The Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles

[billf]

I've tried to show restraint with this thread

Frodo, it's okay, many of us here share the same weakness I'm quite sure. I know I do.

There is so much about The Beatles' songwriting styles that amaze me-- and I say "styles" (plural) because when you look independently at the styles of Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison one could write volumes about each. In combo, it's overwhelming. Also consider that their styles changed so dramatically from their first album to their last and it's almost too much to digest-- at least for me. I remain a hopeless fan to a fault.

On the one hand, it's a little too easy to say that McCartney was the melodic balladeer and Lennon was the rocker. Both were scary in both respects-- I mean-- "Helter Skelter" could be considered the forerunner of metal in a lot of ways. That was McCartney. How Lennonesque of McCartney to have written that tune.

Yes, the stereotyping that drives me crazy. John and Paul were equals in a way we mere mortals can only aspire to. John wrote In My Life and Paul wrote Birthday, the former a poetic ballad, the latter a timeless rocker. It just doesn't make sense to me to label either guy with any title other than "genius."

Anyway, "If I Fell" does exactly the same thing--- and it does some previously unheard of harmonic trickery. It starts on E-flat minor, although the tonal center is D-flat. But then it gets to "... and I found that love was more than JUST....". What? Em7? That serves as the pivot chord and the whole thing goes to D major after that.

That part of the song is only heard once-- right out of vaudeville. How McCartney of Lennon to do that!

They fed off of each other, and drove each other to try different things. There's an interview with John post-Beatles where he talks about Paul's solo work on Band on the Run. John said something to the effect "Paul will do something great that will scare me into doing something more, then I will scare him."

I really think this contributes in part to why The Beatles' still sound fresh all these years later.

They were a rarity, and we were lucky to be alive in a time to experience it. I wonder though if it is also why so much of todays music is disappointing. Where the Beatles tried to expand our conceptions of popular music, I can't think of one current massively popular pop star (or group) that is doing anything remotely on the same level. But our expectations are high because we know there are possibilities in pop music beyond just being formulaic.

Thanks for "listening".

I hope we've passed the audition.

[Frodo]

Well, I wrote a whole other long diatribe and somehow it got lost in cyberspace. That's okay. The world is probably better for it!!

@billf--- you got it, bud. Big time. Nailed it on the noggin.

@zed-- "you know my name, look up me number". We'll talk.

[Frodo]

MAJOR APOLOGY TO BAYSWATER!!

Somehow I hit the wrong button because I keep forgetting that I have access to an edit button as well as a quote button in this particular forum. I somehow edited your post completely by accident without realizing it when I only wanted to post a reply. I do not make a practice of editing other people's posts, so please accept my humble apologies for completely wrecking your thoughtful input. To my horror, I don't think I can restore the original post.

Again, a thousand pardons, B. I'm really sorry for what happened.

[bayswater]

MAJOR APOLOGY TO BAYSWATER!!

Somehow I hit the wrong button because I keep forgetting that I have access to an edit button as well as a quote button in this particular forum.

No damage done, you just reversed the authors, so now I look like I'm as smart about the Beatles as you. On the matter of soul, you might remember when the Atlantic R&B stuff was really big. The consensus among the paying audience in my town was that Wilson Pickett was the real thing, and Lennon was an acid head, a hippy, and possibly English. We had to play Midnight Hour a million times a week, wishing we could play the occasional Beatles song without getting a load of s^&t and abuse.

[Frodo]

No damage done, you just reversed the authors, so now I look like I'm as smart about the Beatles as you. On the matter of soul, you might remember when the Atlantic R&B stuff was really big. The consensus among the paying audience in my town was that Wilson Pickett was the real thing, and Lennon was an acid head, a hippy, and possibly English. We had to play Midnight Hour a million times a week, wishing we could play the occasional Beatles song without getting a load of s^&t and abuse.

I think I got the buttons right this time!!

Yes-- Atlantic, Tamla, Chess, Stax. In many ways, they took issue not just with The Beatles but with Motown (!), believe it or not. Back then, there was a struggle to maintain authenticity with a certain urban club edge that some felt was getting lost as the so-called "music industry" became a more influential force. I take my life into my own hands by mentioning that artists "of color" didn't have an easy time getting their recording careers off the ground while artists "not of color" did well by covering some really great R&B tunes.

