Not a Second Time
Neil Oliver
never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles song of
all. Anyone agree?
Brother Michael
"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
I like the song - would have been a great song w/o the piano solo.
Mike
TAR
Well, to be perfectly honest, right now all I hear in my head is, "Not a
second tiiiiiiiime, no, no, no, no, nooo, not a second tiiiiime.
Give me a few seconds and I'll get the rest.
Some Beatle fan *I* am. Thanks for ruining my day. :|
- Donna
Andrew
is just plain weak). Closely followed by Little Child.
abe slaney
> I've often regarded it as the worst of all the Beatles songs (the piano solo
> is just plain weak). Closely followed by Little Child.
Well, there you go. Two of my favorites from that album.
John Coleman
from that album pick Hold Me Tight or else pick Money (or a couple of other
covers).
"abe slaney" <abesl...@itagain.com> wrote in message
news:ks%Hc.48578$bp1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
poisoned rose
There are a few too many ideas and direction changes crammed into that
upbeat little song. The melody seems forced and clumsy, as a result. I'm not
sure that I can 100% hum it, either.
Might have worked better as a ballad -- the changes wouldn't have worked
against the momentum so sharply.
Eramon1
>
>There are a few too many ideas and direction changes crammed into that
>upbeat little song. The melody seems forced and clumsy, as a result. I'm not
>sure that I can 100% hum it, either.
>
>Might have worked better as a ballad -- the changes wouldn't have worked
>against the momentum so sharply.
The only thing I could probably agree with is that you're not sure you can hum
it.
-Eric
R.A.G. Seely
> For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and lyrics
> I can never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable
> Beatles song of all. Anyone agree?
I rather like it myself - unexpected in places, which makes it more
listenable I think.
If you really forget the lyrics, here goes:
You know you made me cry
I see no use in wondering why
I cry for you
And now you've changed your mind
I see no reason to change mine
I cry it's through, oh
You're giving me the same old line
I'm wondering why
You hurt me then
You're back again
No, no, no, not a second time
[Then repeat it all over again]
On the first Beatles album I ever bought: "Beatlemania! With the Beatles"
-= rags =-
Mister Charlie
"Eramon1" <era...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040710225708...@mb-m01.aol.com...
PR may be right, but I have always considered NAST to be one of their
netter congs of the period.
Aeolian cadences and all that.
BT
never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles song of all.
Anyone agree?
I agree it is the least memorable Beatles song of all for you.
abe slaney
A visit from the detail police is in order here! :)
> If you really forget the lyrics, here goes:
>
> You know you made me cry
> I see no use in wondering why
> I cry for you
why I "cried" for you makes more sense from the singer's POV. I think
the 'd' is just inaudible.
>
> And now you've changed your mind
> I see no reason to change mine
> I cry it's through, oh
It's actually "my crying is through".
R.A.G. Seely
> A visit from the detail police is in order here! :)
Good eye! (and ear). I just cut and pasted, of course - my albums are 1300
km away at present ... (even from my MFSL AHDN and BFS - I went for Young
Marble Giants and Bill Evans, and other odds and sods, this time!)
Dimitrios Paskoudniakis
"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
ansermetniac
If you knew what an aeolian cadence was you would know how bullshit
the originator of that description was.
Here is an example-- f minor chord to a to G Major Chord iv to V
in C minor. The Aeolian mode is the same as the minor mode. A Cadence
= one chord resolving or modulating to the next.
Abbedd
Danny Caccavo
"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" <gree...@yeahright.com> wrote:
It's not one of their best.....that verse is all over the place...
dc
BlackMonk
"Danny Caccavo" <dcaccav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dcaccavonojunk-F54...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
I guess I'm alone in liking that song. Somehow it seemed to stand out as
more subtle than the rest of Meet The Beatles. In a way it was too mature
for that album. It almost sounds like it would fit on A Hard Day's Night, or
even Help.
paramucho
It's a song I'm very fond of and I like to play it. The Beatles'
treatment is a bit rushed -- the bass and drums are almost mixed out.
