Or Simply, "Wow!"
By Erik Tarloff
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2000, at 4:47 PM ETDear Chris,
It may be a waste of time even to mention this, but there has been a strand in "The Fray" over the last couple of days taking us both to task, often rather harshly, for analyzing this music at all. "Just listen to it and enjoy it," is the burden of the complaint. I find such an attitude bewildering. Curiosity about how something is made, about how it's put together--especially when it's something you admire--seems commendable to me on general principle. What's noble about passivity? If a delicious dish has a distinctive but elusive flavor, we want to know what combination of ingredients created it. If a writer succeeds in evoking powerful emotions using only external description consisting of short declarative sentences, it's worthwhile examining how the effect was achieved. And if a song takes us to an emotional place we haven't been before or presents us with lovely combinations of sounds we haven't heard before, why not examine what it does and how it does it?
In this regard, it's also worth mentioning--readers who believe analysis to be a waste of time should consider the following a consumer alert--that quite a bit of space in the book we're ostensibly discussing is devoted to precisely these matters. How were certain sounds created in the studio? What technical processes were involved? What was the original idea, and how did it evolve over time? If these questions aren't interesting to some of our readers, they might want to save themselves $60. But even if the exercise doesn't engage them, their indignation still strikes me as misplaced. Saying "wow" takes you only so far.
The "Eight Days a Week" clip you provided is provocative on several levels. (I was surprised to read in The Beatles Anthology, incidentally, of John's disdain for that particular song, which I've always adored.) What I find most interesting about it--not just interesting, but actually moving--is the small window it opens into the Beatles' perfectionism. Once they got into the studio, they took their creative responsibilities with the utmost gravity, and they were prepared to spend hours and even days visiting and re-visiting material until it lived up to their original conception. (No wonder they were beginning to get on each other's nerves by Let It Be!) There was nothing casual about the making of a Beatles LP.
The way I want to demonstrate this is with a clip that, like your "Eight Days a Week" example, involves vocal harmony. It is a fragment of John Lennon's "Because," a song on Abbey Road which was inspired by Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata. What's interesting about this particular clip, which can be found in the third Beatles Anthology CD set, is that it isolates the song's accompanying massed harmonies. Here are John, Paul, and George in triplicate--George Martin recorded them and then overdubbed them twice more--singing a cappella. What's stunning about the result is its purity. I don't know how many takes were required to achieve this level of perfection, but achieve it they did. To me, the Beatles sound as pure here as the Vienna Boys' Choir. I can't imagine another rock group capable of anything so splendid.
Listen to audio
Because
Now we've reached the part of my letter I've been dreading, the part where I confess another uncool preference.
The song "Revolution" was released in one version on the White Album and in another as a single. Written in 1968, a tumultuous year--the tumultuous year--the lyrics are pretty unambiguous in their rejection of political radicalism. (Although, during the first recording, Lennon fudged the matter a bit by singing, "When you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out ... in." Nevertheless, that "in" afterthought contradicts everything else the lyrics have to say, so I consider it a sop to the political activists among the Beatles' fans, who were certainly exerting a fair amount of pressure on them at that point). The song is actually, and most unexpectedly, a witty assertion of straightforward bourgeois good sense, an elusive quality during the era and one not normally associated with the Beatles.
Lennon recorded it the first time acoustically--the version that appears on the album--taking it at the pace of a slow shuffle. A week or so later he recorded it again, electronically this time, running the two lead guitars through the recording console, producing heavily fuzzed distortion. This time he delivered the vocal much more raucously and took the song at a faster rock tempo. This latter version was released as a single.
Rock cognoscenti have pretty unanimously adjudged the second version to be the superior. It's grittier, it's more powerful, it's truer to the harsh spirit of rock 'n' roll. Well, it may be all of those things, but damn it, I prefer the earlier version. That gentle rhythm, that good-natured vocal (epitomized for me by John's drawled "OK" at the beginning of the cut when engineer Geoff Emerick announces, "Take two"), its sweetly ironic doo-wop vocal backing, strike me as the precise objective correlative of what the song is about. It's also, to my ears, much pleasanter to listen to.
So sue me.
Erik
Or Simply, "Wow!"
By Erik Tarloff
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2000, at 4:47 PM ET
This week, our Book Clubbers take on The Beatles Anthology
. Click here to learn more about the critics and here to buy the book. Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Reaction to
Monday's entry:]
Solipsism, shmolipsism. It's heartening to note how much this bunch of boomers were affected by the Fab Four, and thought about them, and take the Paul vs. John weltenschaung, or the "Revolution" vs. "Revolution" posture. Under the influence of hormones and vast quantities of various pharmaceuticals around about 1970 I was sure the Beatles were aliens, among us with special knowledge to impart to the illuminati. But in that state I spent too much time trying to decipher the code in the moving letters in the fabric of my jeans.
