Conference napalm::guitar

>    anyone tell me what *that* chord is that open A Hard Day's Night? I
>    have it on good authority its a G11sus4. However, no amount of trying to
>    figure this out gives anything like the desired effect. The nearest
>    I've got is Gsus4.
    
 Close Richard !  its a Gsus4/D on the top 4 strings. The tab is like this:

1 --3-----
2 --1-----
3 --0-----
4 --0-----
5 --------
6 --------


This is right out of the Hal Leonard "The Beatles, Complete Scores",

Frank

    
    Thanks, I'll give that a go. 
    
    I had tried Gsus4 at the 3rd fret which, as I said, sounded 95% of the
    way there. As it happens, my default way of playing Gsus is exactly as
    you have annotated but I never thought to try that as I was convinced
    it was a barre chord.
    
    Regards
    Richard

    
    
    Hi Richard, you might also want to try Gsus7 as a barre chord at the
    3rd fret. The open chord might ring out better though (depending on the type
    of guitar you are playing and playing style I suppose !).
    
    
      Gsus7
    
    1 --3---    (played as a barre chord)
    2 --3---
    3 ----5-
    4 --3---
    5 ----5-
    6 --3---
    
    
    
    Cheers,  David H.
    

    >>  Gsus7
    >> 
    >> 1 --3---    (played as a barre chord)
    >> 2 --3---
    >> 3 ----5-
    >> 4 --3---
    >> 5 ----5-
    >> 6 --3---
    
    
    That sounds pretty good... another variation of the G7sus4 that
    emphasizes the "sus" :-) is:
    
    1 --3--- 
    2 --3---
    3 ----5-
    4 --3---
    5 --3---
    6 --3---
    
    I'd guess that both of these would sound a lot better on a 12-string,
    which was supposed to have been used when recording this one.
    
    Chris

    
    I was begining to wonder about the 12 string thing. The more I listen
    to it the more I'm convinced its a 12 string. Perhaps a bit of chorus
    would help.
    
    Richard

    I'll verify that 353533 works great, especially on a 12-string (not
    just any 12-string, I might add).  Another key to the sound is that the
    bass note is a D.

    re 12 sting
    
    
    	I remember reading somewhere, if you replace your wound G string
    with a High E string and tune it up it is supposed to sound like
    a 12 string guitar,haven't tried it though
    
    
    
    
    P.K.

    In case you want to try...
    
    On a regular 12-string set going from .010s to .046s, the octave g
    string is an .008.

    
    Re .7
    
    I think the Stones use this tuning on "Wild Horses" from Sticky
    Fingers.
    
    Seem to remember Keith Richards referring to it as "Nashville Tuning".
    I believe it's Mick Taylor that's using it on his 6-string acoustic on this
    track, Richards claims that no 12-string guitars were used !
    
    D.H.

re: .9
    
>    Seem to remember Keith Richards referring to it as "Nashville Tuning".
>    I believe it's Mick Taylor that's using it on his 6-string acoustic on this
>    track, Richards claims that no 12-string guitars were used !
    
Actually, Nashville tuning requires replacing the four bottom strings with
their octave-higher equivalents, not just the G-string.

-Hal

 >     On a regular 12-string set going from .010s to .046s, the octave g
 >     string is an .008.
    
    ... though about half the time while you're tuning it up initially
    it goes from a .008 to a .000 ...

    
    
    Reading my 'Revolution in the Head' book I got for Christmas (which is
    an account of every official Beatles recording - and excellent it is
    too) it mentions that the lead break in Hard Days Night was played by
    George on a 12 string and then speeded up by a factor of 2. This would
    support the view that the opening chord was played on a 12 string.
    
    Richard

    
    
    Yes, I have this too - great book ! Ian McDonald seems to have
    captured every painstaking detail in what he has written. I enjoyed
    reading it. Interesting info/comments revealing how individual
    instruments were quite often played by the "wrong" (different) Beatle,
    compared to that perhaps assumed/expected. 
    
    
    David H.

    re: the lead break in Hard Days Night was played by
        George on a 12 string and then speeded up by a factor of 2.
    
    While the lead sounds like it could be a 12-string (it's doubled in
    octaves), unless my memory fails me, it's too low to have been recorded
    at half speed (which would have raised the pitch an octave).  Isn't the 
    first note of the break a low G?  At least that's how I played it (and
    on a twelve string) many years ago.  Then again, *I* thought the opening
    chord was Gmin7sus4 (just bar the third fret).
    
    Jim  (I swear I heard a Bb in there...)

    Want to find out for sure?
    
    Take that recording and play it at half-speed and see if it sounds like
    a 12-string.   You can do this easily if you have any of the following:
    
    	1) Record player with 16rpm (and copy of record)
    	2) A 4-track that does/can run at double speed
    	3) A sampler
    
    Let us know what you find.  I'm curious myself but don't have the time.
    
    I think you could play that on a 12 string an octave lower, but not
    easily or naturally.

    No, I don't buy that story.  The Beatles did use speed up/slow down
    recording quite a bit, but very rarely was it used to make that much
    of a pitch difference, and there's no reason to believe the AHDN lead
    is doubled up, listening to it.  It's a 12-string, first note is sixth 
    string(s) 3rd fret, doubled on piano.
    