Beyond that it's certainly an interesting song in terms of Lennon's
songwriting.
paramucho
The so-called "Aoelian cadence" is still in question but I don't think
it's the iv-V progression you note above -- that's a harmonic minor
progression, not an Aoelian mode progression.
One possibility is end of the B-section, {D Em} i.e. V-vi. This is a
close within the Aoelian or natural minor mode.
The other concerns the outro which the Mann might have heard as {G G6
G7+ G6}, which corresponds more or less with the close of "Song Of The
Earth".
It really doesn't matter that much though.
abe slaney
> "Danny Caccavo" <dcaccav...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>It's not one of their best.....that verse is all over the place...
>
> I guess I'm alone in liking that song. Somehow it seemed to stand out as
> more subtle than the rest of Meet The Beatles. In a way it was too mature
> for that album. It almost sounds like it would fit on A Hard Day's Night, or
> even Help.
I counted at least 3 or 4 people in this thread who already said they
liked it. It was always one of my favorites, too. I like the abrupt
beginning...no nonsense, classic, scolding Lennon, the same guy that
would appear years later in Gimme Some Truth.
paramucho
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:05:10 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
><gree...@yeahright.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
>>> For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and lyrics I
>>can
>>> never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles song of
>>> all. Anyone agree?
>>>
>>>
>>Hardly. The Aeolian Cadence is reminiscent of Mahler's "Song of the Earth".
>
>If you knew what an aeolian cadence was you would know how bullshit
>the originator of that description was.
>
>
>Here is an example-- f minor chord to a to G Major Chord iv to V
>in C minor.
Where do you get your definition from?
ansermetniac
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:26:02 GMT, ansermetniac
><anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:05:10 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
>><gree...@yeahright.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
>>>> For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and lyrics I
>>>can
>>>> never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles song of
>>>> all. Anyone agree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hardly. The Aeolian Cadence is reminiscent of Mahler's "Song of the Earth".
>>
>>If you knew what an aeolian cadence was you would know how bullshit
>>the originator of that description was.
>>
>>
>>Here is an example-- f minor chord to a to G Major Chord iv to V
>>in C minor.
>
>Where do you get your definition from?
Aeolian is simply the minor mode. A cadence is a resolution of one
chord to an other. I don't need anyone to help me define it.
Are you aware that the V chord in minor is always major.
Abbedd
Mister Charlie
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:40fa845d...@news.ozemail.com.au...
I believe that it was indeed the outro that was the subject of the
famous AC remark.
XEX6...@monoman.com
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
sounds like something from the Rutles movie.. Aeolian mode...
maybe the original poster is a Professor of Narcotics at a Californian
University.
BlackMonk
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9rq7f0lti8d7ikdee...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:54:08 GMT, i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:26:02 GMT, ansermetniac
> ><anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:05:10 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
> >><gree...@yeahright.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
> >>>> For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and
lyrics I
> >>>can
> >>>> never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles
song of
> >>>> all. Anyone agree?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Hardly. The Aeolian Cadence is reminiscent of Mahler's "Song of the
Earth".
> >>
> >>If you knew what an aeolian cadence was you would know how bullshit
> >>the originator of that description was.
> >>
> >>
> >>Here is an example-- f minor chord to a to G Major Chord iv to V
> >>in C minor.
> >
> >Where do you get your definition from?
>
> Aeolian is simply the minor mode. A cadence is a resolution of one
> chord to an other. I don't need anyone to help me define it.
>
> Are you aware that the V chord in minor is always major.
>
>
Why? If the V chord has a major third, that would mean the scale would have
to use the major seventh. OK, technically V chords have to be major because
otherwise they'd be v chords.
ansermetniac
The V chord needs th leading tone (the seventh). Therefore the
nondiatonic seventh is used in the minor mode for the five chord.
