Who Sang the "A-h-h-hs" in "A Day in the Life"...?
-
nobodytoldme wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
nobodytoldme wrote:
McCartney sang it. There are many examples of McCartney singing these notes in this style in his recording catalogue, and no examples of Lennon singing these notes in this style.
Apart from this, there is also technical evidence. It's proven to be one take, no audible edit, and you can hear McCartney smoothly finishing his last note to do a breath inhale after his first bit. Same vocalist at the same mic.
Have you read the rest of this thread? Agree to disagree.
I did. It's a decade old discussion to which I contributed extensively at various places, haha.
Geoff Emerick indeed can be dismissed instantly. It's true he had to rely on ghostwriters to fill in the gaps for his book, so not a single detail can be relied on. Already in interviews from the 70's he often answered "I can't remember" when asked about certain sessions. And then 30 years later he suddenly remembers all in detail...
Besides this it's clear: his whole recollection of this session is technically impossible and easily proven wrong by listening to the multi-tracks.
For example, it's proven that there is no edit in the vocal take until Lennon's original verse vocal comes back in again. With the vocal takes naturally going smoothly into each other ("and I went into a dream", same vocalist doing a breath inhale, and that vocalist then going into the next bit) it's impossible that this was done by two different vocalists. Emerick's ghostwriter made up some story about having to do a hard edit on the spot for two different takes. Impossible at the time, and the multi-tracks prove that's not what happened.
Youre again stretching the truth, and Ill post what somebody else posted in the SHF about how IMPOSSIBLE it was to edit the tracks: see below
Lets clear a few things up:
1. Claim-It was impossible for the "aaahs" to be recorded separately from Pauls "woke up" section as there are no audible punch ins/outs.
TRUTH-That claim is 100% BS! The entire album was deemed to be impossible at the time starting with Strawberry Fields which was in 2 different keys and 2 different tempos. A lesser crew of engineers WOULD have declared it impossible, but not the Beatles team. There is no audible punch in because the breath after "dream" is clipped or tape manipulated. It even sounds like part of the breath is clipped off as well which jives with 100% Emericks story. Paul put that in on purpose so the engineers knew when to drop that vocal in. There are tons of recordings that clip sounds that leave no trace, or very little that the tape has been clipped. Do you all really think ADITL is the only song of all the songs by all the artists of that time frame that used some form of studio trickery!!?? Every song from that era would be littered with audible noises and popping sounds. Some are left in, as they can be masked with instrumentation and other studio trickery. However, any engineer worth his salt will take the time to make these inaudible if need be.
2. Claim-Pauls Woke up section had to be recorded in one take with the "aahs"
TRUTH- I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Somebody suggested that all the engineers had to do was "flip a switch" to create the echo during the aahhs on Pauls mic. Not only is that an ignorant comment, its an arrogant comment. Nothing could be further from the truth. The aah section echo had to be planned,practiced and set perfectly to create the echo/reverb we hear. The mic would have been separate from the one Paul was singing on. It would have been setup to the reverb/echo that the final recording shows. You don't just go from singing "dream" then in a millisecond the engineer flips a switch and magically the perfect recording of "aaah" happens. Yet some of you delusional people think thats what happened. There is a reason Pepper took 400 hours to record. Most of those hours were production hours not Beatles hours. It takes a long time to record a section like this to get everything right. If Paul was singing this in one take, he would have had to sing "dream", then in a split second move over to a pre set mic to begin his "aahs". Unlikely. This also leads me to believe Emericks account.
Claim: Okell, several others say its Paul. Pro tools blah blah Some guy Linkedin Lush lol though didnt post a screen shot. Giles says its John. They deal with the tapes so their opinion is most credible.
TRUTH: Another joke. Sorry,but guys who weren't there are only speculating on who sang what or who played what. Most of these experts, while thorough in their research are only speculating like we are on a thread like this. The only "smoking gun" in this is Emericks interview. Ive read his memory sucks and his co writer made up all this stuff. I am not familiar with his co writer, but most co writers probably wouldn't know how to make a story up about a punch in or out. Its such an insignificant thing to make up. Nor would they bring up another persons name(richard lush) who could easily refute the claim. Its such a small detail that I find it difficult to believe a person would spend anytime concocting a punch in, as if that anecdote would help it sell anymore copies.