The time changes and key changes and technical details were probably George Martin.
The angst was John.
The walrus was Paul.
Just enjoy it.
--Brian Levy
(To reply, click
here.)
You must learn about Liverpool: its status and impact on northern England, the impact of its history as a port city and shipyard center. These factors created a unique socio-economic environment for Liverpool, different from Manchester, different from Leeds. The Liverpool culture as it was in the 1950s helped shape the outlook of its youth, and the Beatles represent that cultural heritage. Starkey had the poorest upbringing, and Harrison the closest thing to middle class of any of them. Because of McCartney's closeness to his musical family extending before him, he is the most rooted in Liverpool's heritage of the embarkation point of American popular music into Britain, during the post-war era. Ask Paul about the music, that's what John would have said.
--Jono
(To reply, click
here.)
I enjoyed reading your exchanges here, and I agree that Rubber Soul, rather than Revolver, has plenty to offer in the way of Lennon/McCartney musical experimentation and maturity. But it had begun even earlier than that. Listen to Help and you'll notice a sudden departure from the purely simple boy-loves-girl stuff. Indeed, even different instrumentation such as the use of the sitar began to make its appearance there.
--Paul Splett
(To reply, click
here.)
Say what you want about John vs. Paul or Revolver vs. White but "Hamburg that most romantic of northern european cities"!!!!! Eh?!!!! Ever actually been to Hamburg? Must have been one helluva girl if you found it romantic! Try Copenhagen or Stockholm next time.
--simon warner
(To reply, clickhere.)
I just got back from four years in Hamburg and I totally disagree with you two. Hamburg is a beautiful city! Maybe you never got away from the Reeperban and surrounding St. Pauli district? I've never seen a city with so many parks and trees, the general architecture is elegant, there's a white sand beach along the Elbe, bicycle paths everywhere, there are more canals than in Venice and the bars never close ( I lost count of how many times I walked out of a bar into full daylight--not recommended).
--Maldwyn
(To reply, clickhere.)
In discussing the quality of "Martha My Dear" (definitely my favorite song on the White Album), Erik Tarloff mentions an effective rhythmic shift in the melody. I think it worth mentioning that unusual rhythms, phrasings, and chord progressions previously unknown, or at most little seen, in pop music were characteristic of the Beatles' songs from the beginning.
One of the first serious critical appreciations of the Beatles as songwriters was by the musicologist Deryck Cooke, who analyzed the phrasing in "Yesterday" (a McCartney song, of course) with great admiration for its creativity, originality, and imagination. (The essay is in Cooke's collection Vindications.)
I think this characteristic deserves to be mentioned along with the sheer beauty of the melodies and the breadth of the musical influences: The classical references Tarloff finds in "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby" were at least possibly and partially from George Martin, who arranged the guest instrumentalist parts of those songs, which I suspect are what's being referred to. But the melodies of the instrumental parts were evidently Paul's own, and the suggestions of instruments were at least partially his as well.
--Meriadoc
(To reply, clickhere.)
I agree with this posting. George Martin, who, unlike the Beatles, was musically literate, played a major role in plotting out and writing down the musical arrangements. But usually the ideas came from the original song writers (according to Martin, Paul was far more specific in his instructions than John, who tended toward the impressionistic). Thus, for example, Paul, having heard a Brandenberg Concerto on his car radio en route to the Abbey Road studio one day, requested a piccolo trumpet for "Penny Lane." On the other hand, the suggestion of a string quartet accompaniment for "Yesterday" came from Martin--this story is in The Beatles Anthology, the book under discussion, incidentally--but McCartney then sang some of the lines he wanted the individual strings to play.
I also agree that a certain harmonic freshness distinguished the Beatles' song writing from very early on, although it was certainly more venturesome in the later albums than their earlier efforts.
If you like the Deryck Cooke essay (did you know he's the same Deryck Cooke who prepared the performing version of Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony?), you should also check out a book by another British musicologist, Wilfred Mellers, called Twilight of the Gods. It has some very good material.
--Erik Tarloff
(To reply, clickhere.)
Another book must be mentioned when it comes to analyses of Beatles music: Revolution in the Head, by critic and Shostakovich biographer Ian MacDonald, much of which was over my head, especially the talk of harmonics. But it was enlightening even for those of us who slept through Music Appreciation (for instance, the simple comparison of Lennon's "horizontal" melodies with McCartney's "vertical" melodies).
