What Is The Extent of Beatles Outtakes on Bootlegs?
-
I posted about it on pg. 2. It was the first Beatles bootleg ever.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
I posted about it on pg. 2. It was the first Beatles bootleg ever.
Oh, I thought Dr. Beatle was talking about a legitimate album, like Let It Be. Got it. You said it was (K)um Back, is that the correct name?
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
I posted about it on pg. 2. It was the first Beatles bootleg ever.
Oh, I thought Dr. Beatle was talking about a legitimate album, like Let It Be. Got it. You said it was (K)um Back, is that the correct name?
Yes, Kum Back was the name of the album and it was the first ever Beatles bootleg. It was one of the Glyn Johns versions of the Get Back album and the (just about confirmed) rumor is that John dropped it off at WBCN here in Boston for them to play it. Of course people taped it and it ended up on bootleg.
-
Back in the day - maybe '83 or '84 I'd gotten my hands on a Beatle bootleg called "Live at Buddakan" (sp?) or something like that. It was a Japanese live performance. Boy where bootlegs tough to find back then! I remember a bootleg label back then called "Slipped Disc"
-
That label is no longer around. Here's a few names that are yellow: Yellow Cat, Yellow Dog, Yellow Panda Yellow Cow
-
I had MANY bootlegs on Yellow Dog, Beatles and other bands...that was a great label.
-
DrBeatle:
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
I posted about it on pg. 2. It was the first Beatles bootleg ever.
Oh, I thought Dr. Beatle was talking about a legitimate album, like Let It Be. Got it. You said it was (K)um Back, is that the correct name?
Yes, come Back was the name of the album and it was the first ever Beatles bootleg. It was one of the Glyn Johns versions of the Get Back album and the (just about confirmed) rumor is that John dropped it off at WBCN here in Boston for them to play it. Of course people taped it and it ended up on bootleg.
You said "Yes" in answer to my question, but then said it was "come Back!" So that is the correct spelling then?
-
google it! it's k u m back haha...it gets changed!
-
oobu24:
google it! it's k u m back haha...it gets changed!
-
oobu24:
google it! it's k u m back haha...it gets changed!
Haha, I was wondering why my posts kept getting messed up..I was typing K U M Back (always thought the slang was with a C and not a K)
-
DrBeatle:
oobu24:
google it! it's k u m back haha...it gets changed!
Haha, I was wondering why my posts kept getting messed up..I was typing K U M Back (always thought the slang was with a C and not a K)
yeah...don't google the title with a c.
-
It's a "c" word as far as I'm concerned--not that I ever use that word though!
-
The bootleg title is definitely with a "K" and oobu24, to your comment...
-
DrBeatle:
The bootleg title is definitely with a "K" and oobu24, to your comment...
I have to wonder how in the world it came to be named with that spelling. Was it meant to be suggestive? Hard to imagine not, but there really is no connection to the Beatles that I know of!
-
favoritething:
DrBeatle:
The bootleg title is definitely with a "K" and oobu24, to your comment...
I have to wonder how in the world it came to be named with that spelling. Was it meant to be suggestive? Hard to imagine not, but there really is no connection to the Beatles that I know of!
The posting system here keeps changing the spelling 'cause it thinks it's a dirty word. So yes, it's suggestive! Probably inspired by Come Together, which was released around the same time, and also had a double meaning.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
favoritething:
DrBeatle:
The bootleg title is definitely with a "K" and oobu24, to your comment...
I have to wonder how in the world it came to be named with that spelling. Was it meant to be suggestive? Hard to imagine not, but there really is no connection to the Beatles that I know of!
The posting system here keeps changing the spelling 'cause it thinks it's a dirty word. So yes, it's suggestive! Probably inspired by Come Together, which was released around the same time, and also had a double meaning.
Of course, "Come Together"! Yeah, I guess the bootleggers wanted to make a dirty joke, but thought if they used the real spelling they might get arrested?
-
After listening to much of the bootleg stuff, the only song I purchased on iTunes was "Shot of Rhythm And Blues". The bootleg version totally blows away the version of that on the first "Live at the BBC" album. Except it isn't LOUD enough. I tried to insert it with some of their other things I have on my iPod, but the volume just doesn't get it. Why can't they standardize these things?? (For whatever reason, Paul's "New" isn't all that loud either. I inserted some songs from it with other new songs by other artists I like (Adele, Bruno Mars , Usher, and on and on....and everything else is louder.!)
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
After listening to much of the bootleg stuff, the only song I purchased on iTunes was "Shot of Rhythm And Blues". The bootleg version totally blows away the version of that on the first "Live at the BBC" album. Except it isn't LOUD enough. I tried to insert it with some of their other things I have on my iPod, but the volume just doesn't get it. Why can't they standardize these things?? (For whatever reason, Paul's "New" isn't all that loud either. I inserted some songs from it with other new songs by other artists I like (Adele, Bruno Mars , Usher, and on and on....and everything else is louder.!)
Since the beginning of CDs, they generally kept getting louder and louder (and more compressed) as the years went on, but finally, after the nightmare of Memory Almost Full's super compression and loudness, Beatles-related releases (and those of some other "serious" musicians, for lack of a better term) started to pull back, notably with the 2009 reissues and Paul's Archive reissues. But most pop CDs (and downloads) are still as loud as ever. Maybe this explains what you're experiencing? You can always use the Sound Check feature on the iPod, which "normalizes" the volumes of different songs to an extent (not foolproof, though).
-
favoritething:
Beatles4Ever&Ever:
After listening to much of the bootleg stuff, the only song I purchased on iTunes was "Shot of Rhythm And Blues". The bootleg version totally blows away the version of that on the first "Live at the BBC" album. Except it isn't LOUD enough. I tried to insert it with some of their other things I have on my iPod, but the volume just doesn't get it. Why can't they standardize these things?? (For whatever reason, Paul's "New" isn't all that loud either. I inserted some songs from it with other new songs by other artists I like (Adele, Bruno Mars , Usher, and on and on....and everything else is louder.!)
Since the beginning of CDs, they generally kept getting louder and louder (and more compressed) as the years went on, but finally, after the nightmare of Memory Almost Full's super compression and loudness, Beatles-related releases (and those of some other "serious" musicians, for lack of a better term) started to pull back, notably with the 2009 reissues and Paul's Archive reissues. But most pop CDs (and downloads) are still as loud as ever. Maybe this explains what you're experiencing? You can always use the Sound Check feature on the iPod, which "normalizes" the volumes of different songs to an extent (not foolproof, though).
Thank you!! I'll give that Sound Check feature a try. Yes, Memory Almost Full was WAY too loud. Speaking of loud, Ringo's stuff always seemed VERY loud...at least his last 4 or 5 albums. I have a solo Beatles "Best of..." on my iPod too and when I use the shuffle mode, it seems dear old Ringo just comes blaring out of the speakers. I thought, "It would be him.....the one who really can't sing all that well". I mean, when "Minefield" plays that blast at the end just sends me flying right out of the chair....that one and "Free Drinks" and "Oh My Lord". Thanks again.
-
You can also make a copy of the CD with software like Roxio and lower the volume to what is comfortable or consistent with your other songs, then rip it into iTunes. I agree it's very annoying when certain songs are recorded louder.