On the Beatles' Avant-garde-ism
patrick mcgouhan
not the claim that Paul's contributions to the Beatles can be
considered "avant-garde", especially in comparison to John's
contributions. I think that this debate has been clouded and obscured
by an obsession with attributed songwriting credits, i.e., whether a
song was primarily written by John or Paul. Although a song's primary
writer undoubtedly was the foundation upon which Beatles' recordings
were laid, it is important to remember how collaborative and
multi-faceted the process of recordings was for the Beatles. This
process allowed for contributions for each band member in the writing
and rehearsal phases, the recording process, arrangements, production
and final editing mixing. Of course, George Martin's opinions,
suggestions and the various recording engineers' contributions in
terms of microphone placement, levels and tone qualities of each
instrument, as well as being sounding boards to determine the best
takes and performances, are all also MOST significant. The point is,
the final product was often never simply a reflection of what was in
the primary songwriter's mind at the start of this process. Many
other people and factors were involved in what the public later heard
as the latest Beatles record. (We must remember to consider how these
records were heard at the time of their release, in the context of
what other people were doing at the time -- which is difficult to do
so many decades later.)
When one reads Lewisohn's or Martin's accounts of Beatles sessions,
and listens to various outtakes (official or otherwise) of Beatles
music, what is most striking is how much preparation and forethought
was or wasn't present for various songs. In other words, how
crystalized and evident the final version was from the first drafts of
a given song. Some songs, e.g., Got to get you into my life,
Strawberry Fields, Yesterday, I'll be back, While my guitar gently
weeps, Please please me, Help, Ticket to ride, I'll follow the sun,
Get back, She said she said, And I love her, to name but a few from
the catalogue, started out in a very different form from the final
recording, whereas the final versions of others, e.g., Hold me tight,
From me to you, Hey Jude, Penny Lane, Mean Mr. Mustard, A hard day's
night, We can work it out, are essentially the same as the earliest
versions.
For the first group of songs (and others like them), it is often
impossible to ascertain exactly which individuals in the Beatles'
working group (i.e., band plus producer/engineering team) may have
influenced or altered the development of a song's final recorded
version. The nature of these types of collaborations (which are
essentially brain-storming sessions) is that it is often extremely
difficult to identify the source of an alteration, especially when one
isn't present during this process. All we (as outsiders) can possibly
hope to achieve is a thoughtful consideration of different
individuals' tendencies where the process is clearer (i.e., for those
songs in which a high number of outtakes and commentary exists) and
where there are corroborative memories from many of the people
involved.
The thing is, with John and Paul's songwriting styles, Paul had a
knack (and preference) for working most of the details of his
structures out ahead of time (considering most of the instrumental and
vocal parts and arrangements) before going into the studio (e.g.,
Penny Lane, For no one, Lady Madonna) whereas John often arrived with
very few details worked out other than the melody, lyrics and chords
(e.g., Tomorrow never knows, She said she said, Strawberry fields,
Ticket to ride) resulting in significant changes and contributions by
others in the recording process. Because Paul's creations had fewer
options to be filled-in during the recording process, most of his
songs tended to change the least during recording, whereas John's
songs often went through the biggest metamorphosis, often with his
looking back on the end result with a great deal of dissatisfaction
because he essentially "lost control" of the song's development,
because either the band or the production team's suggestions
significantly shaped the end result. Thus, it is misrepresentative to
claim that innovations that are present in John's songs were strictly
the result of his vision. Most often, if one looks at the process,
some of the significant factors of the final version were created or
suggested by Paul, George or Ringo, or their production team. Two
examples (out of very many): John hated the recordings of Mr. Kite
and Strawberry Fields, because he felt that they were too far-removed
from his initial vision, which, in truth, were not clearly presented
nor conceived in the first place. Both songs received significant
input from outside of John's initial vision for each song. Rather
than rejoicing in the contributions of other people in shaping his
music, however, (especially since John often hadn't fully worked out
his songs in advance, in contrast to Paul, who often mapped out most
of the details before presenting his creations to the rest of the
band), John often resented others' contributions as somehow ruining or
lessening the end result. Paul, in particular, was always ready with
suggestions, and frequently ended-up taking John's sketches and
tightening them up with impressive end results: e.g., Ticket to ride
and Tomorrow never knows (the basic groove of each song, which is
extremely significant in their impact, was Paul's idea for each of
these songs). Paul also seemed to be more open and accepting of
outside suggestions that resulted in a stronger end-result: e.g.,
George Martin's ideas for orchestration of Yesterday and Eleanor
Rigby, John's idea for the intro of Ob-la-di, George's amazing guitar
solo in Fixing a hole, but he also rejected ideas that he felt
weakened his songs (e.g., George's idea for a echoing guitar lines in
Hey Jude).