In a minor
i a c e
iv d f a
V e g# b
Of course g is diatonic to a minor jot g#. But Western music needs
that leading tone. But don't tell that to Debussy. The g# resolves
the V chord to the a of the i chord
Abbedd
>
Ehtue
>> > > For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and
>> > > lyrics
> I
>> > can
>> > > never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable
>> > > Beatles
> song of
>> > > all. Anyone agree?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Hardly. The Aeolian Cadence is reminiscent of Mahler's "Song of
>> > the
> Earth".
>> >
>> >
>>
>> It's not one of their best.....that verse is all over the place...
>>
>
> I guess I'm alone in liking that song. Somehow it seemed to stand out
> as more subtle than the rest of Meet The Beatles. In a way it was too
> mature for that album. It almost sounds like it would fit on A Hard
> Day's Night, or even Help.
No, you're not alone, Tom. It was always one of my favs from Meet The
Beatles, too. That and All I've Got To Do. And yes, it does sound more
"advanced" than the rest of the album, though I wouldn't put it as far
ahead as Help. The placement on "Meet" helps in that regard. But then I've
always been a sucker for great Lennon vocals.
It wasn't until much later, when I became familiar with With The Beatles,
that I fully appreciated It Won't Be Long, as well. It just doesn't work
nearly as well sandwiched between other songs as it does leading off an
album.
-Ehtue
paramucho
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:54:08 GMT, i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 21:26:02 GMT, ansermetniac
>><anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:05:10 -0400, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"
>>><gree...@yeahright.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Neil Oliver" <nol...@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:yOXHc.15582$Rf.842@edtnps84...
>>>>> For some reason, this is the only Beatles song whose melody and lyrics I
>>>>can
>>>>> never remember. Which I guess makes it the least memorable Beatles song of
>>>>> all. Anyone agree?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hardly. The Aeolian Cadence is reminiscent of Mahler's "Song of the Earth".
>>>
>>>If you knew what an aeolian cadence was you would know how bullshit
>>>the originator of that description was.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here is an example-- f minor chord to a to G Major Chord iv to V
>>>in C minor.
>>
>>Where do you get your definition from?
>
>Aeolian is simply the minor mode. A cadence is a resolution of one
>chord to an other. I don't need anyone to help me define it.
I suggest you read a decent musical dictionary.
Aoelian is not simply the "minor mode" -- it's one of the four basic
flavours of the minor mode, as a scale.
A cadence is a point of punctuation. There are four basic forms of
cadence (full, half, plagal, interrupted) and many sub-cases.
iv-V is an imperfect cadence (half close) -- usually in the minor but
not always. It's definitely not called "the aeolian cadence".
>Are you aware that the V chord in minor is always major.
The V chord, is by definition, a major chord, as Tom points out.
However, the V chord is not necessarily present nor used to form
cadences in pieces with Aoelian, Dorian or Phrygian mode flavours.
In "Things We Said Today", an Aoelian song with Phrygian leanings, the
cadences are v-i and bII-i.
[a e |a |a e |a |a e |a |a e |a ] Things We Said Today
i v i
[C |C9 |F |Bb |a e |a |a e |a ]
III VI bII i v i i v i
In the Dorian "A Taste Of Honey" the closing cadence is bVII-i:
7+ 7
[a |a D |a |a D |a |a G |a ] A Taste Of Honey
i i IV i bVII i
"I'll Be Back" is Aoelian with a perfect cadence V-I:
[a |C G |F |E |A | ] I'll Be Back
i VI bVII VI V I
"Girl" is diatonic minor with a half close iv-V:
[a E |a |d |E ] Girl
i V i iv V
There is no general definition of an "aoelian cadence" which is why
the Mann, who coined the phrase, pointed to an example to explain his
point. There is a generally accepted definition of the "phrygian
cadence" which is a cadence in which the bass note falls by a
semitone. The definition stems from the defining feature of the
Phrygian mode, i.e. bII. So, what Mann was probably referring to was
the defining feature of the Aoelian mode, which is the bVII -- i.e.
the use of bVII instead of V to form cadences.