Here's a variation on the "desert island" game that we used to play (and of which George Martin would approve): Edit the White Album down to a single LP. You then have the greatest Beatles album ever, bar none (wait--let me listen to Revolver one more time). For the record, "Martha, My Dear" makes my cut. And how about "I Will"--what a tune! Do you know that's Paul singing (not playing) the bass line? Stop me before I start blathering...
--cazzie
(To reply, click
here.)
A Fraygrant writes:
Before he was killed John did an interview with Playboy where he gave detailed opinions and the origins of nearly every Beatles song. Is this article available anywhere on the web?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are several, including
this one. But before you reach any conclusions about the authorship of Lennon-McCartney tunes, you should consult a book called Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, which came out a few years ago. It's an odd, fascinating, sloppily-edited book, but at the heart of it are interviews Paul gave to a long-time friend (the book's author is Barry Miles). In these quotes, McCartney discusses the writing of every single tune they wrote, and gives a percentage breakdown on who did what. (He'll say, "That was maybe 60 percent mine, 40 percent John.") Sounds a little self-serving, but his assessments ring absolutely true. His memory seems quite clear, and he recalls little tidbits on the songwriting that support his case. Beatles fans (especially those dismissive of Paul) should read it because they'll learn a lot. (e.g., Paul wrote the tune for "In My Life," and it was Paul's tape-loop experimentation that produced the astonishing sound of "Tomorrow Never Knows." Hey, I love John, but it's time to give Sir Paul credit.
--Bill
(To reply, clickhere.)
[Reaction to
Tuesday's "Book Club"]
I always listen to the acoustic "Revolution" as a warmup to the electric take. It takes on a sort of Led Zeppelin dynamic, acoustic blues before the thunder erupts. And of all Beatles songs, this is the biggest eruption of them all. The guitars howl like the damned, the drums 'n bass lock in thundering goose-step, and Lennon sounds righteously pissed off. If I was in a band I'd cover it that way too. Open with the acoustic shuffle and harmonies and then split some skulls wide open going electric. But then maybe I've listened to too much Led Zeppelin.
--Jerol
(To reply, click
here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Twitter and Google Couldn't Stop Facebook. Can Anyone?
Nine Theories for Why It's So Hard To Find Chocolate in China
Why Is Buttoning Up Your Shirt All the Way Hollywood's Shorthand for Retarded?
George Clooney Almost Convinced Me To Like Up in the Air. Almost.
Why Is More Than Half of Congress Still Not on Twitter?
The Best Thing About Alice: Kathy Bates as the Queen of Hearts
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Reaction to Monday's entry:]
Solipsism, shmolipsism. It's heartening to note how much this bunch of boomers were affected by the Fab Four, and thought about them, and take the Paul vs. John weltenschaung, or the "Revolution" vs. "Revolution" posture. Under the influence of hormones and vast quantities of various pharmaceuticals around about 1970 I was sure the Beatles were aliens, among us with special knowledge to impart to the illuminati. But in that state I spent too much time trying to decipher the code in the moving letters in the fabric of my jeans.
The time changes and key changes and technical details were probably George Martin.
The angst was John.
The walrus was Paul.
Just enjoy it.
--Brian Levy
(To reply, click here.)
You must learn about Liverpool: its status and impact on northern England, the impact of its history as a port city and shipyard center. These factors created a unique socio-economic environment for Liverpool, different from Manchester, different from Leeds. The Liverpool culture as it was in the 1950s helped shape the outlook of its youth, and the Beatles represent that cultural heritage. Starkey had the poorest upbringing, and Harrison the closest thing to middle class of any of them. Because of McCartney's closeness to his musical family extending before him, he is the most rooted in Liverpool's heritage of the embarkation point of American popular music into Britain, during the post-war era. Ask Paul about the music, that's what John would have said.
--Jono
(To reply, click here.)
I enjoyed reading your exchanges here, and I agree that Rubber Soul, rather than Revolver, has plenty to offer in the way of Lennon/McCartney musical experimentation and maturity. But it had begun even earlier than that. Listen to Help and you'll notice a sudden departure from the purely simple boy-loves-girl stuff. Indeed, even different instrumentation such as the use of the sitar began to make its appearance there.
--Paul Splett
(To reply, click here.)
Say what you want about John vs. Paul or Revolver vs. White but "Hamburg that most romantic of northern european cities"!!!!! Eh?!!!! Ever actually been to Hamburg? Must have been one helluva girl if you found it romantic! Try Copenhagen or Stockholm next time.
--simon warner
(To reply, clickhere.)
I just got back from four years in Hamburg and I totally disagree with you two. Hamburg is a beautiful city! Maybe you never got away from the Reeperban and surrounding St. Pauli district? I've never seen a city with so many parks and trees, the general architecture is elegant, there's a white sand beach along the Elbe, bicycle paths everywhere, there are more canals than in Venice and the bars never close ( I lost count of how many times I walked out of a bar into full daylight--not recommended).