Claim: Emerick's story may be right but he doesn't remember who sang the vocal.
Truthossible. I don't know if he claims to be there when that section was recorded. If he wasn't in the room, than we can't say for sure his recollection of who sang that part is accurate.
Overall, I believe Emericks description is accurate as to how this section was recorded based on my explanations above. I could care less about all of your opinions that you try to present as fact. I know many of you will cry, and say "it impossible". To which I say...no it ain't. I also could care less what Emerick has forgotten in the past. Do all of you remember every detail of your job for the last 30 years??? It was probably John that sang the "aahs" based on the fact Emerick's description on the recording process makes sense. However, without him confirming he was there during that session we can't say 100%
-
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Youre stretching the truth here. Starting with Richard Lush. Somebody CLAIMED to have contacted him. Doesn't mean they did, nor was the actual conversation through LinkedIn, which is how Lush was allegedly contacted posted in that thread. [..]
I’m not stretching any truth, but am merely trying to tell you about the facts on paper and on tape. I’m trying to calmly explain this to you, but you don't seem to want to listen.
Ok, let's not take that for gospel then. Just like we shouldn't take Geoff Emerick for gospel. If you disbelief this LinkedIn conversation, you should contact Richard Lush yourself, and you will get the exact same answer.
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Regarding Giles and Okell, correct Okell labled that part as Pauls, and Giles stated it was John. Okell has only the isolated tracks to go by as anybody else. No more or no less insight than anybody else.
Giles also had access to his father.. It IS conceivable George may have mentioned the recording of that song at some point in time
[..]
Yes, that's the whole point, Giles Martin is no more or no less of an insight than anybody else as well. We got access to the exact raw multi-tracks he heard. He wasn't there, we weren't there. He often branded hardcore fans who are nitpicking over details like this as the "socks and sandals brigade". He likes to make clear he is far from an expert, and often mentions in promo interviews about not knowing about big things from the Beatles storyline which even a casual fan got rammed down their throats.
That he might have had extra info by his father is a sweet assumption, but doesn't bring us any further. Giles Martin was born in 1969, if they talked about this in the 80's that's plenty of time to have George Martin's memory distorted and Giles Martin's own memory altered after that. That's George Martin, bless him, known for having a fuzzy memory on these subjects. (And no, I don't blame him, and if I would that's irrelevant.)
For example in the 80's, George Martin confidently stated he never mixed the Beatles' first 2 albums in stereo (https://beatlesexaminer.com/kozinn.htm) during the initial era, and keeps refuting the idea. Yet all studio documentation proves he instantly oversaw a stereo mix at the time. Anecdotes and memories, formed in the heat of the moment. And you are relying on him having incidentally told a story to his son, who is now passing it on to us?
All these points aren't worth the energy, because Giles Martin himself talked about McCartney's vocals on the bridge in a lesser known interview with the German Sound and Recording, together with Sam Okell: https://www.soundandrecording.de/stories/neu-gemischt-beatles-meisterwerk-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band/
"Paul's main vocal track is stereo because we've given it some scope with the Waves S1 stereo imaging plug-in, so it sounds different than John's lead vocals. We also split off two small pieces to have the opportunity to break them left and right. His [McCartney's] fourth vocal track is the "Aaah" section [..]"
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
[..]
Emrick DOES make mistakes in his book. Doesn't mean everything is wrong that he states. Can you remember every detail of your work from years ago?!? In the interview I posted, he even states regarding the recording of theh "aahs" "Did you ask Richard(Lush)?" who was onsite that day. Implying that Lush could corroborate the story.
