. There were fantastic songs full of great sounds coming from all directions. The music of '66 brought class as well as garage. From Sunshine Superman (which really caught my ear) to Cherish to They're Coming to Take Me Away to Daydream to Kicks to Wild Thing to Happy Jack (have you listened to that song lately?), it was very cool - in my opinion it was the best year for pop music ever. On top of all that great noise, Paperback Writer blasted out of our radio speakers with a sound that was fresh and a bit wild.
When the Beatles went to record what became the Revolver album, there was a huge challenge in front of them. They could very easily have hit a dry period, having long since grown completely tired of their lives as Beatles. If you have ever read Lewisohn's book on their day-to-day lives you might have wondered how they stayed sane at all through the mid sixties. In fact, it's somewhat amazing that they didn't chuck it all in at this point.
Instead, Paul McCartney chose this time to shine and the Beatles rode the wave with him. In 1966, Paul was a part of the art scene in London and into some pretty far out stuff. It was his idea to bring the tape loops in that became such a huge part of Lennon's Tomorrow Never Knows (the banshee Indian sounds were taken from a guitar loop). While the othe Beatles were wisely trying to spend their time resting, it was Paul who was listening to strange music and wanting to bring a new sound to the Beatles. Revolver has some great Lennon songs, there is no doubt. But it's Paul's songs and sounds that seem to define the sound of the Beatles in 1966 (just as it was John who seemed to define their sound in 1965). Paul brought a certain classical influence to the album and it showed itself in a number of ways. But also, he brought some amazing and dynamic bass playing. He was using his Rickenbacker exclusively in the studio now (even though he used the trusty Hofner on stage). With it, he created a new style of bass playing that -along with his playing on the white album - reverberates through the bass community to this day. People still talk in amazement about what he did on Rain and Paperback Writer. He was on fire this year and it came through onto the Revolver album and R/PBW single in a huge way.
The recording of Revolver began in early April 1966. Paperback Writer
was recorded on April 14th.
If those people that were digging up the Paul Is Dead clues had
placed his death between November 11th 1965 (the final Rubber Soul session) and April 6th, 1966 -
I'd probably have trouble disbelieving them.
And all of this so far says nothing about what might be the best single record ever recorded and it was done in 1966: Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever. John and Paul were at their individual best, in my opinion. What a year. What a year.
PAPERBACK WRITER (single)
It's a whole new bass player who emerged on June 10th, the day Paperback Writer and Rain was released as a single.
Reviews of Paperback Writer, over the years, have tended to cast it off as being a fairly weak song. Better lyrics are demanded. But the reviewers miss the point entirely, as usual. It is not the lyrics that drive this song; it's the sound, the vibrating feel of it. It's George's lead guitar riff, John's tremolo rhythm, Ringo's driving beat and Paul's soaring bass playing. The sound of the song was completely different than anything else out in its day. The four musicians clicked together as a unit, each one completely holding his own and feeding into the wild sound.
You just about have to go back in time and listen to what else was on the charts and playing on the radio in 1966 and 1967 to really grasp how powerful these songs were when they were released. It has been said many times, but it's true. There was nothing like it around.
George played the heavy hook line on his 1962 Gibson Les Paul
(SG) Standard to John's heavily tremoloed Gretsch Nashville. The two guitarists always managed to sound great together and Paperback Writer is one of the prime examples of that blend. The mix of the two really moves the song. The vocals are
extraordinary; ingeniously arranged and recorded with flash and style. But, in the eyes of history, it's the bass that really cuts this song. Paul's bass fills leading into the verses are by now legendary. It was one of the first major hits- along with its flip side - that really featured bass (bass guitar--Johnny Cymbol fans, hold those letters).
RAIN (single)
In its finished form, Rain was slowed down from the tempo it was originally recorded at.
