Oh, it has nothing to do with capability. Sure, the Beatles were working apart more, but they also still worked together. John and Geoge played bass from time to time, and Paul played lead more often than people are aware.zed wrote:Hmmmmm. I'm not convinced. You may be correct, but I think it is more likely that it was George or John. During the White Album phase, I believe they were doing a lot of sessions separately. It seems statistically less likely that that was Paul... and I'm not sure that that kind of guitar playing is something they wouldn't all have been capable of.
But you may be right.<-- pondering smiley
I would like to find my copy of the "Beatles Recording Sessions" book. I know most all of my Beatle books are in a single box somewhere. I actually bought Beatles Gear again as well as the Emerick book "Here, There, Everywhere"-- just this week-- out of frustration of not being able to get my hands on the original copies I bought years ago. BTW- I just learned that the "Sessions" book (Lewisohn) is out of print, so I must find my copy.
But there is another book I'd like to find called "Day-by-Day, Song-by-Song, Record-by-Record" by Chris Cross that is allegedly a tell-all about each session. Not sure how much detail it contains regarding who played what and on what instruments and which instruments on which songs. Neither am I sure how much detail about specific songs might be documented in this mysterious "Beatles Equipment Guide" book. It seems like more of an inventory of what was "owned" rather than something which connects specific instruments to the tracks and who played them. But if it's due "in 2007" there's not much time left for them to get this thing off the presses.
But, I'm going to find out one way or another who played what and on what instruments and amps in combo if I have to die trying.
There's definitely some Walrus/Mystery Tour influence going on. I only know "Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft", but I'd sooner mistake it for the Rutles than the Beatles. Fun to listen to, but not terribly original.zed wrote: On another note, how could anyone have ever thought that Klaatu were the Beatles?? It is so obvious that they are different. I remember a guy who worked at a record store in New York telling me: "Klaatu sound more like the Beatles than the Beatles themselves."![]()
Yeah right.
"More like the Beatles than the Beatles"? Yeah, that's clearly overstating a more subtle point.
Now HERE's a band that sounds more like the Beatles to my ears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPmb0a5vZA