Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 09:49 |
Brian Holland got one at Motown too around the same time and from an unknown source! |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 15:34 | ||
WOW! This makes it doubly strange...what in the world was going on? |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 10:50 |
We figured it was some Beatle trying to mess with our heads. (Not to mention succeeding!) I wonder if ours came from Ardent or yours came from Motown... |
Quote: |
To offer some perspective to the readers, "A Day In the Life" was a lot more radical at the time we got the acetate than it was by the time the album got released. Motown went right out and bought the third or fourth Moog modular synthesizer! |
McAllister wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 11:01 |
I would very much like to hear that mix. *hint hint* M |
David Kulka wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 13:14 |
Terry, that truly is a strange and wonderful story. I wonder where the acetate had been cut -- in the US or the UK. Do you know what brand it was? I'm trying to recall what brands were around then in the US -- Transco, Audiodisk, and maybe someone else? I seem to recall that some were made in Germany as well. I wonder what brand was used at Abbey Road, and whether this might be a clue. |
Quote: |
Did Ardent have an alarm system back then? |
Quote: |
As an uninvolved third party hearing your tale (and Bob's recollection of the same thing happening at Motown!), my best guess would be that one of the Beatles was playing an elaborate practical joke, and arranged the whole thing through American contacts. |
Quote: |
Terry, I imagine that you asked a few people at Abbey Road when you worked there but considering your position in the industry, I'd think you could penetrate the layers of management and get in touch with Ringo or McCartney directly to see whether they might be able to solve the mystery. If nothing else, they'd probably enjoy your story as much as we have! |
neve1073 wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 15:54 |
This is one for Sherlock Holmes. It couldn't be a Beatle prank;... if I didn't know better, I'd guess this was an early april fools joke on this forum! |
neve1073 wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 16:39 |
So George Martin never called you back to find out why you hadn't posted the acetate? The fact that he wasn't extremely worried sounds a bit suspicious as I think about it. |
Quote: |
A great story. That guy charles kaufmann should write a screenplay based on this event. |
J.J. wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 19:36 |
A couple things here ... Terry, let me get this straight ... that's YOU playing that line on "Stranger In a Strange Land"? OK, you have worked on too many of my favorite albums. No fair. What other Leon stuff did you work on? I don't know if you saw me ask the question in the weird session thread, but do you know who "Shootout On the Plantation" is about? |
Quote: |
BTW, did you know that they wanted to call the first album "Can a Blue Man Play the Whites?" You probably did, but how many other 35 year olds do you think know that. |
Quote: |
Next, Bob Moog pronounces his last name like 'vogue', but apparently the company is pronounced like 'droog'. (The only word I could think o that rhymed.) This is according to Brian Kehew, and everybody at the Moog booth at NAMM pronouced it that way, too. |
Quote: |
Lastly, I know Bob Olhsson hasn't responded yet, but the earliest synth I can think of on a Motown song is the Supremes' "Reflections". Does anybody know? |
neve1073 wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 20:27 |
I'm telling you, it's government conspiracy. It's a good thing you told us all publicly because now they can't harm you. |
wwittman wrote on Wed, 02 March 2005 14:15 |
Hey Bob, Why did Motown buy a synthesizer after Sgt. Pepper?... |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 03 March 2005 13:37 | ||
I'm pretty sure we bought it before Sgt. Pepper came out. The acetate told us that things were changing fast and obviously we had no idea of the Moog's stability issues. I just asked Mike McLean what he remembers. He thinks someone may have given it to Brian Holland at a convention. I've also been trying to pin down exactly when Tom Nixon left Motown for Stax because there might be some connection there. Mike remembered the acetate as sounding exactly like what eventually came out on the LP as do I. Then we talked for 90 minutes about Bob Moog and his wife! |
Level wrote on Thu, 03 March 2005 12:58 |
Bobs sideburns are the key! They are!!!!!!! |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 March 2005 08:06 |
Terry, are you sure John had nothing to do with it? |
Brian Kehew wrote on Thu, 03 March 2005 07:59 |
Dang. This thread has my name all over it (literally and figuratively!) From the Beatles to Shirleigh Moog! |
Quote: |
Well - Bob says it's "Vogue", the company is called that too (always has been, except in England) and everyone at the booth does say Mogue correctly, except me. But I only say it "isn't" because Shirleigh told me it USED to be Moooog and they changed it. So I side with the ingorant and the genius, not in the middle... |
J.J. wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 06:51 |
Brian, I could swear I heard somebody at the booth say "Mooog". I think you rubbed off on them. (Wait. That doesn't quite sound right...) |
Quote: |
set up through a friend or two who was travelling back and forth. |
Quote: |