But then, Motown itself was also criticized for being too polished at times-- the glam, the gounds, the suits-- it was not thought of as being "raw and real". The term "boojee" (sp) was used quite often--- a form of "bougeois", which was to label some artists as snobs. One thing Motown did well was to boost their artists' images to break certain stereotypes that young people were reckless and losing their way because of what was going on in the musical world.

Musically speaking, I don't know that anyone could find any complaints about Aretha, but all those record labels put out amazing music. Goodness!

But the tensions were more complex than many realize before any of these R&B tunes were covered. All we knew as kids was that there was a lot of great music to listen to.

So then, there was Elvis who was often shown on tv from the waist up. That image didn't always help when he covered a lot of gospel and R&B tunes. Many felt that he capitalized on music that wasn't rightfully his, fwiw.

Along come Lennon and McCartney from another country. The horror!! Paul cranks out tunes of Little Richard. Lennon covers Smokey Robinson. The band covers The Marvelettes, Carl Perkins (or Blind Lemon Jefferson, depending on what story you've read about 'Matchbox'.), and so many others. Isn't it funny that no one complained too loudly when they covered "Till There Was You" from The Music Man?

But maybe we've grown up a little since then. The Beatles never put themselves out there as an R&B band. I am glad that they gave credit to the writers of their cover tunes. In fact, I would sooner believe that they were proud of those writers because they admired them so much, especially the blues guys.

[James Steele]

It's a good point, Frodo. I've always thought it was interesting that most of "non-color" America seemed oblivious to the great blues music that was right there in our own backyard, while across the pond, young British musicians were consuming and studying it voraciously. I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, and of course everyone knows that Page had been in the Yardbirds, along with Clapton and Beck and those guys covered all sorts of great blues, repackaged it, and sold it back to an American public that somehow had no idea it existed. It's weird how it took Brits to appreciate a truly unique American musical genré and educate many Americans about a treasure that had been right under our noses all along.

Semi-related: Have you listened to Led Zeppelin's version of "In My Time of Dying" on Physical Graffiti? The link between blues and gospel-- the spiritual aspect, if you will-- gives blues a special gravity and power. When Robert Plant sings "Oh my Jesus! Oh my Jesus!" I get *chills* and it's a trip to think that this music carried itself from the fields and farms to the biggest arenas in the world!

[Frodo]

It's a good point, Frodo. I've always thought it was interesting that most of "non-color" America seemed oblivious to the great blues music that was right there in our own backyard, while across the pond, young British musicians were consuming and studying it voraciously. I'm a big fan of Zeppelin, and of course everyone knows that Page had been in the Yardbirds, along with Clapton and Beck and those guys covered all sorts of great blues, repackaged it, and sold it back to an American public that somehow had no idea it existed. It's weird how it took Brits to appreciate a truly unique American musical genré and educate many Americans about a treasure that had been right under our noses all along.

Semi-related: Have you listened to Led Zeppelin's version of "In My Time of Dying" on Physical Graffiti? The link between blues and gospel-- the spiritual aspect, if you will-- gives blues a special gravity and power. When Robert Plant sings "Oh my Jesus! Oh my Jesus!" I get *chills* and it's a trip to think that this music carried itself from the fields and farms to the biggest arenas in the world!

Speaking of gospel--- there's a Biblical quote: "A prophet is not despised save in his own country, and among his kinsmen, and in his own house."

Can I get a witness?

Sometimes it takes a foreigner to step in to offer an endorsement of one type or other. Yeah-- I know "In My Time Of Dying". It is definitely chilling. First off, there's some brilliant ground-breaking guitar work right from the intro and throughout. But they lay it out like an opera or music-drama for the way the phrases are presented. Is it up-tempo? Is it a ballad?

It's both and more.

The thing about Zepplin is that they didn't have to start from scratch because so much ground work was laid for them to break the rules and to create new rules. That's what the 70s were all about: picking up where the 60s left off.

I kind of got some of this from The Doors, but they lost me after a while. Zepplin got it right, I think.

I remember when someone about 10 years older than I was at the time grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and MADE me listen to "Whole Lotta Love". What they didn't know is that I didn't need to be pushed or punished to make their point.

Whether it's Zepplin or opera or gospel or whatever-- there's something 100% visceral about music when it reaches out and slaps you in the beak. That's what I'm missing from a lot of music these days, but then maybe I'm just getting old. I still need music to smack me upside the head, otherwise it's nap time no matter what kind of music it is.