This change was engineered to give the sound a warmer, almost dripping feel. But when you consider the fact that it is slower, think about how fast it must have been recorded. Take heed, Ringo bashers, he did this drumming at a FASTER speed than the record. Those who wish to hear "monster" bass playing, 1966 style, sit back and enjoy the show. Like so many facets of the Beatles' legacy, it's as alive today as it was then.
A lot of the song is played up the neck, but there are a number of lines where he gets from down the bottom end to up high quickly. Since the song comes out in G, it's my guess that they originally played it in A, allowing Paul to play the low open A and get up above the high G on the first string with relative ease. Listen to the bass line just after "Can you hear me? Can you hear me? He gets from the low G to the high G just a little too quickly for it to be otherwise. If the song was not recorded, originally, in A, then the other possibility is that a capo was used.
Still, the bass work is at the same time heavy and flowery. An iron butterfly, if you will. It wasn't long after this that bass players in recording sessions and bands around the world found themselves facing the dilemma of having to "play like McCartney, man".
My favorite piece of me is what I did on 'Rain.' I think I just played amazing. I was into the snare and hi-hat. I think it was the first time I used this trick of starting a break by hitting the hi-hat first instead of going directly to a drum off the hi-hat. . . I think it's the best out of all the records I've ever made. 'Rain' blows me away. It's out of left field. I know me and I know my playing, and then there's
'Rain'.--Ringo Starr5
Side notes of 1966:
It was a whole new era in recording and bass playing. That same year, Cream formed and Jack Bruce with his six-string bass started dazzling the masses in England. Entwhistle and the Who started taking off that year as well. One thing you can say about Paul McCartney; he's up to a challenge. It would have been easy to just take a back seat to the virtuosos, but not so Paul because it was now that he started really making his mark. Not bad for a mop top, eh?
THE EMERGENCE OF YOUNG GEOFF EMERICK
Geoff Emerick became the Beatles engineer after Rubber Soul.
What would Revolver have sounded like with the outgoing EMI sound engineer Norman Smith?
Perhaps a lot drier. More like Rubber Soul, maybe, but one thing's for sure; it would
have sounded nowhere near like it did. Smith left either to pursue his own producing
career (as per George Martin) or because he knew it was time to hop off (as per Norman
Smith himself) .
Rubber Soul wasn't really my bag at all so I decided that I'd
better get off the Beatles
train.--Norman Smith
6
Before the brilliant Mr. Smith departs, I think it should be pointed out that he was the engineer on some of the greatest moments of pop music of all time. The early Beatles records were fantastic and hold up well to this day. Norman Smith was engineer during the times when the Beatles had very little time for recording their records. They would basically pop in, have a huge session and run out into the world again. He didn't have the technology available to him that the later Beatles engineers had. I don't think you can deny that he did a fantastic job during his tenure.
This move, for whatever reason, is all-important in any consideration of the next Beatles records. To emphasize this major point, put Rubber Soul and Revolver into your CD (or whatever) player and just skip around between albums for a while. You'll see it wasn't just, as so often has been reported, that the Beatles had gotten better, it was also that the recording techniques went out of the universe in 1966, using compression techniques that are so evident on Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road. Norman Smith was great, Geoff Emerick was young and ready to burn.
'Paperback Writer' was the first time the bass sound had been heard in all its excitement. For a start, Paul played a different bass, a Rickenbacker. Then we boosted it further by using a loudspeaker as a microphone. We positioned it directly in front of the bass speaker and the moving diaphragm of the second speaker made the electric
current.--Geoff Emerick6
What a wild process, one that is used in some stereo systems today; created at Abbey Road for that song. Note that here Emerick doesn't claim specifically that it was the first time he used the Rickenbacker, which would have been - most probably - an incorrect statement. Instead he refers to it as a "different" bass. It might do well to keep in mind that Emerick's involvement on Rubber Soul (when Paul was first seen to have it in use) may have been minimal. It wasn't until the Revolver sessions that Emerick became the main engineer.