--Maldwyn
(To reply, clickhere.)
In discussing the quality of "Martha My Dear" (definitely my favorite song on the White Album), Erik Tarloff mentions an effective rhythmic shift in the melody. I think it worth mentioning that unusual rhythms, phrasings, and chord progressions previously unknown, or at most little seen, in pop music were characteristic of the Beatles' songs from the beginning.
One of the first serious critical appreciations of the Beatles as songwriters was by the musicologist Deryck Cooke, who analyzed the phrasing in "Yesterday" (a McCartney song, of course) with great admiration for its creativity, originality, and imagination. (The essay is in Cooke's collection Vindications.)
I think this characteristic deserves to be mentioned along with the sheer beauty of the melodies and the breadth of the musical influences: The classical references Tarloff finds in "Penny Lane" and "Eleanor Rigby" were at least possibly and partially from George Martin, who arranged the guest instrumentalist parts of those songs, which I suspect are what's being referred to. But the melodies of the instrumental parts were evidently Paul's own, and the suggestions of instruments were at least partially his as well.
--Meriadoc
(To reply, clickhere.)
I agree with this posting. George Martin, who, unlike the Beatles, was musically literate, played a major role in plotting out and writing down the musical arrangements. But usually the ideas came from the original song writers (according to Martin, Paul was far more specific in his instructions than John, who tended toward the impressionistic). Thus, for example, Paul, having heard a Brandenberg Concerto on his car radio en route to the Abbey Road studio one day, requested a piccolo trumpet for "Penny Lane." On the other hand, the suggestion of a string quartet accompaniment for "Yesterday" came from Martin--this story is in The Beatles Anthology, the book under discussion, incidentally--but McCartney then sang some of the lines he wanted the individual strings to play.
I also agree that a certain harmonic freshness distinguished the Beatles' song writing from very early on, although it was certainly more venturesome in the later albums than their earlier efforts.
If you like the Deryck Cooke essay (did you know he's the same Deryck Cooke who prepared the performing version of Mahler's unfinished 10th symphony?), you should also check out a book by another British musicologist, Wilfred Mellers, called Twilight of the Gods. It has some very good material.
--Erik Tarloff
(To reply, clickhere.)
Another book must be mentioned when it comes to analyses of Beatles music: Revolution in the Head, by critic and Shostakovich biographer Ian MacDonald, much of which was over my head, especially the talk of harmonics. But it was enlightening even for those of us who slept through Music Appreciation (for instance, the simple comparison of Lennon's "horizontal" melodies with McCartney's "vertical" melodies).
Here's a variation on the "desert island" game that we used to play (and of which George Martin would approve): Edit the White Album down to a single LP. You then have the greatest Beatles album ever, bar none (wait--let me listen to Revolver one more time). For the record, "Martha, My Dear" makes my cut. And how about "I Will"--what a tune! Do you know that's Paul singing (not playing) the bass line? Stop me before I start blathering...
--cazzie
(To reply, click here.)
A Fraygrant writes:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. There are several, including this one. But before you reach any conclusions about the authorship of Lennon-McCartney tunes, you should consult a book called Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now, which came out a few years ago. It's an odd, fascinating, sloppily-edited book, but at the heart of it are interviews Paul gave to a long-time friend (the book's author is Barry Miles). In these quotes, McCartney discusses the writing of every single tune they wrote, and gives a percentage breakdown on who did what. (He'll say, "That was maybe 60 percent mine, 40 percent John.") Sounds a little self-serving, but his assessments ring absolutely true. His memory seems quite clear, and he recalls little tidbits on the songwriting that support his case. Beatles fans (especially those dismissive of Paul) should read it because they'll learn a lot. (e.g., Paul wrote the tune for "In My Life," and it was Paul's tape-loop experimentation that produced the astonishing sound of "Tomorrow Never Knows." Hey, I love John, but it's time to give Sir Paul credit.
--Bill
(To reply, clickhere.)
[Reaction to Tuesday's "Book Club"]
I always listen to the acoustic "Revolution" as a warmup to the electric take. It takes on a sort of Led Zeppelin dynamic, acoustic blues before the thunder erupts. And of all Beatles songs, this is the biggest eruption of them all. The guitars howl like the damned, the drums 'n bass lock in thundering goose-step, and Lennon sounds righteously pissed off. If I was in a band I'd cover it that way too. Open with the acoustic shuffle and harmonies and then split some skulls wide open going electric. But then maybe I've listened to too much Led Zeppelin.
--Jerol
(To reply, click here.)