That's why I tell people all the time: put your whole *butt* into your work. Believe in what you do, otherwise no one else will have any reason to believe in it.

***

See? Now, you've got me back to long posts. I was doing the Tim thing by exercising an economy of words. Now we're talking about some real music and you've nicked a major artery that just won't clog!!

[James Steele]

Funny thing is I dated a woman for a short time who fancied herself a real blues fan. I tried to hip her to the bluesier Zeppelin material and she absolutely hated it. I can't date a woman who fails the Zeppelin test.

[SixStringGeek]

I can't date a woman who fails the Zeppelin test.

You and I are never going out then. I love the blues but somehow I've completely burned out on LZ and could pass this world happy never hearing them again. I suppose being raised on Detroit rock radio had something to do with that.

Yo Fro Do - please do not hold back on the expositions because I find them fascinating.

And to think that we've gone from the magic of the Beatles to the drudgery of the obligatory Nickelback 4 chord plod in just a couple decades.

[Frodo]

Yo Fro Do - please do not hold back on the expositions because I find them fascinating.

I try hard not to offend, which is easy to do on a forum. I think I talk too much (as others in my life have oft cited to my chagrin).

But among the many things missing from a lot of music of late and a lot of conversation of late is "passion".... where "anger" is too easily mistaken for the same.

For me, there are the Beatles-- and Donny Hathaway-- and Zepplin-- and Wilson Picket-- and BB King and so many others who may not have anything else in common but the passion they convey with their music. THAT'S what gets me every time. It's a weakness of mine and I'm back to taking my medication to remedy the awful manner in which music makes me smile or even reduces me to tears.

I will try choose my words carefully and will gauge the appropriateness of said expositions with great care.

Not.

Was about to head to bed, but a part of me wants to put in the DVD of "A Hard Day's Night"-- partially because I've been working like a dog and need a mental reprieve.

[zed]

by zed » 14 Sep 2010 04:26 pm

Just placed my order.

The book was delivered on Friday the 24th, so it only took 10 days to reach me in Canada. I bought a new copy from one of the Amazon.ca resellers, and it only cost me $42 including shipping. It also came in perfect condition and was shrink-wrapped!

I absolutely love this book. I have decided that I am going to go through it slowly from cover to cover and to absorb all the principles and examples included. In two days, and just a few pages in, I have learned some things that I am very happy to add to my knowledge about techniques for adding excitement to a song. It is one thing to learn these things intuitively, and another to actually become consciously aware of how they work and why the work, and then have them available to use as tools whenever you need them in the future.

If you need to polish up on music theory, one of the appendices at the back focuses on that, and even there Beatles examples (with figures and lyrics and note names, etc.) are used when talking about the basics of scales and such. Another appendix on the basics of harmonization also uses Beatles examples to explain the principles. This is a dream book for anyone who loves the Beatles and wants to know more about music theory and how to write a great song.

My recommendation, though, for anyone who really wants to benefit from this book, is to buy yourself the Beatles Remastered Box Set and transfer all the Beatles albums into your iTunes Library. I didn't even convert mine to mp3s, because I wanted the full quality of the recordings, but I took the time to apply album cover art and to make the albums show up chronogically in my Beatles playlist. In any case, if you have all the Beatles songs in an iTunes playlist, not only is it easier to enjoy whichever album or albums you want to hear whenever you have the urge, but you can also just type a couple words of a song title into the iTunes Find field and that song will isolate itself so that you can quickly listen to any of the examples that are cited in this book. I am doing that constantly.

If you're not ready for the box set, the other option is to just search for the songs on YouTube, but they really sound atrocious compared to the real remasters and it is not quite the same as having them right at your finger tips.

Thanks to the OP for making us aware of this book.
It was published in 2003. I can't believe it took 7 years for me to hear about it.

[zed]

My recommendation, though, for anyone who really wants to benefit from this book, is to buy yourself the Beatles Remastered Box Set and transfer all the Beatles albums into your iTunes Library.

I'm quoting myself because I wanted to point out that this book, in many cases, refers you to the exact second in the song where what is being discussed takes place. So once again, it would be helpful to have the Beatles music available in a digital format so that you can quickly refer to the what is being discussed.

And another thing... the book smells great! There's nothing like sticking your nose into the crack of a brand new book and breathing in.

[scooter]

I gotta get this book. Especially if it's mostly accurate.
Thanks for the info!

Lennon-McCartney... ridiculous, magical, genius, wow.

scoots