A Beatles Virtual Instrument

[zed]

Is it just me, or did you have to type in your login information to enter Uncornation just now? This happens from time to time, and I suspect it probably happens to everyone... but I never know for sure.

Mr Frodo, as I know you are a fan of Beatles' song structure, I must share with you one of my favorite Beatle links... that of musicologist Alan W. Pollack's analysis of Beatles songs. It is delightfully layed out, and has interesting tidbits for each song (in a language you will understand and appreciate). It is presented in a way I have not seen elsewhere, and I almost wish there was a book version of it.

The home page is at:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DAT ... s_on.shtml

Or just pick a song from the chronological list. Pick a song! Any song!
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DAT ... ects.shtml

There is also an alphabetical list on the home page.

I have Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, but his analysis seems a little opinionated, with regards to post Sgt. Pepper years. In numerous cases he describes things that he thinks didn't work well in the song, and meanwhile I am thinking "That was the best part of the song!!!"

Alan W. Pollack's analysis, on the other hand, seems unbiased.

[Frodo]

Oh, goodie-goodie.

DP just crashed again, so I log on and find an extra treat. I'ts almost 3:30 AM and I'd rather lurk Beatle links anyway at this point.

I'll check 'em out and get back to you.

Thanks!

[zed]

DP just crashed again...

It is possible that you may have lost perspective because you are getting used to things functioning in this way... But I just wanted to let you know that you are crashing too often!

Just in case you didn't realize it.

[nickysnd]

just pick a song from the chronological list. Pick a song! Any song!
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DAT ... ects.shtml
...
Alan W. Pollack's analysis, on the other hand, seems unbiased.

I picked a song... then another one... and then a third one. And then I stopped picking songs. This guy appears to me heavily biased - by his own harmonic (and not only) ignorance.

First I want to say that I know all Beatles songs by heart - wake me in the middle of the night, put a keyboard on my lap and name a Beatles song - I'll play it with all its harmonic subtleties. Or I can write it down with closed eyes. So there.

I first took a fairly simple song - Free as a Bird. Besides the fact that he misspells the sections (no verses in this song) and the chord progressions, the guy missed an essential harmonic feature of that song: the MA7 on the third chord. Actually, the chord progression is not the lame I-vi-IV-V but the very interesting I-vi-bVI(MA7)-V. A completely differnt harmonic experience. He also fails to hear the half diminished F# chord in the bridge.

Second, an even easier song - A Hard Day's Night. He makes a big fuss about some guys pretentiousness about the order of the notes in the opening chord, but he fails to name it properly: it is a Dmi7(ADD4). He even calls it a dominant, ignoring that no minor chord can be called a dominant, ever. He also fails to place the 7ths and the 6ths in the chords when due. In his mind, the Beatles chords were all triads. Shame on him!

Third song - Blackbird. First, that is not not a metronome, as he hears it, but footsteps. Then he completely screws up the fabulous harmony of that song. It would be too long to correct it. Take a look and see for yourself - that "analysis" is ludicrous.

My conclusion: totally unreliable - not recommended. To be avoided. If you want to see what Beatles songs look like on paper, check this book:
http://www.amazon.ca/Beatles-Hal-Leonar ... 0793518326
It is quite accurate. That Allan guy really doesn't know what he is talking about - he should keep his mouth shout about songs in general, and about the Beatles in special.

My two Canadian cents (more valuable that Mr Alan W. Pollack's worthless babbling)

[zed]

My conclusion: totally unreliable - not recommended... That Allan guy really doesn't know what he is talking about - he should keep his mouth shout about songs in general, and about the Beatles in special.

LOL. Well... I don't think it is quite that bad. Admittedly, I have not gone through his notes with a fine-toothed comb, and even if I did, some of those details are almost Greek to me. I do find that he seems to give a good synopsis of the songs, drawing your attention to some of the interesting key features. Great for a general layman's study, but perhaps not to be considered biblical for those wanting the absolute information.

I own The Complete Beatles Scores, and I can assure you that there are mistakes in there, too.

Third song - Blackbird. First, that is not not a metronome, as he hears it, but footsteps. Then he completely screws up the fabulous harmony of that song.

Well as far as I know, that is a metronome used in Blackbird. It certainly sounds like a metronome, and that is indeed what it is reported as being in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions.

As for his analysis of the song's harmony, here's a quote from what he said in the Blackbird synopsis:

I'm dishing out the roman numerals sparsely here. Yes, if you want to get fussy about it you can droom-up such numerals for every change in this section, but I reiterate my earlier comment that your ear is largely carried along by the melodic motion here, rather than by harmonic (i.e. root) "progression"...