1978 February - in an interview with 'Gig' magazine, session drummer Bernard Purdie claims to have played on 21 tracks on the Beatles first three albums, adding that he was paid by Brian Epstein to keep his mouth shut in the amount of "five figures". He also claims to have played on tracks by the Animals and the Monkees. Also, he claims that guitar overdubs were made on several additional tracks. It is believed that Purdie overdubbed drums on the Atco US Single "Ain't She Sweet", and that he may have performed overdubs on other Tony Sheridan recordings which did not feature the Beatles, and was confusing Tony Sheridan and The Beat Brothers with Tony Sheridan and another backing band. |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 10:26 |
My main drum kit, which I've used on almost everything for about 17 years, was one of Bernard's before I got it. It does have a certain "Strange Magic" to it (apologies to Jeff L). |
J.J. wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 13:46 | ||
One of the Sonor ones? |
thermionic wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 17:13 | ||
Who could this friend be? Who would've worked with the Beatles, and at the same time had security clearance for Motown and Ardent? It can only be one person... Bernard Purdie Justin |
neve1073 wrote on Fri, 04 March 2005 20:18 |
TERRY Well, it goes.. I read the news today ooooh booy (Terry sings with feeling) |
Tom
Post by: J.J. Blair on March 23, 2005, 11:23:42 PM
Bwahaha! I stand corrected! Wow, how incredibly not PC. LOL. Post by: maxim on March 24, 2005, 02:13:36 AM i challenged people to come up with problems, and come up with duck tape solutions my favourite was the issue of world peace my solution was to gaffa the world leaders together until they had no chance but to work out their differences i wish now that plan was put into fruition cheers max 'the duck tape freak' paris, france Post by: Otitis Media on March 24, 2005, 07:32:36 AM Post by: David Kulka on March 24, 2005, 08:05:15 AM I read somewhere that "electronic trickery" had been used, but I'd like to know the rest of the story. With an EMT plate, maybe you could come close by opening the damper plate all the way and hitting the input hard, but my gut feeling is that you still wouldn't get that much decay time without picking up hum and hiss towards the end. When I was listening in the shop last week I watched this part of the track on a scope looking for an edit point but if one was there, I must have blinked and missed it. Maybe they simply fed the output of the reverb back into the input -- common enough now, though pretty much unheard of back then. But that might have a fluttery effect, or sound unnatural. Does anyone know how this was done? Post by: retrograde on March 24, 2005, 09:26:05 AM Post by: David Kulka on March 24, 2005, 09:36:09 AM Post by: compasspnt on March 24, 2005, 10:33:10 AM
It is my understanding that is correct...but at least 2 pianos, not just one. The mic noise does increase as it goes along. Post by: wwittman on March 24, 2005, 03:20:53 PM A liittle treat for headphone listeners just to be weird! Post by: J.J. Blair on March 24, 2005, 03:55:37 PM BTW, as I'm listening to the song right now ... my god! What incredible sounding toms. Definitely no tea towels on this track. And one more note, as ar as David asking about reverb. An open sustain pedal on the piano will totally give the impression that there is reverb. Maybe that is what you are hearing? Post by: wwittman on March 24, 2005, 04:12:58 PM and that great Studio 2 live reverb chamber. I believe the "noise" you are talking about on the other side is an acoustic guitar! (Probably their ubiquitous J-160e... but no doubt Brian Kehew is sneaking up about to say the usual: "No One Knows") Post by: J.J. Blair on March 24, 2005, 04:14:50 PM
No doubt before Paul became a vegetarian! Post by: Brendan Thompson on March 26, 2005, 06:28:40 AM
Are you sure Duct and Gaff are the same thing? I always thought Duct had the shiny silver back and the adhesive that leaves sticky residue but comes off easily, while Gaff has the black backing and leaves no residue (but will peel off paint and varnish)... Post by: Bob Olhsson on March 26, 2005, 08:20:14 AM The real deal is pretty expensive. There are cheaper knock-offs that aren't as easy to use and cause more damage. Duct tape is also 2" wide and looks a lot like gaffer's tape only it wasn't designed to be removable. Because it's a high-volume commodity, it's lots cheaper than the other two. Post by: maxim on March 26, 2005, 08:31:33 PM no, only gaffer for me (and only the real thing) as you say, it's expensive, but worth every cent i've seen houses where everything has fallen down, inc walls and wallpaper, but the gaffer's still standing Post by: compasspnt on April 02, 2005, 07:59:55 PM TM Post by: rankus on April 03, 2005, 04:06:15 PM Gasp. Would it be possible for you to post a copy for us somewhere? I know it may not be possible, but, I must point out that this take has already been widely distributed in bootlegs... Must have the precious..... Post by: Brendan Thompson on April 04, 2005, 03:22:24 AM
Although probably not sourced from a 3rd generation copy like this would be! Master -> Acetate -> Tape -> Digital... Post by: ajcamlet on April 04, 2005, 10:04:42 AM
Wow.....could you post it (or part of it) as parting forum gift? ajc Post by: neve1073 on April 04, 2005, 02:28:40 PM Needless to say, I would do cartwheeels to hear it myself. More beatles porn! Post by: Scott Helmke (Scodiddly) on April 05, 2005, 09:55:27 AM But nobody's pointed out the most obvious culprit yet - Terry himself! His "mysteriously gone" hidden acetate is a less likely than that he's making up the "mysterious" part, and was a willing participant in the joke. |