Geoff walked-in green but because he knew no rules he tried different techniques, and because
the Beatles were very creative and adventurous, they would say yes to everything. The chemistry
of George and Geoff was perfect and they made a formidable team. With another producer
and another engineer things would have turned out quite differently.--Tape operator Jerry
Boys6
Geoff started off by following Norman Smith's approach because he'd been Norman's assistant
for a while. But he rapidly started to change things around, the way to mike drums or bass,
for example. He was always
experimenting.--Ron Pender6
REVOLVER
Notes on Revolver:
The sound of this entire album is completely unique. I know of no other album that sounds close to it. Many fans and reviewers (and even George Martin) have referred to it as their favorite Beatles album. For this album, it was the sounds that the Beatles sought to bring to the fore. Tracks were slowed down and sped up to achieve sounds.
Much has been made of the Beatles' increasing dissatisfaction with their ability to perform to any standard in concert. It is quite possible that this fact, while a frustration for them at that point, was a significant factor in the incredible leaps and bounds they were making in the studio during these years. In other words, the worse they felt about their live work, the more attention was given to their studio work. It is possible that had their concerts given them more satisfaction, their studio work might not have been given the incredible energy and attention it was. If so, then let us give thanks to the screaming fans. Without them, perhaps Revolver wouldn't have happened.
GOT TO GET YOU INTO MY LIFE
McCartney really began to take his instrument seriously in 1966. His playing throughout the album, throughout 1966, was at a peak. At times it was bold, at times tender. Sometimes quiet, sometimes loud; whatever the song called for.
Would he agree, however, that something more might have been done on Got To Get You Into My Life. If, as books indicate he was looking for a Motown sound, he might have beefed his line up just a bit; played a line that moved the song a little more. This is not an assault on simple playing but McCartney's attack (the dynamic of how he puts pick to string) sounds as if it's back to the old style of hammer picking. Without much backing instrumentation (aside from horns), it leaves things a bit empty sounding.
TAXMAN
On Taxman, the bass playing sounds like the bass is going through a Marshall stack, giving it a power rock sound. Excellent all the way around, especially when you consider that Paul was also busy recording that incredible guitar solo.
In one of the few moments I have heard of George complimenting McCartney, he has
been quoted as being pleased with the lead solo, and that McCartney had worked
to develop an Indian sound. The bass
part is a good rock bass line, simple and direct. All the playing, in
fact, on this song is simple and direct, with the exception of the guitar
solo. The Beatles knew no rules. On one song (Tomorrow Never
Knows) sounds and notes would fill your ears. On this song, each note was
premium.
Here is a note from Pierre Charron who wrote to me in December of 07 to enlighten me about a detail of this song.
I am a professionnel musician and a sound mixer in Quebec, Canada. I used to play bass for many years (I still do) and I also play guitar, keyboards and drums. I'm a real Beatles fan, and to have listened to their tracks in all the possible ways, so for the drums and the bass, I could honestly say that I can't really miss some details in their recording. But in all the articles I've read or the bands I've heard, there is one detail that nobody seemed to take care about concerning the song "Taxman". If you listen carefully to the bass line, you will notice that McCartney doubles the high D note in his riff, right on the second beat instead of playing just one simple half note. This is interesting (and somewhere unusual in standard bass playing - you would play those double sixteenth note as an anticipation to fall on the beat with the second one instead of the first -) because it gives an off beat that is interpreted by a lot of musicians to be played by the bass drum. Even if the kick and the bass aren't always tight togheter in this song, you can clearly isolate the bass and find that the combination of both instruments (with the heavy compression) gives a real punchy sound that makes us ask: Who plays what? I found this when, for my own pleasure, I decided to track "Taxman" in my recording studio playing every part of the song. I have heard so many "Remakes" of that song in different situations and never, never that second sixteenth note was played!
I've read your article about "The evolution of Paul McCartney bass playing" and enjoyed it, it's always good to get some hints about the Beatles... even when you're 52 y.o.!. I hope you will appreciate this information.