Ehtue
Game, set, match.
ansermetniac
Whoever you are or pretend to be you are fuckin idiot. You read
musical dictiionaries but do not understand them.
Don't bother me anymore until you learn what harmony is all about. I
have been teaching it on a college level for too long to have an idiot
quote rubbish from books. It is rubbish because what you quote you
haven't a clue as to what it means
When you accept that the 5 chord is major in the aeolian mode, and why
that is so, give me a ring
abcdefga rhe Aeolian mode. abcdefga an a minor scale
One four five in a aeolean whether nartual harmonic or melodic
i a c e
iv d f a
V e G# b
put the V chord as e g b and I will make you put a dunce cap on your
head and make you sit in the corner
Abbedd
paramucho
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
College courses do tend to concentrate on tonal music of the common
practice period, and within that style the cadential 5-chord is always
major since the raised leading note is the defining characteristic of
the style.
Recent college level textbooks such as Aldwell/Schachter, Lester and
Ratner do define the aoelian mode as synonomous as with the descending
minor scale, however the understanding is that the definition is only
true for the common practice period. Forte makes that more explicit
when he writes "We often speak of the major or minor *mode*. The term
mode is held over from the pretonal period, during which it had more
precise meanings."
The most recent edition of Piston, perhaps the standard reference, has
a section "After Common Practice" where the subject of the "decline of
dominant harmony" is addressed with examples from Grieg and Ravel,
where v replaces V cadentially, and a more detailed account of Debussy
who you have already mentioned.
A minor 5 is unthinkable for a Beethoven or Mozart (although Beethoven
was forced to deal with the situation in his settings of British folk
tunes). Indeed, Schoenberg refuses to write "v" insisting it should be
written "5m". Bach, who lived on the edge of pretonal-tonal music has
settings of earlier modal chorales in which he sometimes applies
pretonal cadences. Indeed, the Phrygian cadence is treated in some of
the college textbooks.
While many of the Aoelian tunes were modified to admit the diatonic
leading tone, many retained their pretonal lowered seventh. "What
Shall We Do With A Drunken Sailor" is a well-known example. Dylan's
"North Country Blues" is similar, finishing:
<A C E |D B G |A A > tune
<Am |G |Am ] chords
i bVII i
In short, the your use of the term "aeolian mode" is restricted to its
similarity to the descending diatonic melodic minor scale of the
common practice period. One can't really talk about the "aoelian mode"
in that context since the characteristics of the style have all but
disappeared.
In it's original sense the term "mode" refers exclusively to a melodic
structure -- there was no harmony. Harmonic cadential structures were
developed as polyphony evolved, but these varied as well. Cadences in
the Renaissance period would sound quite odd to our ears. So, there is
no such thing as a cadence, in the harmonic sense, in the earliest
modal period and varied cadential usage in the period leading up to
common practice in which the dominant cadence finally triumphed. The
one piece of that pretonal usage that did survive is the Phrygian
cadence, already mentioned.
Thus, it's not surprising that there is no commonly accepted
definition of the term "Aoelian cadence", which is why, as I said in
my preceding post, Mann felt it necessary to provide an example to
explain his descriptive usage. Unfortunately his example is also a
little unclear.
So I'll rephrase the current sticking point without the label "aeolian
cadence". It is of course possible to use cadences such as i-v-i or
i-bVII-i in non-tonal settings. Just as classical music of the late
1800s weakened the dominant so is pop rock also a mixture of diatonic
and other styles, including blues and modern modal styles. Thus, the
cadences in the pieces below are (i-)v-i and (i-)bVII-i.
[a e |a |a e |a |a e |a |a e |a ] Things We Said Today
i v i
[C |C9 |F |Bb |a e |a |a e |a ]
III VI bII i v i i v i
Neil Oliver
especially considering it is on With the Beatles and not, say, the White
Album.. But for some weird reason, I can never remember how it goes until I
hear the album again, and it's the only Beatles song I can say that about!
Of course, if I listened to it 20 times in a row it would probably stick.
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:2lhboqF...@uni-berlin.de...