Anything about Elvis
More than 30 Million visitors can't be wrong

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:34 pm

It is well known that Johnny Savage is one of your alter egos, Doc. We're not stupid.

If you want to play games, Doc...

I came across a film the other day called "I Killed Wild Bill Hickok". You may have seen it.

An actor named Johnny Carpenter plays the character Johnny "Rebel" Savage.

Your move.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:00 am

poormadpeter wrote:It is well known ... We're not stupid.

You are mistaken, and making yourself look very stupid. And I do not appreciate the accusation.

Will you ever learn? I suppose we have our answer, "moderatorpep" ... er, "poormadpeter."

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:05 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:It is well known ... We're not stupid.

You are mistaken, and making yourself look very stupid. And I do not appreciate the accusation.

Will you ever learn? I suppose we have our answer, "moderatorpep" ... er, "poormadpeter."


been there, done that. many times. change the record.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:52 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Johnny Mild wrote:Elvis's singing is painfully flat throughout. It's interesting as a curiosity but this version was never really suitable as a top-drawer release.

You are painfully mistaken.


elvismark wrote:Right on Dr. John. The negativity for a fan board is abhorrent. It was a treat to hear him pushing his high register, which would all but cease,forever.

Thanks, man!

Elvis' vocal is flat, and he clearly can't hit the note on the word "song" on the line, "Take a sad song, and make it better," near the beginning.

When I was young, I just couldn't admit, even to myself, that Elvis could do a bad vocal. I think some feel that way about these 1969 sessions. This is a poor vocal, Memphis sessions or not. His high register is shot, on this song. I don't know if it's the laryngitis or not, but he didn't get it done on this song at this time.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:14 am

stevelecher wrote:Elvis' vocal is flat, and he clearly can't hit the note on the word "song" on the line, "Take a sad song, and make it better," near the beginning.

No, Elvis is not flat.

That line is very intentional, which is why you hear it on each existing take. His laryngitis was a factor at the beginning of the sessions (January 14-19), not when he sang "Hey Jude" after arriving at American Sound on January 21, his second day back doing vocals again.

One imagines that classical symphonic composer and former head of CBS and then RCA's classical division, Robert Matthew-Walker, would have made note of a Presley vocal that was sung flat (or sharp) in his book analyzing the entire Presley canon, and yet this is what he writes about the Lennon-McCartney tune:

In 'Hey Jude' Presley turns to the Beatles. Just as the 'Gentle On My Mind' performance is different from that generally known, so 'Hey Jude' is so unlike the original as to make it a different song. He transforms it in a high voice, as though half-whispering to a friend, but this strange atmosphere exerts a fascination.

- Robert Matthew-Walker, Studies in Music: Elvis Presley (Kent: Midas Books, 1979), p. 79


If Elvis sings flat on "Hey Jude," we would see it in the above paragraph. We do not, because he does not.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:50 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
stevelecher wrote:Elvis' vocal is flat, and he clearly can't hit the note on the word "song" on the line, "Take a sad song, and make it better," near the beginning.

No, Elvis is not flat.

That line is very intentional, which is why you hear it on each existing take. His laryngitis was a factor at the beginning of the sessions (January 14-19), not when he sang "Hey Jude" after arriving at American Sound on January 21, his second day back doing vocals again.

One imagines that classical symphonic composer and former head of CBS and then RCA's classical division, Robert Matthew-Walker, would have made note of a Presley vocal that was sung flat (or sharp) in his book analyzing the entire Presley canon, and yet this is what he writes about the Lennon-McCartney tune:

In 'Hey Jude' Presley turns to the Beatles. Just as the 'Gentle On My Mind' performance is different from that generally known, so 'Hey Jude' is so unlike the original as to make it a different song. He transforms it in a high voice, as though half-whispering to a friend, but this strange atmosphere exerts a fascination.

- Robert Matthew-Walker, Studies in Music: Elvis Presley (Kent: Midas Books, 1979), p. 79


If Elvis sings flat on "Hey Jude," we would see it in the above paragraph. We do not, because he does not.


I agree, and gave the same quote on page 2. :wink:

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:23 am

Mathew-Walker's book is a good read and a revelation at the time, being about the music and not the man. And yet it is littered with inaccuracies and opinions that many would disagree with. As I don't have the book here, perhaps some would type up the passage about the Elvis In Concert shows and how great he thinks they are! He may be a classical musician, but he has some mighty strange ideas on what is and isn't a good performance when it comes to Elvis.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:53 am

poormadpeter wrote:He may be a classical musician, but he has some mighty strange ideas on what is and isn't a good performance when it comes to Elvis.



True. He doesn't exactly sing Elvis' praises on much of the '68 special material. 'Baby What You Want Me To Do' has "all the attraction of a home movie," 'Love Me' is "another messy piece of work" and the recording of 'Tiger Man' is "so dismal that the performance has no significance". He does seem to like 'My Boy' though, noting that "Presley is well suited to this strong meat". :)

I have always liked the book, but I don't think Walker always got it right.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:02 am

TJ wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:He may be a classical musician, but he has some mighty strange ideas on what is and isn't a good performance when it comes to Elvis.



