Shadowing The Beatles

[Uncle Fiesta]

I wouldn't mind hearing Beatles songs as instrumentals as long as they were done properly. But people invariably miss out the harmonies, which are the most important part in that they give each song its essential character. And why do they insist on choosing songs that are so slow they're practically going backwards?

When you take the words out, a lot of the interest goes with them and you have to find something to replace that. The vast majority of songs don't have strong enough melodies to achieve this - after all the human voice has less range than any instrument.

[kipper]

totally disagree with the above statement beatles songs make great instrumental`s. jeff beck`s day in a life is great example. peter

[Uncle Fiesta]

... Jeff Beck`s day in a life is great example ...

This is true, but then JB is a total genius who could probably make anything sound interesting. Notice that here he has retained all the excitement of the original instead of turning it into a dirge.

[MartcasterJunior]

Surely it's not a case of "any song can be an instrumental" or vice-versa, it's all about the arrangement? You can get away with a very simple melody for a song because the lyrics maintain the interest. If you transfer that directly to an instrumental then you have to do something interesting with the melody or it can become quite monotonous (I'm thinking, completely randomly here, of Dancing In The Dark). I'd argue that a lot of songs have notes which are grouped close together because most people can't jump between large intervals vocally in the same way that you can on guitar or piano. That doesn't always make for the most interesting tune when you just play the melody on an instrument.

In the 60s (and into the 70s) The Shadows were really, really good at turning songs into instrumentals by shaking up the arrangements and turning them into their own unique thing. Sadly, in the 1980s, they fell into the trap of doing almost straight covers, which is why I have no interest in any of that material. (Just my own opinion of course. Others may differ. But you'd be wrong )

Matt

[Uncle Fiesta]

... a lot of songs have notes which are grouped close together because most people can't jump between large intervals vocally in the same way that you can on guitar or piano. That doesn't always make for the most interesting tune when you just play the melody on an instrument.Matt

Hit the nail on the head there Matt. Take for example A Little Help From My Friends; all the notes in the main melody fall within one octave, because it was written specially for Ringo's limited vocal range. It might still make a reasonable instrumental, though, if you include all the harmonies as well (like I did with my version of I Think Of You - find it on YouTube.)

Matt is also correct when he says a decent arrangement is important. Good case in point: Ventures version of Perfidia - brilliant. Shadows version of Perfidia - abysmal.

[Moderne]

They did a nice vocal version of You Won't See Me with Alan Jones on lead vocal in the early 80s. Different to The Beatles, but as good - if not better!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lwr_VGmj84

[cockroach]

Cry For A Shadow
Flying

Add Cat's Walk to that list!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDH51X_d94

[cockroach]

Surely it's not a case of "any song can be an instrumental" or vice-versa, it's all about the arrangement? You can get away with a very simple melody for a song because the lyrics maintain the interest. If you transfer that directly to an instrumental then you have to do something interesting with the melody or it can become quite monotonous (I'm thinking, completely randomly here, of Dancing In The Dark). I'd argue that a lot of songs have notes which are grouped close together because most people can't jump between large intervals vocally in the same way that you can on guitar or piano. That doesn't always make for the most interesting tune when you just play the melody on an instrument.

In the 60s (and into the 70s) The Shadows were really, really good at turning songs into instrumentals by shaking up the arrangements and turning them into their own unique thing. Sadly, in the 1980s, they fell into the trap of doing almost straight covers, which is why I have no interest in any of that material. (Just my own opinion of course. Others may differ. But you'd be wrong )

Matt

Here's a vocal hit played as an instrumental- by the bloke who played on the original recording...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-LzbWs6FQ

[MartcasterJunior]

Here's a vocal hit played as an instrumental- by the bloke who played on the original recording...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip-LzbWs6FQ

Hmm...it's OK, but it's just someone playing the melody of the original song, with the same arrangement, on a guitar. I'd far rather listen to the original which (IMO) has way more energy and 'punch' than this. I just don't see why you'd bother swapping a vocal line for an instrumental and not bother to rearrange it or do something interesting with it. It's like instrumental karaoke.

[martcaster]

Something else about it struck me. It emphasizes the 'flaw' in so many of these Youtube 'tribute' videos where you watch one man playing his version of a Shadows/Hank tune. The results are variable, with some being flawless; but there is no interaction between the player and the 'band' (backing track) How could there be? The best recordings of anybody (IMHO) are when you can visualise the participants in the studio playing/singing the song as one entity. Even when you know some of the sound has been added later (e.g. Paul's bass lines on Sgt Pepper) When I hear my fave Shads tracks (or anyone else, for that matter) I can 'see' them playing it together. Hard to describe it any other way. The interaction between the players has to be 'felt' by the listener; he/she has to feel part of the recording in order to get excited (again IMHO)
Another thing! (Oh god! he's off again. Can't anyone stop him?) This is just a personal thing, but new instrumental tracks really only get my thumbs up if I feel I'd like to have a crack at playing them live. The latest ones by Hank don't fire me in that way (apart from one) They tick all the boxes sonically and in terms of virtuosity. But I just can't get involved with it. Compare the tracks to those on Hank's first solo album (1969) or Pipeline/Jessica. No 'life'. Just a collection of well known tunes played well. The best of the guys I cited above could do just as well. That's all. Matron's calling for me to have me feet done. Must dash.
All love etc
Mart