I have heard Beatles "experts" claim that concentrating on the sitar after the India trip set back his guitar skills and John and Paul played lead on more songs after that.
While we're on the subject of guitars, someone pointed out after watching the documentary that Paul's Martin still has its bridge set for a right handed player. Meaning that the acoustic guitar he played on all those great albums would have been out of intonation.
they always bounced around a bit regarding instruments. Paul, especially, could play anything. He did the drums on Back in the USSR; rhythm guitar on a bunch of songs and even played some solos and lead guitar (for example- he did the solo on a Harrison song- Tax Man). John and George would also play bass on occasion and take turns with lead and rhythm over the years. George played the most lead. Paul played the most bass. John played the most rhythm but they didn’t hold themselves to those instruments.
Seems like the intonation would be unaffected if the strings were all still the same length. Not sure how you get the fat E to fit in the groove made for the little E though
I know. Those pegs are all the same distance from the nut, so I didn’t see what difference it makes. I do see that cross piece (saddle?) is slanted so maybe that changes something I’ve never tried stringing a guitar Jimi Hendrix style myself so I was just wondering hypothetically what’s the difference. One big difference having your guitar strung like that is you have to bend down towards the floor instead of up towards the ceiling. But that wouldn’t come into play much with an acoustic
Yeah, the saddle is slanted slightly to account for string width. You can tune it up just fine with a bridge that's in the wrong spot and it will sound fine at the bottom of the neck, or even playing solo lead. It becomes problematic if you're playing chords, particularly chords with open strings thrown in, up the neck. It becomes even more problematic if you're playing a quiet piece accompanying a piano or organ and playing notes further up the neck. To be clear, I'm not talking about stringing an instrument "Hendrix style" (essentially playing an instrument upside down with the reverse hand)
Just my anecdotal experience, but it doesn't seem like intonation gets particularly noticeable until you get around the 10th fret, so I could see it not being much of a problem depending on what he was playing. I could be way wrong on that, though. I suppose it depends on the amount that the intonation is off.
I find myself being a bigger Lennon fan than McCartney, but I Tax Man is one my absolute favorite Beatles song. It fucking rips.
Yeah, I phrased that weirdly. Comparatively speaking, I didn't really like a many of George's Beatles tunes, but Tax Man is right near the top.
You know that John and Paul were impressed with Taxman since they let it be the 1st track on Revolver. Speaking about other Beatles playing lead guitar, McCartney played the awesome guitar solo on that track.
I bounce back in forth between which beatle I “like the most” and never settle on one. John and Paul had such different styles/approaches to music that made them each fantastic. And then by the end of the bands run, George was writing stuff that some say are the best Beatles tunes of all.
Distance from the saddle is what matters on intonation and yeah it gets worse the further up the neck you go. He may have tuned by ear to take that into account for some songs. EVH would change the tuning of his G string on some songs to account for the fact a guitar is never 100% in tune
Should probably take this to the musicians thread, but as I've been building guitars lately it's something I've been learning more and more about. Dealing with intonation is why you're starting to see more and more of these curved fretboards and squiggly line frets. I've never played a guitar with these, and I'm not sure I'd like it, but it's a pretty cool concept. (also, I should mention that string gauge has big implications for intonation too. Like, if you change from 10-42 to 9-46 strings or something on an electric, you're def adjusting your bridge in a ton of highly irritating ways)
The only thing I can think as comparable would be like Guns N Roses from 87-92 five or take. There’s probably an obviously one im missing.
Eagles had a great run early to mid 70s. Hard to think of anyone that matched the frenzy of the Beatles tho.
I mean the whole experience. Music, travel, experiences, fame, impact to a lesser extent because that would end the conversation.
What is the scope of the question? Insane for the band? Insane for the fans? Insane for the world? Combo? What is the scope of “insane,” OP?
I'm guessing the 73m viewers is probably an under when factoring in young girls having friends over to watch and how imperfect the ratings system was back then. The U.S. population at that time was 191m.
Ween definitely let the “fame” get to their head and made the most of it as a result Based on your answer, the classic wild ass rockers also seem to fit the bill: Motley Crue, Ozzy/BS, G&R, Led Zep, etc.
Most insane 5 year period is a hard question. Compare Billie Eilish with the Beatles. Both had 5 year periods that are pretty insane
I cannot imagine what it was like touring with GNR during that period. Just from the band perspective they're such a volatile group.
Beatles quit performing live in 65. 66-68 were insane in their own ways like LSD, studying in India, meeting god knows what all celebrities. But they were off the road half that period. Compare that to the beginning when they played 6 days a week 8 hours a day at that club in Hamburg
I think why I always bring them up is the use your illusion tour was my first time seeing an American act (had the vhs, nbd) go to Asia and play in front of like 500,000 people
Think they have the best selling debut album of all time. Then the UYIs sold even more than appetite. This all happened in the span of 4-5 years (like you said) to a bunch of self destructive 21-24 year olds. I'm sure it was a one of a kind experience that only a few other people could ever relate to.
Remember when it was GNR and Metallica and GNR refused to go on because Metallica got louder cheers so fans subsequently destroyed the venue
It was actually because Hetfield got too close to pyrotechnics, burned his hand and couldn't go on. Then when Guns took the stage everything was all fucked up and Axl stormed off
I think so yeah. I know Metallica was pissed off because they could have calmed the crowd but instead didn't play.