Page 1 of 1

Was Revolution #9 actually a cover??

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:02 am
by Jim of Seattle
Recent evidence has come to light that the Beatles' famous sound collage "Revolution #9" was actually a cover of a previously unknown work from the 1930's. Check it out.

Re: Was Revolution #9 actually a cover??

Posted: Fri Nov 29, 2013 1:50 pm
by frankie big face
You had me going for a while even though I kept thinking to myself this may the worst NPR report ever produced. (the copy needs some serious editing.) :)

Re: Was Revolution #9 actually a cover??

Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:21 am
by Billy's Little Trip
I'm glad you posted that, Frankie. I saw this thread and figured it's just some random conspiracy theory and never bothered clicking the link. So you jogged my curiosity, so clicked it. I'm glad I did. Good job Jim. :)

Re: Was Revolution #9 actually a cover??

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:57 pm
by Jim of Seattle
Thanks, I wondered if anyone would actually click on the link. What I hoped I wouldn't have to do was post "Hey, no one clicked on this. It's not real."

I wasn't really trying to fool anyone outright, but I hoped some people would wonder for a moment, and then would be in on it.

FBF< I know it's a terrible NPR story. I originally wanted to do a whole video with talking heads and stuff. I had big plans for this piece. The hope is to make a whole album of piano pieces with compromised mono audio quality. I love that old sound. I'm almost done with a piece which plays Coleman Hawkins' Body and Soul in reverse which will be on the same album, if I ever finish enough of it.

Anyway, this Revolution #9 piece was my project for the last summer.

Re: Was Revolution #9 actually a cover??

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:04 pm
by frankie big face
Yeah, but it was still clever. A little judicious editing and you have a nice little parody piece. And of course, the piano playing was nice.