True. He doesn't exactly sing Elvis' praises on much of the '68 special material. 'Baby What You Want Me To Do' has "all the attraction of a home movie," 'Love Me' is "another messy piece of work" and the recording of 'Tiger Man' is "so dismal that the performance has no significance". He does seem to like 'My Boy' though, noting that "Presley is well suited to this strong meat". :)

I have always liked the book, but I don't think Walker always got it right.


Exactly. It's an interesting book, but simply one man giving his views. For a classically-trained musician (although one I really don't care for) he gives little in the way of meaningful analysis, and he simply trawls through song by song. Occasionally he finds something interesting to mention, but basically the book gives a sentence on each song saying whether he likes it or not. Reading what other people think is always fun, but his comments are often ill-informed. He has a way with words sometimes though. He says something about Tomorrow Is A Long Time on the Spinout LP being something like finding a Mozart quartet amongst a pile of Austrian drinking songs, which is pretty true. But, as I say, the book isn't with me at the moment. At my Mum's in a box somewhere (the book, not me).

So, basically, using Mathew-Walker's comments as some form of evidence is ridiculous. No doubt if someone was on here arguing that the recordings of the NBC special were awful and quoted Mathew-Walker as evidence, they would be shot down in flames by DJC and most of the people here.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:22 am

Through the years, this Elvis selection has generally been panned by most of us. It is an obvious left over. If Doc and others find something worthwhile here, great, enjoy. I would listen to a bunch of songs Doc disdains before sitting through one minute of the grating Hey Jude. Just to be clear, I love the Beatles recording of this classic.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:31 am

poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:It is well known ... We're not stupid.

You are mistaken, and making yourself look very stupid. And I do not appreciate the accusation.

Will you ever learn? I suppose we have our answer, "moderatorpep" ... er, "poormadpeter."


been there, done that. many times. change the record.


If you haven't noticed FECC Mechanic Jordan has changed his avatar to what is attached below if you want to closely mimic his image again like you did the last one so you can get that "more important feel" once more...just speaking of egos! :D
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by promiseland on Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:38 am

promiseland wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
drjohncarpenter wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:It is well known ... We're not stupid.

You are mistaken, and making yourself look very stupid. And I do not appreciate the accusation.

Will you ever learn? I suppose we have our answer, "moderatorpep" ... er, "poormadpeter."


been there, done that. many times. change the record.


If you haven't noticed FECC Mechanic Jordan has changed his avatar to what is attached below if you want to closely mimic his image again like you did the last one he had to get that "more important feel" once more...just speaking of egos! :D


I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My avatar was chosen for no reason other than I liked the image. If that was similar to someone elses, then I'm glad someone else had my taste. Now, you might want to try adding something to the topic, rather than sh*tstirring.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:10 am

I really like that rendition of the song, but I don't think it fits in on that record.

Jan

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:31 am

TJ wrote:I have always liked the book, but I don't think Walker always got it right.

But of course my reference is not to the songs Matthew-Walker supports or denigrates, but to the fact that his deep knowledge of music enables him to immediately detect a vocal that is flat, or sharp.

In the case of "Hey Jude" it would be unmissable if Presley is singing "painfully flat throughout." He is not, and that is why nothing is said by the author, an expert in the field of music theory.

Anyone who misses this point needs to take a class in reading comprehension.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:53 am

I like it,not his best work,but i still enjoy it

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:08 am

Johnny Mild wrote:He's flat. Undeniably so, and clearly, on this point so are you. No high-falutin' "deep knowledge of music" is required. Just a good pair of ears. :wink:

Unfortunately, you're depending on someone else's critique to validate your own aural shortcomings. But sadly, no amount of reading comprehension classes can improve your hearing. And that, compadre, certainly is a fact.

When I next speak with Chips Moman, I'll ask how he managed to be so successful as a producer with such a bad pair of ears. Or -- wait! Maybe I'll ask why he called Elvis out on a flat note on another song they cut at American, but said nothing to Elvis about singing flat for a full reel of tape on a Lennon-McCartney tune, a song that was the biggest of the year in popular music. How DID he miss it?

You have fun in your fantasy world, Ludwig. :D

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:25 am

stevelecher wrote:Through the years, this Elvis selection has generally been panned by most of us. It is an obvious left over. If Doc and others find something worthwhile here, great, enjoy. I would listen to a bunch of songs Doc disdains before sitting through one minute of the grating Hey Jude. Just to be clear, I love the Beatles recording of this classic.

