I actually like this better than mainstream version. McGuinn's Ric sounds a little more raw, a little more ringing. The overall effect is a more powerful song.
"Eight Miles High" and "Why" were originally recorded at RCA Studios in Los Angeles on December 22, 1965 but Columbia Records refused to release them because they had not been recorded at a Columbia owned studio.
@aberloof : I quite agree. This is an alternate take, and better all the way around than the released take, save the voices which are disappointingly "buried" in this one. But Roger's solo comes off much better here (he was very into Coltrane at the time, and trying for that style, as he said in an interview later), than in the released version which he (sadly) flubbed all over the place. Again, I agree. With some highlighting of the vocals, this should have been the release version, yes.
a wiki entry on john coltrane lists Eight Miles High as a pioneer jazz/rock fusion song. it never occurred to me since i didn't really like what was being called fusion at the time, but I always love Eight Miles High. But it's some pretty damn sophisticated but spontaneous music. If it's fusion, it's the good kind
@MikeLovesChoppers My "misspent youth" in a nutshell........except I never could afford a car like that, had to be content with a 58 Zephyr, a car much easier to stay alive in LOL.
Very interesting version. Not as smooth as the final release, which is the best single ever recorded, the best song from the 1960's, but fun to hear Clark and Crosby sing it anytime.
You can debate either way about these takes the RCA rendition had that Jefferson Airplane sound which within a year that band would capitalize on. The Byrds by this point got fed up of working with Union Nerds and they want to go to a different studio to have more creative control. Unfortunately they weren't allowed to do that due to the fact were contracted to record at CBS studiios.
well, this is definitely as cool as can be, but despite Crosby's statement that the band preferred this version, it is not as dynamic as the released later recording. The Columbia version is slicker, recorded much more compactly, less tinny-sounding, and the McGuinn solos, whether they tricked 'em up or whatever, sound much more psychedelic and intense. And the drum feel is more rockin', less tribal. Thank you so much for posting this. Super-cool!
da greedy bands do not want us to listen for free...these arsholes ,the lot of 'em have made enuff ching off all of us...until now...the big ride has finally ended..the music business is finally in dire straits.
This was the original recording. Because it was recorded at a studio NOT owned by Columbia, Columbia records dismissed it and had The Byrds record another version, the version we're most familiar with. McGuinn and Crosby have said that this original version was their favorite and also more true to their concept.
Thing is, it's super difficult to get this sound today. Gone are the analogue compressors and 2" 4 track tape recorders. Recording are done dry and not in big rooms like this - which were designed for swing band recordings in the '50's.
Pro Tools has changed the game and maybe things are meant to change...
There are companies that refurbish the old studio reel to reel recorders. You're totally right about this sound. It just can't be done with digital equipment. My furniture console stereo has a reel to reel tape recorder which makes everything sound warm and full bodied that's just the way analog tape is.
Yeah, it's just a 12 string Rickenbacker in clean mode. Probably had the volume and treble dials maxed out on the guitar though. Any echo would come from the recording desk from the reverb settings.
This is the version you want to hear and I was a sad little non-rocker cause my Dad would have killed me but I was still very aware of this song...and yes, I did want to be 8 miles high.
This version was recorded in 1965, when Turn, Turn Turn and Rubber Soul were still on the charts. This is the Byrds at their creative peak. No one else was doing anything remotely close to this at the time, and I can still remember where I was the first time I heard the Columbia single. 8MH is arguably the most ambitious single ever released on Top 40 Radio.
Yes, East-West is great! I'm not sure which was recorded first, though, Eight Miles High or East-West. I think both groups were influencing one another at the time. In my opinion, Eight Miles High has more of a Coltrane influence; East-West has more of a raga influence.
Well...I mean the whole album had that kind of tripped out frisson. Everything was about alternative reality, I think. But the Byrds were smoothe, technological, cool tech, not homspun hippie high but Lear Jet high. Unique. Brilliant.
Not really familiar with the changes of musicians in the group but this is the best version I've found on YouTube. Sounds as good as the original version.
