Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

dwinn wrote:I still like the original better for the album, but I definitely think this take should have been on the Anthology.

YUP!!!

Eeeeeeeek! An unheard version of "Revolution"--a COOL one??--and I'm stuck at work all night??

Unacceptable!

i like it ithink it should have been on the white album in place of #9

hjarnett wrote:i like it ithink it should have been on the white album in place of #9

Yeah, what a waste of vinyl that one was!

paologregorio wrote:

hjarnett wrote:i like it ithink it should have been on the white album in place of #9

Yeah, what a waste of vinyl that one was!

Not to mention the audio tape used to record it on.

I like the hybrid version they did in the video for "Revolution" -- the one where they sang the "Shoo be doo wop" backing vocals at the fast tempo.

jps wrote:

paologregorio wrote:

hjarnett wrote:i like it ithink it should have been on the white album in place of #9

Yeah, what a waste of vinyl that one was!

Not to mention the audio tape used to record it on.

I really enjoy Revolution 9. I've listened to both the mono and stereo versions on the re-issues several times over the past couple of months. Sure, it's not their best of anything, but it sure beats Mr. Moonlight.

I think this take of Revolution would have supplanted #9 for the Most Disliked Beatles Track. It's great to hear now, because it's so long and unusual...like a buried treasure. But had they included it, it would have turned into "That endless, boring 10 minute thing that starts out okay but turns into a lot of weird nonsense and ends with Yoko."

FretlessOnly wrote:
I really enjoy Revolution 9.... it sure beats Mr. Moonlight.

Hah !!
Fretless, that has to be the first-time somebody compared those two Beatles works !!!!

I dig Revolution 9, too, and I like to think that's for the same reasons that Lennon did. It expanded my thinking of what music could be about - not just pretty words and catchy melodies, but sounds that could also maybe shake and challenge one's view of the world and offer a deeper, more mystical aesthetic experience.

I don't get the beginning. You can hear someone (Geoff Emerick?) say "take 20". There are some gaps in the audio, and then it is definitely Geoff Emerick saying a quick "take 2", which he states is him in the book he wrote. So is the beginning of this song pieced together? Why is it take 20 and then take 2, which is clearly the beginning of the song that made it to the album?

I remember hearing that he supposedly says take 18 at the beginning of the album cut, but I could never make it out.

This track does put Revolution 9 into context for me, though. I'm not a fan of 9, but I can see why Lennon would put it together if it was inspired by the random jamming at the end of this take.

I like it all! Is there a way to actually download the audio to include on my iphone??? I want to edit the white album.

FretlessOnly wrote:[
I really enjoy Revolution 9. I've listened to both the mono and stereo versions on the re-issues several times over the past couple of months. Sure, it's not their best of anything, but it sure beats Mr. Moonlight.

+1

While 'Mr. Moonlight' was horrid, the same can be said for Revolution #9. Lennon in his artsy-fartsy phase, or, this is what you can do when you have a multi-track recorder. Still amazed it found its way on the album, but you can say this for it, no one has done a cover of it. (Although, someone will probably dig one up).