Idk but 3 of them are on Anthology

>>64168775
On bootlegs, or just in general?

Infinity. Strawberry Fields Forever.

>>64168806

In general

>>64168825

cheeky cunt m8

>>64168877
>In general
There were at least 6 takes of acoustic demos recorded by John at Santa Isabel. Then 9 or 10 demo versions recorded by John at his home in Kenwood, some acoustic, some were multi-tracked.

Then The Beatles recorded 7 takes of the first version of the song. Then they taped 26 takes of a completely different arrangement. The final song is the first half of Take 7 and the second half of Take 26.

Why do you ask?

>>64168877
>>64169028
Note that some of the "takes" are actually reduction mixes (where they'd bounce the four tracks down to a one or two tracks of a second 4-track, freeing up 2 or 3 more tracks).

>>64169028

I saw so many different versions on youtube so I was confused

>>64168825
https://soundcloud.com/user-65820085/strawberry-fields-for-infinity

>>64169077
Why didn't you just google it?

>>64168775
a good few I'd imagine brb

>>64168775
there was first a full-band version with mellotron slide guitar and harmonies. then a second more tighter version of that arrangement. that was good but john wanted a different feel so then they did the crazy orchestra/ringo drumming version. john heard that and was like 'yo george martin can we just use half of each version?' so manually, by hand they had to match the tempo and speed of the intro from the band version to the second half/outro of the orchestra version, leading to a trippy vocal sound in the final version as they had been sped up and slowed down several generations of tape. they made the famous edit around the 1 minute mark, during a ringo drum break with the split audibly going
>"let me take you down cause i'm-"
>
>"-going to"
so now *you* can never unhear this edit.

>>64169212
>so now *you* can never unhear this edit.
>tfw

>>64169232
you'll never hear it again without noticing
>the awkward change in his voice tone
>and ringo's drum tone
>the orchestra cutting in out of nowhere

>>64168775
around 30ish

>>64169295
George Martin wasn't pleased with the final result, btw. but John wasn't able to tell where the edit was when they played it for him, so he approved it
>but then in the late 70s John said Paul 'sabotaged' his recordings and he wanted to re-record all his classic tracks, George Martin be damned.

>>64169212

I always thought it was intentional

>>64169328

The secret George Martin take on Strawberry Fields

>>64169212
i know everyone exaggerates and fucking memes on the effect hearing SFF had on Brian Wilson in 1967 working on SMiLE, but it does seem like a much more complicated studio edit than Wilson's style... like in songs like Good Vibrations, Heroes and Villains, Cabinessense, etc.
I guess the difficulty with SMiLE is Wilson was trying to edit together the *whole album* from tape segments like that...

>>64169328
and of course nowadays any chucklefuck with a laptop can download audacity or pirate froot loops or logic pro and protools, and do this editing shit in a fraction of the time

>>64169437
that's like how movie editing and post-production was also developing at the time!

too fucking many, op. i took a course where the final exam required i listen to 150 songs and know why they were significant to the history of music technology. i'd have to say at least 8 or 9 of them we studied were different versions of this one fucking song, with 15 total being beatles songs. it was excessive

>>64169295
That's OK it's psychedelic.
>>64169437
That claim is exaggerated.