No, that’s the exact point I’m trying to make to you. No one can remember every single detail. And Emerick proved he didn’t even remember crucial easily verifiable facts 10 years after he stopped working for the band, and it’s proven he’s wrong about a massive part of this exact bridge we are talking about. Doesn't mean everything is wrong, but it surely doesn't mean everything is correct. It's simply not a reliable account.
So this means all the people got who can’t recognise McCartney’s tail-signs on his vocal performance, and can’t seem to accept there hasn’t been any recording by Lennon in which he is singing in this style, is the memory of Geoff Emerick.
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
nobodytoldme wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
nobodytoldme wrote:
McCartney sang it. There are many examples of McCartney singing these notes in this style in his recording catalogue, and no examples of Lennon singing these notes in this style.
Apart from this, there is also technical evidence. It's proven to be one take, no audible edit, and you can hear McCartney smoothly finishing his last note to do a breath inhale after his first bit. Same vocalist at the same mic.
Have you read the rest of this thread? Agree to disagree.
I did. It's a decade old discussion to which I contributed extensively at various places, haha.
Geoff Emerick indeed can be dismissed instantly. It's true he had to rely on ghostwriters to fill in the gaps for his book, so not a single detail can be relied on. Already in interviews from the 70's he often answered "I can't remember" when asked about certain sessions. And then 30 years later he suddenly remembers all in detail...
Besides this it's clear: his whole recollection of this session is technically impossible and easily proven wrong by listening to the multi-tracks.
For example, it's proven that there is no edit in the vocal take until Lennon's original verse vocal comes back in again. With the vocal takes naturally going smoothly into each other ("and I went into a dream", same vocalist doing a breath inhale, and that vocalist then going into the next bit) it's impossible that this was done by two different vocalists. Emerick's ghostwriter made up some story about having to do a hard edit on the spot for two different takes. Impossible at the time, and the multi-tracks prove that's not what happened.
Youre again stretching the truth, and Ill post what somebody else posted in the SHF about how IMPOSSIBLE it was to edit the tracks: see below
L[..]
No one is saying it’s impossible to edit, it’s impossible to edit it inaudibly. That whole post you are quoting is riddled with fallacies and false assumptions. And I’m sure in the SH.tv thread 10 people replied to this to explain why. I'm not going to address it all, since it's hard to read and is involving all kind of completely irrelevant subjects. But I will say a few things:
His example of ’Strawberry Fields’ doesn’t hold any substance. It’s a complete different case to what they _would'v_e wanted to achieve on ‘A Day In The Life’, if that would’ve contained an edit at the point you think there is an edit. ‘Strawberry Fields’ was a case of 2 masters combined, carefully crossfaded into each other, onto another master. A mastermind at work, but of course it’s very much an audible edit, for the obvious reason of it are being 2 completely different performances. That's also the whole charm. Also, this could've been done by trial and error many times, and a live punch-in on actual multi-tracks as what we are discussing here couldn’t.
To say there is no audible punch-in after “dream” because it seems clipped or manipulated is first of all completely backwards (talking about a massive stretch), secondly it's plain wrong. What’s actually on tape is the same vocalist finishing “dream”, doing a breath inhale and going into a big voice for the “ahh”s, after which the tape delay is switched on. You can even hear the tape delay coming in after the first second or so. It aren't two voices clashing into each other for even a split second, and there is also no edit.
I can’t help you any more with this point, everyone who ever used analogue multi-track recording will tell you there’s no punch-in, no edit, no crossfade during the complete vocal bridge, but there is an audible edit/punch-out after McCartney concludes his “ahh”’s. Luckily the raw multi-track for this song is available, the evidence is all in there.
Regarding all the rest, I’m not going to put more time and energy in that. If you read the by you mentioned thread at SH.tv carefully, you’ve seen plenty of evidence about how McCartney sang that portion. The tone of the post you are quoting is kinda insufferable, it’s written by someone who doesn’t know anything about a recording session in 1967. He’s stating tape delay was only possible to be used through a different set-up and microphone, which is false. Yet himself calls people who are quoting from experts’ research “delusional”, “ignorant” and “arrogant”, the irony. What he thinks is the opposite of what’s in Recording The Beatles by Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew, who know these tape machines and technical aspects of these sessions through and through.