    One example of radical pitch shift I can think of is the keyboard lead 
    on "In My Life."  Sounds like a harpsichord but is actually a piano sped 
    up quite a bit (doubled??).  This was done because the musician (George
    Martin) couldn't play the part at normal tempo.
    
    There are probably hundreds of "authoritative" books on the Beatles'
    recordings, many of which disagree on major points.  In fact, it's
    unusual when several of books _agree_ on almost anything!  Believe me,
    I've read lots of them.  I never even heard of the book or author
    mentioned in the last few notes (which neither proves nor disproves its
    authenticity, of course).  I'll have to check it out.
    
    The most widely acknowledged authority on the Beatles' recording 
    sessions is Mark Lewishon (sp?), who wrote "The Beatles' Recording 
    Sessions" and "The Complete Beatles Chronicles."  He was given
    permission to listen to every minute of every recording session by EMI. 
    His books are based on that experience, and are excellent pieces of
    work.
    
    							Marc
       
    

>    One example of radical pitch shift I can think of is the keyboard lead 
>    on "In My Life."  Sounds like a harpsichord but is actually a piano sped 
>    up quite a bit (doubled??).  This was done because the musician (George
>    Martin) couldn't play the part at normal tempo.
    
    That makes sense.
    
    I had to learn that for a wedding this past summer and the timing
    in it is VERY mechanical which is a common sign of using the double
    speed trick for a part.
    
    Almost sounds like a sequencer.

    Most often, speed changes are not drastic (double or half), but a
    small enough percentage so a vocalist can hit a note cleanly that
    would normally be a tough reach. It's also used to get parts that
    can be played cleaner at a lower speed...
    
    That's why the tape speed variation on most multitracks is no
    more than +- 20. Of course, many multitracks do offer 2 or
    more speeds as well (15/30 ips for example).
    
    I use such pitch variation all the time. Further, I know of at
    last 3 albums (that you would most likely know of, as they are
    all fairly popular) that used this technique... and I know it
    to be true because either the producer or performers of those
    albums has told me... I'd rather not say because I hate spoiling
    people's tricks. But I've recently worked with a very well-known
    world-class vocalist who does this stuff *all the time*. In
    songs you've probably heard on the radio...
    
    -b

    
    
    Re .16 (and .17 / .18)
    
    How's the speeding up done ? You play something faster (on tape) and the 
    pitch is raised, right ? How do you synchronise this with the rest of
    the master tape containing the main piece of music, both in terms of
    pitch and "timing" ? Am I missing the point here somewhere ?
    
    
    David H. 

    There are two guitars playing "that chord", a 6-string playing
    
    3
    1
    0
    0
    x
    x 
    
    and a 12-string playing:
    
    3
    3
    5
    5
    5
    3
    
    Danny W.
    

>    How's the speeding up done ? You play something faster (on tape) and the 
>    pitch is raised, right ? How do you synchronise this with the rest of
>    the master tape containing the main piece of music, both in terms of
>    pitch and "timing" ? Am I missing the point here somewhere ?
    
    I think you are missing something.
    
    What you do is you slow the tape down when you record the part.  You
    do everything else just as you would normally do.  You hear the rest 
    of the tracks in the monitor mix, but 1/2 as fast and one octave
    down.   That answer the "timing" part of your question.
    
    Perhaps what your missing is that slowing the tape down to half speed
    lowers everything on the tape exactly one octave, and accordingly,
    playing something back at twice the speed it was recorded raise it
    exactly one octave.  That answers your the "pitch" part of your
    question.
    
    Has this helped?

    
    
    Yes ! I can understand the octaves/speed concept, but wasn't sure how
    the actual half-speed recording part was done."Play along with the rest
    of the track, played at half-speed " - that makes sense, it seems clear
    enough. In other words, if the speeding up (or slowing down) was not at 
    half/double, things would stand a chance of getting out of hand and playing
    the same keyboard part would not be "straightforward" !
    
    Thanks,  David H.     

    > In other words, if the speeding up (or slowing down) was not at 
    >  half/double, things would stand a chance of getting out of hand and playing
    > the same keyboard part would not be "straightforward" !
    
    Well, not necessarily, and less so today than back then.
    
    Here's what you do.  You record A-440 on the tape somewhere and then
    slow down the tape, and tune your instruments "A" to the slowed down
    A on the tape.
    
    Today most keyboards have MIDI transpose.   And of course you can play
    some games tuning a guitar up and a fair amount of leeway tuning it
    down (you can probably tune a guitar about 3-5 semitones up without
    damaging the neck (or a compelling need to readjust the truss because
    this raises the action) and you can probably tune a guitar about 9
    semi-tones down before getting much buzz.
    
    In fact, I've sorta done this although to "learn" parts, not to
    record them.
    
    What I do is slow the parts down with my sampler so that I can hear
    each individual note.  Half-speed often turns things into mud
    so I'll do it at some intermediate speed and just retune my
    instrument (I play guitar and keys).
    
    Normally when I do this on guitar, I just chart out the notes using
    the keyboard (I rarely retune my guitar to do this).
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  Now that I remember it, one of the solos on a COMMUSIC submission
          I did (back on COMMUSIC III I think) was recorded
          a semi-tone down because it was very fast, and while I could
          play it at regular speed, I thought my phrasing was significantly
          more controlled at the slightly slower speed (the tune was
          definitely at the limits of my sorry technique) so I did it that
    	  way - blush.