After years of hearing Crosby say how much better the RCA version is than the final Columbia release, I was disappointed when I finally heard it for the first time years ago. It's interesting, and good to have, but they tightened it up considerably by the time they recorded the "official" version.
I like McGuinn as much as the next guy, but neither this version nor the Columbia version of this song would be worth squat without Chris Hillman's intro.
@thereallouminatti it is because of the google acquisition of youtube. google is making youtube very "squeaky clean" by taking down anything and everything that at any point in time belonged to someone else. everything good about youtube is pretty much dead now :/
Heard this tale for years, Byrds cooked a sick track with RCA but Columbia made them re-record song. Final Score = Byrds Columbia version is much better.
Well after finally hearing this track that The Byrds preferred, I must say I like the the famous version better. While the rhythm track (like mentioned by the band as liking better) is groovier or more out front, I still prefer the Columbia release.
The Byrds actually preferred this version, but Colombia demanded that they record a new version in their studios, which is what was the final version.
WOW! Where did u get the alternate version of this song?! it's awesome! I love this song, and it's as if listening to it for the first time all over again!
its funny that crosby found mike clarke and he put him in the group because he looked like brian jones[he couldnt play drums] then he developed into something like a drummer
never gets old been strait way too long might go back after this one
mdudesk1 1 month ago
e^(-iπ) + 9 miles high
lago4 1 month ago
I actually like this better than mainstream version. McGuinn's Ric sounds a little more raw, a little more ringing. The overall effect is a more powerful song.
bellier20 1 month ago
The drums are a little weak here.
MrNatwill2 3 months ago
I like the voices here better than in the original.
MrNatwill2 4 months ago
Great alternate version, a nice change from the "official" one. I like both; thanks for uploading.
MrSlitskirts 4 months ago
"Eight Miles High" and "Why" were originally recorded at RCA Studios in Los Angeles on December 22, 1965 but Columbia Records refused to release them because they had not been recorded at a Columbia owned studio.
SEVFEST 4 months ago
This version kicks the shit out of the released version. Classic.
aberloof 5 months ago
@aberloof : I quite agree. This is an alternate take, and better all the way around than the released take, save the voices which are disappointingly "buried" in this one. But Roger's solo comes off much better here (he was very into Coltrane at the time, and trying for that style, as he said in an interview later), than in the released version which he (sadly) flubbed all over the place. Again, I agree. With some highlighting of the vocals, this should have been the release version, yes.
MelosAntropon 5 months ago
brilinat thanks for up;oading this,one of my 60s bands, Big Bertha covered this, I played lead and me fingers nearly fell off!!! LOL
triffiks 6 months ago
I dont think this was ever a final mix even as an early alternate take. It could have been greatly improved
genericgeorge 6 months ago
i love this sound. very 1960-ish, very druggie, very powerful.
The096757 6 months ago
@The096757
yes the sound is powerful...when i was peaking on pot and shrooms this song changed my life
KIDAmnesiacBends 4 months ago in playlist KIDAmnesiacBends's favorites
sounds like gene clark is sharing the lead here
hoppuss44 7 months ago
a wiki entry on john coltrane lists Eight Miles High as a pioneer jazz/rock fusion song. it never occurred to me since i didn't really like what was being called fusion at the time, but I always love Eight Miles High. But it's some pretty damn sophisticated but spontaneous music. If it's fusion, it's the good kind
wbaranful 7 months ago in playlist Unreality
@MikeLovesChoppers My "misspent youth" in a nutshell........except I never could afford a car like that, had to be content with a 58 Zephyr, a car much easier to stay alive in LOL.
eaks52 8 months ago
Very interesting version. Not as smooth as the final release, which is the best single ever recorded, the best song from the 1960's, but fun to hear Clark and Crosby sing it anytime.
marinman39 9 months ago
@MrMeddled So do I.
taffy2003 9 months ago
You can debate either way about these takes the RCA rendition had that Jefferson Airplane sound which within a year that band would capitalize on. The Byrds by this point got fed up of working with Union Nerds and they want to go to a different studio to have more creative control. Unfortunately they weren't allowed to do that due to the fact were contracted to record at CBS studiios.