It’s also all so irrelevant, of course apart from proving why Geoff Emmerick was wrong. Because technically Lennon could’ve been at a different mic, at the same mic, it all doesn’t matter. It would've been technically possible for Lennon to sing that bit. So it's all down to what you hear. And if people are that blinded by what they think they’ve heard all those years, none of all the vocal technical rock solid clues which points towards McCartney will ever convince them.
Concluding, no one is trying to present “opinions as facts”. There are people who looked into this closely, who looked into every scrabble of notes available, who listened to every millisecond of the multi-tracks. You gotta go argue not just against me, but more rather against Mark Lewisohn, who is the leading authority on the band. Against Kevin Ryan & Brian Kehew, who worked on the definitive book on the Beatles' studio recordings. They all said it's McCartney. They’ve got no reason to lie or go against what is the general consensus for a laugh. They are historians and researched this to the bottom.
-
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
-
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
I commend you for spelling “Emerick” correctly, unlike nobodytoldme. But, as to “WHO’S” gonna read through all that? Probably only I did, but I really don’t care if it was John or Paul who sang the “Ahhhs.” I still can’t understand why “A Day In The Life” is always voted the best Beatles song!
-
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
Ha, the argument of a defeated man. Oh, the irony, since you were the one who in his previous post quoted a 800 word ill-informed rambling without a paragraph breakdown.
Nancy R wrote:
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
I commend you for spelling “Emerick” correctly, unlike nobodytoldme. [..]
Hm yeah, this is why I don't visit this place any more. 2 times spelled correctly, 1 times a typo.
Thanks for the input, all!
-
LOL I'm not trying to "win" anything ot defeat anybody this isn't a tournament...for me anyways.
You were trying to use big technical terms that I thought was boring. and I moved on.
The post I quoted at least addressed each point. Looking back at the post I referenced from the SHF actually nobody refuted it. In fact it clammed most of them up once posted lol.
While I appreciate the reference to the German article. If you actually read it, you cannot tell who is making the quote referrinf to that vocal section. There are quotes by Martin clearly marked as Martin, and quotes by Okell clearly marked as Okell.
That particular passage only has a quote, but no mention of who is speaking.
While I also appreciate Briam Kehew's work and book, his quote implies he hasn't even listend to the isolated vox that have been accesible for years seeing as he refers to an engineer that has. Only stating "current analysis", but doesn't explain the analysis.
rhodeshullmusic:
When recording A Day in the Life, what was the process like of recording John's interlude of just him and the orchestra? It is my most favorite moment in any song and I’m curious on how many takes it took, and just johns emotions about it in the process?Brian: That famous climbing interlude also has some instruments underneath and the vocal – the orchestra was added later in a special session – several takes of the same orchestra doing it over and over. That makes that huge sound, very powerful. There is a BIG controversy over who sings that part, as everyone always assumed it's John's voice doing a distant and typically nasal tone. But current analysis seems to think it's Paul singing there – and it is his “part of the song.” Although one Abbey Road person who's heard it says he thinks it is BOTH of them singing the line, one after the other – he's heard the isolated actual tape track and still can't tell for sure!
-
nobodytoldme wrote:
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
Ha, the argument of a defeated man. Oh, the irony, since you were the one who in his previous post quoted a 800 word ill-informed rambling without a paragraph breakdown.
Nancy R wrote:
Maccaroni1974 wrote:
Good grief whose gonna read through all that. Not me thats for sure. A simple I disagree would have sufficed.
Emerick clearly remembers Paul wearing a blue shirt during the ADITL session, but Giles and Okell say it was red? Please get back to us as to who is correct on this! HURRY!
I commend you for spelling “Emerick” correctly, unlike nobodytoldme. [..]
Hm yeah, this is why I don't visit this place any more. 2 times spelled correctly, 1 times a typo.
Thanks for the input, all!
It was just a joke man! I was just “taking the piss” out of both of you! (he wrote whose instead of who’s)