I wouldn't call it worthless babbling. Just a perspective. I think you are possibly being a little hard on the guy. I, for one, am quite pleased to have this resource.

[nickysnd]

some of those details are almost Greek to me. I do find that he seems to give a good synopsis of the songs, drawing your attention to some of the interesting key features. Great for a general layman's study, but perhaps not to be considered biblical for those wanting the absolute information.

"Details"? "Almost Greek"? Make this experiment: Play the Beatles songs while disregarding those "almost Greek details", and see what you get. Seriously, play Blackbird and Free as a Bird as Mr Alan W. Pollack suggests. The birds described by Mr Musicological Authority simply won't fly. "Biblical"? I am not a fundamentalist, I am just a fan. Also, no such thing as "absolute information" - I am just expecting basic decency and a little bit of responsible carefulness, if possible, when one talks about artists like the Beatles. That guy provides plain incorrect info, which is bad - some people might believe him and get a wrong impression about the Beatles' musicianship. Presenting choruses as verses is a gross mistake. He proves to be way under the level to talk publicly about music, harmony, songs, and the Beatles.

I'm dishing out the roman numerals sparsely here. Yes, if you want to get fussy about it you can droom-up such numerals for every change in this section, but I reiterate my earlier comment that your ear is largely carried along by the melodic motion here, rather than by harmonic (i.e. root) "progression"...

That sounds to me like a pathetic excuse - the guy simply can't analyze harmony. Period. Besides the many mistakes, reducing Beatles harmonies to three notes chords is a gross oversimplification - like playing Chopin with one's thumbs.

There may be a few mistakes in The Complete Beatles Recording, nothing is perfect - but the situation doesn't even compare. That book is a reliable source of info on the Beatles' songs - one can really learn their true form and chord progressions. That Allan guy presentations are completely unreliable, he makes unpardonable mistakes. People who start learning about the Beatles should really avoid that web site. People who do know about the Beatles have even more reasons to avoid it. It is not a matter of me being right and him being wrong - that man simply doesn't know chalk from cheese.

[Frodo]

Thought I'd share this in a Monday moment of Rickenbacker covetousness:

[zed]

Hey, hey, hey!

It's got Rick-O-Sound just like the 4001. I didn't realize the guitars had that too.

I was just admiring the Sgt. Pepper cover before I went to bed today. I had the vinyl album out, so I analysed the jacket and saw at least one face that I hadn't remembered seeing before. And I wondered, as I have often wondered, if the idiots who would not grant permission (without payment) to be included on the album cover, ever regretted that they got themselves airbrushed out. When it turned out to be one of the greatest albums of all time, and catapulted the Beatles into super-super-stardom, I would imagine that those airbrushees spent the rest of their lives kicking themselves in the butts... I wish there was an interview or something, so that I could know for sure.

Now those fellows didn't know chalk from cheese... at least not at the time, anyway.

[Frodo]

Hey, hey, hey!

It's got Rick-O-Sound just like the 4001. I didn't realize the guitars had that too.

Oh, yeah! Rick-O-Sound all the way. That's one of the reasons why the Rick edged out the Casino as my next pursuit. I know that on the three pick up models, the top and bottom ones are on opposite channels, but I think the middle one shares a channel (with the neck pu?). Not sure. But hey-- a stereo guitar!! What a kick for a Rick-- and imagine what you could do with a 12-string model!!

... And I wondered, as I have often wondered, if the idiots who would not grant permission (without payment) to be included on the album cover, ever regretted that they got themselves airbrushed off the cover. I would imagine that they spent the rest of their lives kicking themselves in the butts... I wish there was an interview or something, so that I could know for sure.

No doubt about it. Stories like that abound. There is another one where a local band in the midwest US called themselves 'Chicago'. The needed an album cover design, and I think a friend of theirs created a logo either for free or for very little money. Little did he know that his design would appear on practically every Chicago release for decades.

An up and coming band is one thing-- but by the time of Sgt. Pepper, The Beatles were hardly unknown. Perhaps it was some of the earlier controversial statements and resulting bad press they'd gotten which made them a tad radioactive-- that, and no one had any idea that a non-touring band would ever be of any importance.

You just never know!

[zed]

Damn. I just went searching for a Sgt. Pepper album review which I wanted to add to this conversation. I thought I knew which magazine it was in, but I can't find it right now.

But the gist of the review (by a significant British publication, I recall) was something like: "The Beatles have really gone off the track this time... they've run out of ideas... There is no good material on this production... it just sounds like noise."