mbrand19971 9 months ago
aweomse byrds cover of tiffany queen...search Engloria tiffany queen
mike18 10 months ago
eight miles mellow, man
Justen1980 1 year ago
well, this is definitely as cool as can be, but despite Crosby's statement that the band preferred this version, it is not as dynamic as the released later recording. The Columbia version is slicker, recorded much more compactly, less tinny-sounding, and the McGuinn solos, whether they tricked 'em up or whatever, sound much more psychedelic and intense. And the drum feel is more rockin', less tribal. Thank you so much for posting this. Super-cool!
sportsmediaamerica 1 year ago
This song makes me feel stoned, and I have never even smoked pot!
gulshabbo 1 year ago 2
@gulshabbo Never smoked pot? Doubt you know what it's like to be stoned.
PicciProductions 1 year ago 5
More psychedelic than the original version. Total voyage from the limits of the space!!!!!!!!
Progressiverr 1 year ago
I love this version......I remember buying this album when it first came out. Could not wait to get home and play it....all the songs were great.
saltydog3714 1 year ago
Ths version sounds good but I like the originall better.
BobReidy 1 year ago
I much prefer the 'classic' version
jonsilence 1 year ago 2
Now, that's music!
FashionedUp 1 year ago
Thanx,",">><
tntcaliente 1 year ago
YEA............
tntcaliente 1 year ago
Is this the RCA recording?
Crossie145 1 year ago
Is this the RCA recording?
Crossie145 1 year ago
Just Fantastic Stuff....Great Outtakes....May the Byrds Live On Forever!
dusknmusk 1 year ago
da greedy bands do not want us to listen for free...these arsholes ,the lot of 'em have made enuff ching off all of us...until now...the big ride has finally ended..the music business is finally in dire straits.
repelghosts 1 year ago
darker than anything black sabbath has ever made
bassist4141 1 year ago
@bassist4141 trippier yes. but darker?. please explain yourself. I would love to amicably discuss this. I love both bands
joeheadblues 1 year ago
been a fan since about '72..and i never heard this before.....very good!
boomac62 2 years ago
This was the original recording. Because it was recorded at a studio NOT owned by Columbia, Columbia records dismissed it and had The Byrds record another version, the version we're most familiar with. McGuinn and Crosby have said that this original version was their favorite and also more true to their concept.
Monkey45008 2 years ago 3
Is this the Byrds? it sounds like another group, particularly the drumming and Hillman's base. Perhaps take 1
jutescrim 2 years ago
Not heard this version before. Anyone know where it's from?
JazzJonnie 2 years ago
Super twangy!
WhiteNacho 2 years ago
Great great band ,,,,wish some of today's musicsounded like this
deansusky 2 years ago
Too right!
Thing is, it's super difficult to get this sound today. Gone are the analogue compressors and 2" 4 track tape recorders. Recording are done dry and not in big rooms like this - which were designed for swing band recordings in the '50's.
Pro Tools has changed the game and maybe things are meant to change...
sleakitweasel 2 years ago
There are companies that refurbish the old studio reel to reel recorders. You're totally right about this sound. It just can't be done with digital equipment. My furniture console stereo has a reel to reel tape recorder which makes everything sound warm and full bodied that's just the way analog tape is.
Nivicoman 2 years ago
Refurbishment is a big money game! Keep yr reel to reel well maintained - it must sound good...
:-)
sleakitweasel 2 years ago
I go as far as to copy cds onto the reel to reel then recopy them from the reel to reel to cassette to listen to in the car-warms up that cd sound.
Nivicoman 2 years ago
Best version of this I ever heard was the instrumental version. Amazing stuff.
Anglynn74 2 years ago
my favorite byrds song!!!!!
stratatack60 2 years ago
I love this song. It is amazing!
Baculus 2 years ago
What kind of effect or pedal uses the guitar solo ? It's only a 12 string guitar?