There's hope for you yet. ;-)

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:42 am

Hey Jude is perhaps not the best track from the 1969 sessions, but after hearing the track after "Miracle of the Rosary, which to me is one of my least favourites on the whole Elvis catalouge, Hey Jude feels like a masterpiece. Elvis may sound a little rough, and perhaps it wasn´t a serious attempt on the track. Still, he sounds so much better than he would do on some of the 1971 masters like The first noel or Winter wonderland. Just my own opinion of course.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:45 am

dreambear wrote:Hey Jude is perhaps not the best track from the 1969 sessions, but after hearing the track after "Miracle of the Rosary, which to me is one of my least favourites on the whole Elvis catalouge, Hey Jude feels like a masterpiece. Elvis may sound a little rough, and perhaps it wasn´t a serious attempt on the track. Still, he sounds so much better than he would do on some of the 1971 masters like The first noel or Winter wonderland. Just my own opinion of course.

Very nice post, and right on the money!

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:09 pm

dreambear wrote:Hey Jude is perhaps not the best track from the 1969 sessions, but after hearing the track after "Miracle of the Rosary, which to me is one of my least favourites on the whole Elvis catalouge, Hey Jude feels like a masterpiece. Elvis may sound a little rough, and perhaps it wasn´t a serious attempt on the track. Still, he sounds so much better than he would do on some of the 1971 masters like The first noel or Winter wonderland. Just my own opinion of course.


absolutely.............he was 'jamming' with no intention of it being a serious contender

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:06 pm

debtd1 wrote:
dreambear wrote:Hey Jude is perhaps not the best track from the 1969 sessions, but after hearing the track after "Miracle of the Rosary, which to me is one of my least favourites on the whole Elvis catalouge, Hey Jude feels like a masterpiece. Elvis may sound a little rough, and perhaps it wasn´t a serious attempt on the track. Still, he sounds so much better than he would do on some of the 1971 masters like The first noel or Winter wonderland. Just my own opinion of course.


absolutely.............he was 'jamming' with no intention of it being a serious contender


The jams suited Elvis good. A relaxed Elvis was as good as the focused Elvis. It´s the uninspired Elvis that gave us some of his weaker material.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:21 pm

Delboy wrote:Only joking........it still sucks.
::rocks


Would not go that far, but I would not put it on my compilation cd...Some goes for the original version.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:31 pm

drjohncarpenter wrote:
TJ wrote:I have always liked the book, but I don't think Walker always got it right.

But of course my reference is not to the songs Matthew-Walker supports or denigrates, but to the fact that his deep knowledge of music enables him to immediately detect a vocal that is flat, or sharp.

In the case of "Hey Jude" it would be unmissable if Presley is singing "painfully flat throughout." He is not, and that is why nothing is said by the author, an expert in the field of music theory.

Anyone who misses this point needs to take a class in reading comprehension.


But his DEEP knowledge should also allow him the standard of performance which he is listening to. But he doesn't, particularly in the case of the 68 comeback and EIC. If I remember correctly, he even calls the 68 comeback LP the most disappointing of Elvis's career. Yeah, he sounds like someone I would trust for sound musical judgement.

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:33 pm

Do you even read my posts?

Re: Hey Jude: A new appreciation; did we underestimate it?

Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:52 pm

The following picture is what we find if we put Hey Jude into a program (v-vocal, that comes with Sonar audio production suite) that analyses whether the singing is in tune or not, and analyses what notes are being sung. The picture is of the line "Take a sad song and make is better" from near the beginning of the song.

elvis hey jude.JPG


The numbers refer to words being sung

Take (1) a(2) sad (3) song (4 - two notes) and (5 - two notes) make (6) it (7) bet - (8) -ter (9 - three notes).

As can be seen, the lines going across represent musical notation, with the note in question identified on the left hand side. The browny-reddy colours on those lines (or between them) is the pitch that Elvis is actually singing. The yellow colours are a demonstration of the notes he SHOULD be singing. I should also add that I have checked that the tuning of the musicians was as it should be - in other words, their "C" is the same as the programme's "C"

What we see here, therefore, is how far Elvis is out of tune.

For example, the word "take" (1) should be note F3, but the graph clear shows that Elvis is singing sharp on this note.

The word "a" (2) is in tune, but "sad" (3) is flat, and should be G sharp (I seemingly forgot to move that note before doing the snip). The word "song" (4) is spread over two notes because Elvis swoops up toit, but he never gets anywhere near the note he is meant to be hitting, D-sharp. Instead as the browny colour show, his vocal sits in the main only just above the D, making him nearly a semitone flat.

We can discount the first note of the word "and" (5), because the second note shows the actual destination, and is again flat. "Make" (6) is in tune, but "it" (7) is a semitone flat. The syllable "bet" (8) is also flat, although not as much, with "ter" (9) more or less in tune.

What this shows is something that ears alone cannot prove - that Elvis's vocal is all over the place.

It's impossible to pick apart later sections of the song as we cannot remove Elvis's vocal in a good enough way, but here in the early section the accompaniment is quiet enough for Presley's vocal to be detected as a separate entity by the software.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.