I don't know how Pierre knew I'm 52. Maybe he meant that he's 52? But he's right, if you listen to the song you hear two quick notes in succession on the high "D". As he has pulled apart many Beatles songs, I hope he has many more insights to give to the rest of us.
AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING
(Anthology version)
Take 2 of this song seems, in retrospect, as solid and interesting as the excellent released version. The bass playing on this earlier version is certainly more prevalent. If only we could hear this without the giggling Beatles, we might have a new classic Beatles song on our hands. The bass line that brings the vocals into the song is precise and heavy. Good work.
OTHERS FROM REVOLVER
I'm Only Sleeping, obviously slowed WAAAYYY down, had a nifty treat for us - an actual solo bass line and some good crash style drumming. And Your Bird Can Sing, Dr. Robert, I Want To Tell You and the amazing Tomorrow Never Knows all feature great, solid bass playing. Yeah, it was 1966, and bass playing was starting to flourish. Rarely again would the words "bass should be felt and not heard" pass out of tired lips. The revolution that had begun over 20 years earlier with Woody Herman's amazing bass player, squelched and then revitalized for a while with Chuck Berry's bass player, and then squelched again, was back on - never to be squelched again.
Guitar players, take that!
PENNY LANE (single)
This song's moods are set,
one after the other, by the bass and piano. Beneath the
flourishes of brass, bells, vocals and all else, the beat drives on with the
bass and piano firmly at the controls. There was a lot of effort
put into getting the piano sound just right 6
and it was overdubbed many times by both John and Paul.
The interplay between the piano and bass is
intriguing. At the beginning of the verses, the bass provides a
happy-go-lucky feel, walking from chord to chord while the piano - with its
well thought out inversions - provides an air of almost orchestral
class. You can almost see the conductor, wand with staccato
waves, leading it. The two are not necessarily at odds with each
other, but the difference is interesting. It's where they come
together that is really striking. Here are the lyrics to the
first verse:
Penny Lane there is a barber showing
photographs
Of ev'ry head he's had the pleasure to know
And all the people that come and go
Stop and say hello
At the point where the word 'know' is sung,
the chord shifts to a Gm. The bass stops its jaunty walk and
falls in line with the piano. This chord change causes one of
the biggest mood shifts of any Beatle song. While, a moment ago,
we had been walking along Penny Lane on a bright and sunny day, greeting
passers-by, suddenly a cloud has passed over the sun. We see
deviousness in the people, and what about that barber? It's not
until the "Stop and say hello" that the sun seems to
re-appear.
There is a lesson for us here.
One of the more effective things that can be done in a performance is to
begin something and then suddenly remove it. In this case, its
the jaunty bass walk. Its removal, along with the major to minor
shift and particularly emphatic striking of the piano chords, was all
it took to do it.
Penny Lane is, in this author's opinion, as
good or better than any pop song ever released. So much going
on, so much musicianship, so much gamesmanship with the arrangement and yet
it is all done under cover of a cool exterior. This is the Paul
McCartney of 1966 (song recorded late that year).
Talk about lessons. The Beatles were learning them and using them
to excellent advantage.
I don't think enough can be said about this song, and so I will add
the comments of Australian Richard Goodwin (notes sent in an email to
the author, used by
permission):
I loved your assessment of Penny Lane ; for me it is
simply the greatest single ever (because of Strawberry Fields) -- I also give
an equal first place to All Along The Watchtower by Hendrix -- that's a
different story though.
Can I just say that in Penny Lane, the tone of the
bass from the first note got to me, and its first descending half dozen notes
are like something an orchestral bass would do. Most bass players never
achieve anything like this energy, joy and inventiveness in a lifetime.
McCartney did it over and over, but never better (For No One is always very
orchestral in its approach). The bass bubbles and pops around into and out of
the song, much like the person in the song is popping in and out of the shops
and locations in Penny Lane. I understand that the bass was one of the last
parts recorded (possibly before the piccolo trumpet, but after the
"rhythm" section had been laid down) so it is really freed from the
kind of role Donald Dunn uses to ground the song in the root note of each
chord (what a genius he is, too!). In fact, in this song, McCartney doesn't
seem to be thinking chordally, the way guitarists do -- he's just
accentuating and underpinning the melody.
