[Jenn[_2_]]

In article

,
Jenn wrote:

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:52*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*Clyde Slick wrote:


I gave it high marks, and I thought it was LJ
at the time, and I did saay that I liked it, even thinking'it was
LJ.
. I liked it better than the real LJ, though over all
I liked LJ, too. I just think a wonderfule performance at times was
marred by
some superficial embellishments. the core playing was great, i
just didn't appreciate some of the bells an whistles that sometimes
and somewhat
detracted form the song.

I would be interested in what parts you liked better played by the
intermediate level player, referenced by clock time.

In reference to the LJ performance, most of
the parts i was least favorable towards were 1/2
to 3/4 of the way through it. THe first half
was almost flawless and the last 1/4 was.

Was the part that you didn't like the piano solo in the Beatles
recording?




Yes, that is true, it seemed to be made to sound like a Hasrpsichord,
i guess it was a fashion setter back in the early/pre hippy days,
but i find it annoying, more annoying than LJ's treatment of that
part.
maybe sgtripping that part bare and slowing it abit might have worked
better.

I forgot to answer this part earlier:
It was a piano that ended up sounding more like a clavichord because
George Martin composed that interlude and played it on piano, but he
couldn't play it up to speed, so he played it in half time and they
double the tape speed. Anyway, this is interesting. Compare the
original Beatles recording with LJ's playing. How different are they?
So maybe it's not LJ's playing (or arrangement) there that you dislike,
but rather the way the music was written?