Once again, I sure wish I could read an interview with the fellow who came up with these outrageous statements... did he ever change his opinion? I wonder.

Stereo guitars! Cool. That would be especially useful in this day and age where you could apply amp simulation separately to the signals from the different pickups and then be able to really fine-tune your sound in post production. Just having signals from both pickups means you don't have to make the decision of which pickup will work better before you start recording. Of course, this results in (once again) too much flexibility. Having so many options (for me) tends to mean that I am always leaving the final decision for a later date, and then things are always waiting to be done, and piling up. One of the great things about the Sgt. Pepper era is that they were forced to make decisions and then just go with them. There ain't no tweeking the amp sound or the pickups used once the track is recorded.

Sometimes I listen to stuff I did a while back, and I think WOW that guitar sound is so cool, and wonder why didn't I finish recording the track with THAT sound. But then there are other times, when I can hear quite clearly that the guitar sound is a bit cheesy (or too unconvincing), and I am able to either tweek it some more, or am compelled to record it again from scratch.

[Frodo]

Sometimes I listen to stuff I did a while back, and I think WOW that guitar sound is so cool, and wonder why didn't I finish recording the track with THAT sound. But then there are other times, when I can hear quite clearly that the guitar sound is a bit cheesy (or too unconvincing), and I am able to either tweek it some more, or am compelled to record it again from scratch.

It's partially because at the time your recorded it, you might have had a different sound in mind without realizing just how good the sound you already had really was. I'm guilty as anyone of overthinking the final product too far in advance in an effort to clarify some sort of sonic vision. Over the years, I've learned that songs, arrangements, and the sounds of instruments have a personalities all their own that will lead you to a fairly natural end. Some things can't be fixed in the mix-- if you have a GK bass amp but you wanted a Vox sound you can do a lot of back-end tweaking with no guarantees.

On another note-- the longest lunar eclipse in 7 years is taking place right now. I just had a glimpse of it, and it's really stunning. They say it represents a time for regrouping and for renewal, whatever that means...

Maybe it means a Ricky is on the way!!

[zed]

On another note-- the longest lunar eclipse in 7 years is taking place right now. I just had a glimpse of it, and it's really stunning.

Thanks for letting me know, Mr Frodo... I had heard nothing about it. So as soon as I read your message I went outside and saw the moon already in full eclipse. And then I got out my binoculars and watched intermittently as it slowly became uncovered. Quite a delight to see.

Interestingly, I am on the part of my schedule that has me starting the day at midnight... but I had awoken around 9pm, and gone to the kitchen for a glass of water, and I noticed the moon was almost full, and in a spot where I don't normally see it. I went back to bed, and when I awoke again, just after midnight, I wandered around for a bit with the lights off and noticed that the moon was particularly bright because I could see the bright light beaming in through my patio door. I took another look at it in the sky.

So it was an interesting development to look at it again a few hours later and see it fully eclipsed. Thanks again for letting me know!

They say it represents a time for regrouping and for renewal, whatever that means...

It means we are gonna finish some great music in the months to come. I am actually in the process of regrouping and reorganizing so that I can get the stuff done that I long to get done.

[Frodo]

It means we are gonna finish some great music in the months to come.

Yes-- and it also means that EW is going to nail this PLAY engine at last! Let's hope for a bit of MOTU renewal while we're at it!

Indeed- the moon was stunning. It's now about twice as big as it appeared during the eclipse as it sets.

Here's a link to the first photos I've seen so far on the internet. I'm sure over the next few hours the entire web will be flooded...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/echeng/1256842069/

http://space.newscientist.com/data/imag ... -1_800.jpg

[Frodo]

More Ricky coveting...



AND THIS HAS TO BE THE ULTIMATE RICK FAN:

http://www.tatadoheaven.com/Ric/images/ ... backer.jpg

[zed]

Yes-- and it also means that EW is going to nail this PLAY engine at last! Let's hope for a bit of MOTU renewal while we're at it!

Indeed, indeed, indeed. Our software and hardware is going to go through a phase of stablility that lasts for several years... and Apple is going to stop making such drastic changes to their operating system and developers will enjoy a more peaceful period of not having to readapt or rewrite their code over and over again.

Thank heavens for the lunar eclipse!

If I could just have one of those guitars being shown off by THE ULTIMATE RICK FAN, then I would be happy. Or perhaps Amplitube3 will have modelling which will allow you to change your source guitar signal from a gibson into a ricky or a gretsch before going through the amp models. How much you wanna bet that that's probably the next step in the simulation signal chain?