Dundsany 2 years ago
Yeah, it's just a 12 string Rickenbacker in clean mode. Probably had the volume and treble dials maxed out on the guitar though. Any echo would come from the recording desk from the reverb settings.
petsounds75 2 years ago
This is the version you want to hear and I was a sad little non-rocker cause my Dad would have killed me but I was still very aware of this song...and yes, I did want to be 8 miles high.
CMARTELL101 2 years ago 4
This version was recorded in 1965, when Turn, Turn Turn and Rubber Soul were still on the charts. This is the Byrds at their creative peak. No one else was doing anything remotely close to this at the time, and I can still remember where I was the first time I heard the Columbia single. 8MH is arguably the most ambitious single ever released on Top 40 Radio.
cathygraham140 2 years ago 2
What about East-West by Paul Butterfield Blues Band w/ Mike Bloomfield! Now that was real trippy!
Jenscool 2 years ago
Not on AM radio thou!
Jenscool 2 years ago
Yes, East-West is great! I'm not sure which was recorded first, though, Eight Miles High or East-West. I think both groups were influencing one another at the time. In my opinion, Eight Miles High has more of a Coltrane influence; East-West has more of a raga influence.
cathygraham140 2 years ago
Byrds was first recorded, Cathy.
Jenscool 2 years ago
????? What?
surfside48 2 years ago
what what-lol?
Jenscool 2 years ago
This version is SO good.
CadillacL 2 years ago
Comment removed
JeffTheNebraskaDJ 2 years ago
This song is soooooooooo cool.
I realize it doesn't get much radio airplay because of the drug reference.
But it is awesome. the dj
JeffTheNebraskaDJ 2 years ago 4
Sadly, it's not even about drugs.
DonJack1776 2 years ago 3
Very true - it was about flying into London. The song was banned because of the word "high" in the title.
reborn5310 2 years ago
Well...I mean the whole album had that kind of tripped out frisson. Everything was about alternative reality, I think. But the Byrds were smoothe, technological, cool tech, not homspun hippie high but Lear Jet high. Unique. Brilliant.
jblacktree 2 years ago 3
And it's bull shit that it doesn't get much radio airplay
I heard Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds all the time
That's all about LSD
Nothing against The Beatles, by the way, they're my favorite band
I'm just saying it's ridiculous
foureverstoopid 2 years ago
Lennon adamantly denied that Lucy was about LSD...could be he was toying with us the audience who made him rich but who he looked down on...hhhmmm.
CMARTELL101 2 years ago
Not really familiar with the changes of musicians in the group but this is the best version I've found on YouTube. Sounds as good as the original version.
violetrod 2 years ago 3
Fucking great song
WierdDreamer 2 years ago
great song
789pequignot 2 years ago
whooooooaaaaaa. best song to be high to, everrrrrr. it's right in the title.
charliebubblesoar 2 years ago
this is fucking weird..... im not high for once but this song is making me feel like im floooattinnggg. duuuude
juligobi 2 years ago
After years of hearing Crosby say how much better the RCA version is than the final Columbia release, I was disappointed when I finally heard it for the first time years ago. It's interesting, and good to have, but they tightened it up considerably by the time they recorded the "official" version.
BigStar303 2 years ago 4
i agree, and i guarantee this version would not be a hit like the final version
KIDAmnesiacBends 2 years ago
I think the best was a live version.
kaiserwilhelm 2 years ago
i think the drumming is better on the final version
KIDAmnesiacBends 2 years ago
McGuinn's guitar in this version has the echo quality that would become a trademark sound of the Jefferson Airplane.
PC3900 2 years ago 2
I like McGuinn as much as the next guy, but neither this version nor the Columbia version of this song would be worth squat without Chris Hillman's intro.
darrinbaker00 2 years ago
ohyes
byrdsvictor 2 years ago
Amazing!
This is literally "out of this world" and a lot better than the released version!
RockMusicLover73 2 years ago 6
Excellent.
kphoger 2 years ago 2
i bet this sounds perfect on shrooms
KIDAmnesiacBends 2 years ago
even beyyer on good acid
esirenbotdon 2 years ago
try it
OldSteamer 2 years ago
3 minutes of pure pop magic...transcends time and space for me...the bass line, jangly guitars, harmonies divine...love it.
rowdymax1 2 years ago 19
Me always liked....thanks Sherrylynn for share!