What also seems to be centrally problematic in the debates about who
was the most avant garde, John or Paul, is a misunderstanding of the
concept of "avant-garde" in the first place.
Let's consider a solid definition of "Avant-Garde" from
http://www.nga.gov/feature/manet/tdef_avant.htm
"The French word for vanguard. A group or work that is innovative or
inventive on one or more levels: subject, medium, technique, style, or
relationship to context.
An avant-garde work pushes the known boundaries of acceptable art
sometimes with revolutionary, cultural, or political implications."
Thus, the primary characteristic of being avant garde isn't simply
being "weird" or "experimental", but being truly
"innovative/inventive" and "pushing the boundaries". These
innovations are also not always on the surface, i.e., in the sound of
a song, but can be more subtle, and to do with "subject, medium,
technique, style, or relationship to context".
With this clearer and more established definition of "avant garde",
regardless of primary songwriting credit, which pieces of music were
truly "avant garde" at the time of their release?
I suggest the following songs to satisfy the above criteria. I'm
hoping that others can suggest some songs/categorizations that I may
have missed, since I don't consider this listing to be at all
comprehensive, but merely the result of my own impressions based on my
own experiences/analyses plus memories of those of things I've read.
I. Many Beatles songs were groundbreaking in terms of melodic and
harmonic invention & creativity (i.e., re: musical technique & style)
a)The following songs all have strikingly original chord progressions:
There's a place
From me to you
I want to hold your hand
She loves you
Don't bother me (a GH song)
Not a second time
Things we said today (esp bridge)
If I fell (esp intro)
I'll be back (esp bridge)
I'll follow the sun
Help (especially Paul's countermelodies)
The night before (esp bridge)
Another girl (esp bridge)
You're gonna lose that girl (esp bridge)
Drive my car (esp vocal cluster just before chorus)
Norwegian Wood (mixolydian mode)
Michelle (shifting key center)
I'm looking through you
Here there & everywhere
Good day sunshine
And your bird can sing
For no one
Tomorrow never knows (lack of harmonic movement)
Lucy in the sky
I am the walrus
Fool on the hill
Strawberry Fields
Fixing a hole
Wild Honey Pie
Julia
Happiness is a warm gum
Wild Honey Pie
Everybody's got something to hide
Helter Skelter
Savoy Truffle (GH)
Something (GH)
I want you (she's so heavy)
Because
b) Original/creative grooves :
Ticket to ride
Rain (bass playing)
Paperback writer (bass playing)
Love you to (quasi Indian groove)
She said she said
And your bird can sing
For no one
I am the walrus
Strawberry Fields
Lady Madonna
The inner light (GH)
Within you without you (GH)(Indian instrumentation & feel)
The inner light (GH) (Indian instrumentation & feel)
Glass Onion
While my guitar gently weeps (GH)
Happiness is a warm gum
Wild Honey Pie
Everybody's got something to hide
Helter Skelter
Savoy Truffle (GH)
Hey Bulldog
Come together
She came in through the bathroom window
I dig a pony
c) original use of medium
I feel fine (re: use of feedback)
Eight days a week (fade-in)
Yesterday (string quartet)
Eleanor Rigby (string octet)
She's leaving home (classical orchestration)
Norwegian Wood (use of sitar)
Rain (backwards sound)
I'm only sleeping (backwards guitar)
Love you to GH(Indian instrumentation & feel)
For no one (classical feel rhythmically and in orchestration)
Within you without you (GH)(Indian instrumentation & feel)
The inner light (GH) (Indian instrumentation & feel)
Glass Onion
Wild Honey Pie
Revolution 9
II. Original/innovative re:subject matter
Eleanor Rigby
Love you to (GH)
And your bird can sing
Strawberry Fields
She said she said
Lucy in the sky
Within you without you (GH)
A day in the life
I am the walrus
Happiness is a warm gum
Revolution 9
Hey Bulldog
I dig a pony
III. Revolutionary/cultural/political implications
Fixing a hole
Within you without you (GH)
She's leaving home
When I'm 64
Good morning, good morning
A day in the life
All you need is love
Fool on the hill
Hey Jude
Revolution
Bungalow Bill
Blackbird
Revolution 9
Across the universe
Eleanor Rigby
***********************
As mentioned above, I hardly consider this categorization to be
conclusive; many songs fit more than one category, and I'm sure that
