Peace, Love, and Understanding
By Christopher Caldwell
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2000, at 11:07 AM ETDear Erik,
Yes, that "Because" is something else--the best of the less-is-more songs on the Anthology
album in which the "new" version is the familiar version with tracks edited out. Your beloved Villa-Lobos string section also appears in splendid isolation. And I should have mentioned in my last posting that Volume 3 has Paul's preferred version of "The Long and Winding Road"--purged of the swaying strings that the Beatlephiles among my friends find so offensive--while the Anthology book we're reviewing has an angry letter from Paul to Allen Klein of Apple Corps protesting the inclusion of strings in it.
Paul may have been as tough a customer as John on many matters, but having his songs messed around with was only one of the ways the breakup of the Beatles was harder on him than on the others. He also got big-footed by George and John on the release date of his first solo album. And that's leaving aside that he didn't think the Beatles had to split up in the first place.
Your bourgeois point is a rich vein. Discussing whether to do a new project in 1969, John looks at Paul, at a moment when no one in the band can stand the others, and says, "Oh, I get it. He wants a job." Paul replies, "I think we should work." What workers! For their first half-decade, they worked almost literally every day. They constantly describe their songwriting in compulsive terms, as "a habit." This is the "bourgeois good sense" that you talk about. John seemed particularly attuned, like a lot of intellectuals before him, to the great bourgeois paradox by which compulsion and good sense become synonymous.
Paul's thinking was focused elsewhere but similarly paradoxical. He says at the end of the book, "I'm really glad that most of the songs dealt with love, peace, understanding. There's hardly any one of them that says: 'Go on kids, tell them all to sod off. Leave your parents.'" To return to our generational discussion for a last time, the 1960s peace-love-and-understanding business, which so alarmed establishmentarians at the time, was in Paul's reading practically synonymous with bourgeois ethics (updated ones, to be sure).
But of course they had to break up. This book points to three reasons: 1) Yoko; 2) artistic rivalry between Paul and John; 3) the emergence of a caste system in the band--John, Paul, and the other two--which led in Ringo's case to a loss of artistic self-confidence and in George's to an insistence on higher billing. (Remember that Harrison was only 26 when they stopped recording.) If it was John who chose to break the group up, neither George nor Ringo had the energy to resist.
In my first posting, I mentioned a disaggregation that becomes clear on the White Album and Abbey Road. Granting that the four kept learning from one another (listen to how much Paul there is in John's "Julia"), these albums break down pretty easily into John songs, Paul songs, and George songs. John strumming his way through a rough version of "Strawberry Fields" and George doing an early version of "Something" are fantastic, but they show the extent to which the late Beatles are soloists using their mates as session musicians. They never lost their gift for working together--nor their instinct for it. One track on the Anthology album makes a particularly poignant illustration. In 1969, when the mutually hostile Beatles went into the studio to do "The Long and Winding Road," they began to jam on a bunch of rock standards--"Rip It Up," "Shake, Rattle, and Roll," "Blue Suede Shoes"--as if they were back in Liverpool in 1959. And Let It Be is a considerably better album than any of them think.
Listen to audio
Strawberry Fields
Listen to audio
Rip It Up
They were after wives and religion, and neither of these is a suitable endeavor for foursomes. The cliché is that the Beatles went to Rishikesh in India to learn Eastern spiritualism with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. But really it was only George who did that ("He will be flying on a magic carpet by the time he's forty," said Paul)--and he was as interested in the sitar as in transcendence. John enjoyed it because it put him in a frame of mind to meet Yoko. Paul treated it as a holiday, and it seems to have given Ringo the creeps.
Again, practically all of this biographical detail is new to me: John's friend Magic Alex, who believed in brain-trepanning (for others) and invented "electric paint"; doing the Tonight show with Joe Garagiola substituting for Johnny Carson ("So which one of you," he asks in the late 1960s, "is Ringo?"); the origins of "Hey, Jude" in Paul's pity on Julian Lennon in the wake of his parents' divorce; and that early idea for Let It Be, which was to write, rehearse, and record the songs on an ocean liner and to release it with an album when they docked. What fun such stories are.
Nothing more to say, but it's OK. Thanks for a jolly week,
Chris
Peace, Love, and Understanding
By Christopher Caldwell
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2000, at 11:07 AM 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
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
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.)