Pinchysandcrab 2 years ago
YouTube's yanked down many Byrds videos lately. A live version of Mr. Tambourine Man was yanked last week. Wonder what's going on. Seems kinda dumb.
thereallouminatti 2 years ago 15
Indeed.
HIghFlyinByrd 2 years ago
Maybe there should be Byrds special Channel for everything The Byrds.
Yourmomisnthere 2 years ago 7
there is-check out mcd220
gibb253 2 years ago
@HIghFlyinByrd Why would they do that?
TheMrdmo 1 year ago
@thereallouminatti it is because of the google acquisition of youtube. google is making youtube very "squeaky clean" by taking down anything and everything that at any point in time belonged to someone else. everything good about youtube is pretty much dead now :/
ancientcian 1 year ago
Versión preciosa.
risterion 3 years ago 2
Both versions are absolutely great, I'd say. Thank god for the Byrds.
ivycompton 3 years ago 3
Why did YouTube yank down the video for the original version?
thereallouminatti 3 years ago 3
ye i loved it with all the stars around and that was a better version
mobyboy 2 years ago 2
It does sound more raw and acid-ish.
joshhodg 3 years ago 2
Really miss those Crosby rhythm guitar fills that appear in the final... Didn't realize how important they are to the final til I listened to this.
And McGuinn isn't too tight on his solos here. But the highly compressed Ric is sounds nice.
Thanks for posting... Very cool.
koreakutie 3 years ago 2
Compressed by virtue of McGuinn's 'home-made' cigar-box amp with a walkie talkie speaker.Sounds like glass.Tremendous
RodCow 2 years ago 3
Heard this tale for years, Byrds cooked a sick track with RCA but Columbia made them re-record song. Final Score = Byrds Columbia version is much better.
byrdsss 3 years ago
i prefer the final version too..i dont know why, theres something perfect sounding about it
KIDAmnesiacBends 3 years ago
Love the biting Ric on this one. Really cool!
hofnericon 3 years ago
Awesome! Thanks HFB.
GeorgeCrosley 3 years ago
Well after finally hearing this track that The Byrds preferred, I must say I like the the famous version better. While the rhythm track (like mentioned by the band as liking better) is groovier or more out front, I still prefer the Columbia release.
byrdsss 3 years ago
i love this earlier version.Why wasnt this released as the single ?
pythongoon 3 years ago 3
The Byrds actually preferred this version, but Colombia demanded that they record a new version in their studios, which is what was the final version.
HIghFlyinByrd 3 years ago 4
these recordings are so cool where did you get them?
fuhrman66 3 years ago
Really.I did not know that.
BobReidy 1 year ago
@pythongoon I like this version a lot more too
TheMrdmo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pythongoon No you are a fucking scum of the earth,Because you a Jew and Nigger
HitlersHolocaust 1 year ago
So ahead of their time - drugs DO work sometimes
aviatik 3 years ago
the canadian copy had banned in canada stamped on the label
spacepatrolman 3 years ago 2
Still its' it's nice to hear the alternate takes like this.
genericgeorge 3 years ago
I prefer the famous familiar version.
genericgeorge 3 years ago
Could you please post "I Know My Rider" from this CD? I think it's brilliant and others should get the chance to hear it.
PS: A good version of "Eight Miles High" - hard to believe that this was recorded in 1965!!
mackemc57 3 years ago
WOW! Where did u get the alternate version of this song?! it's awesome! I love this song, and it's as if listening to it for the first time all over again!
wilkes85 3 years ago
this is from the reissued Fifth Dimension album as a bonus track
HIghFlyinByrd 3 years ago
it was on the reflyte lp before that
its funny that crosby found mike clarke and he put him in the group because he looked like brian jones[he couldnt play drums] then he developed into something like a drummer
spacepatrolman 3 years ago
Thanks so much for this!
HaganeNoDan 3 years ago
fuzztone "its whats happenning baby" as murry the k used to say
spacepatrolman 3 years ago