My other comment is that on Revolver, quite a few
songs abandon chordal progression in favour of the drone (Tomorrow Never
Knows, even Taxman) -- this would have dragged dreadfully with most bass
players, but McCartney lightens things up and provides melodic interest. Get
your average rock player to play one of these songs, and listen to what
happens, as the drone becomes a dirge.
Here are some comments regarding Paul's bass playing ca 1966 from Michael Kimsal (9/28/08)
Your insight in to the impact of Geoff Emerick stepping in between Rubber Soul and Revolver was spot on, and his contribution can *not* be understated. This was probably one of the earliest examples of Emerick's work as the lead engineer, and I think his ability to bring the bass forward was as much in response to the Beatles' demands to push in new directions as it was his own interest in, perhaps, making a name for himself (using a bass speaker as a microphone, for example). What's the worst thing that would have happened? It wouldn't have worked and they'd have gone back to what they'd done before? I think the freedom the group had (beatles + emerick + martin) both in terms of time and money in the studio shouldn't be overlooked either. I don't doubt others perhaps had some of these same ideas, but few could take the time to have top notch equipment and engineers mix it up with a bottomless money machine.
Some of the bass sounds from Motown and the US (Brian Wilson in particular) were supposed inspirations for the push towards greater bass innovation in the UK, and the Rubber Soul/Revolver period was certainly the beginnings of that innovation. Some Motown tracks from '65 had some pretty interesting bass lines, and I can see those sorts of lines inspiring McCartney to let loose a bit more. However, as with most things Beatles, they took things to a new level.
Early covers (Please Mr. Postman, for example) just sound so much better in the Beatles' hands. Not necessarily from a 'gut' feeling (I like some of the rawness of early Motown) but the sound *quality* of all the Beatles' tracks - the clarity mostly - is miles beyond what was most other acts and studios seemed to be putting out. It was obviously capable of being done technically - the Beatles did it - but reverb and muddy 'raw' sounds (the 'wall of sound' influence) seemed to rule the times with so many other acts that the individual contributions (guitars, bass, drum lines, keyboards, etc) seem to melt together. It's often a nice effect, but you completely lose out the full impact. For example, some James Jamerson lines were really killer, but *so* hard to hear, without pristine equipment and remastered versions. I was in a variety band in college and had to do a lot of Motown medleys. Getting the sheet music and seeing the complexity of some of Jamerson's work was extremely impressive, but completely went over my head when just hearing it on the radio or records. Not so with McCartney's bass playing (or Harrison's guitar work, or Ringo's drum parts, etc.).
The ability for George Martin to have mixed each player's contributions to such fine effect, and to have preserved so much of the original clarity/quality from the start, is something else that just can't be understated either. I *love* the Stones, but compare much of their 60s work with the Beatles'. Whatever musical innovations each player was contributing (Wyman's a great bass player) tended to get 'lost in the mix', and I think that was (unforunately) intentional on their part, going for a 'raw blues' sound. Terribly shame, really.
TO ANALYZE
1966:
Most people who work with a tool of any kind know that when you
get a better tool, one that completely outshines what you had before, you can get more creative.
It is true with most pursuits and musical instruments are prime examples.
For example, a child that begins learning on a cheap instrument will be able to begin grasping the
fundamentals of the instrument but will not attain a truly good sound until they have upgraded to
a higher quality model. People who get new musical instruments
that sound better than before suddenly become many times better in their musicianship.
Combining the Rickenbacker bass that Paul began using in 1965 with the studio techniques and sounds
available to them during these years, '66 and '67 were banner years for Paul's bass
playing and, with songs like Paperback Writer, took full advantage of his new range.
|