some will question or quibble with my selections.... That being said,
however, I believe the bottom line is that there are far more
avant-garde songs in the Beatles catalogue than a casual listening
would suggest, and those songs in that category amount to much more
than the "weird ones" like Strawberry Fields, Revolution 9 and Wild
Honey Pie. And even these songs, much of the credit for the final
version of John's songs has to reside with George Martin's
orchestration and creation of the famous edit of two different takes
to produce SFF, as well as the extremely eclectic approach to
performance of parts and grooves by all of the Beatles throughout,
especially Ringo for the brass/strings segment. As to Rev 9, George
Harrison's role cannot be underestimated in this, as well as those of
the engineering personnel for all of the sessions.
The thing is, if one digs deeply into what constitutes the notion of
"avant-gardeness" in the first place, and then considers the process
by which Beatles recordings were made, to reduce the impetus for the
avant-garde innovations that dominated the Beatles catalogue into a
John vs. Paul scenario is highly misrepresentative of what actually
went on during writing, arranging, recording and mixing sessions, and
is thus quite pointless. Given their impact at the time (i.e., when
their recordings were released) and ongoing impact almost 50 years
later, with their music passing the scrutiny of virtually every type
of musical, social, historical, ethnomusicological, etc. analysis,
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Beatles phenomenon (which should
include everyone involved in the creation of their recordings) was
highly avant-garde, even from the earliest recordings. THEY (note the
collective pronoun) broke new ground constantly, as a result of a
collective, collaborative process that clearly was the very strength
of the music and its multi-layeredness.
In spite of my perhaps writing too much to make this point, I also
have no doubt that, in years to come, the impact of the Beatles will
continue to be felt upon successive generations, because there are so
many layers and hidden treasures as a result of their avant-garde
approach to almost everything they did, including their relationship
to the press and public, album covers, films, clothing, and
exploration of alternate ways of thinking, feeling and organizing
their lives. Each of the members of the Beatles, at some point, were
extreme innovators (even Ringo, who is often left out of the
discussion -- his innovations in drumming, especially in the way that
he subdivided beats starting in 1967 were ground-breaking and highly
influential) who all pushed the boundaries of music and its
relationship to society, always with the support and assistance of a
creative production team who also collaborated and contributed in the
process and the final products. Trying to dissect this process and
the recordings according to exactly who did what is therefore not only
impossible, but somewhat irrelevant, because not even the people who
were there agree upon all of the details nor the process. Anyone who
has been involved in highly collaborative ventures such as this
(working in the theatre, for example), knows that special things
usually happen as a result of the synergistic back-and-forth exchange
of ideas that make it truly impossible and pointless to even try to
attribute every single end result to this or that person and breakdown
the gestalt unity of an artistic work into minute parts attributable
to this, that, or someone.
Cheers!
patrick
"I am not a number -- I am a free man!!"
--
All follow-ups are directed to the newsgroup rec.music.beatles.moderated.
If your follow-up more properly belongs in the unmoderated newsgroup, please
change your headers appropriately. -- the moderators
dlarsson
> claim that innovations that are present in John's songs were strictly
> the result of his vision. Most often, if one looks at the process,
> some of the significant factors of the final version were created or
> suggested by Paul, George or Ringo, or their production team.
> examples (out of very many): John hated the recordings of Mr. Kite
> and Strawberry Fields, because he felt that they were too far-removed
> from his initial vision, which, in truth, were not clearly presented
> nor conceived in the first place. Both songs received significant
> input from outside of John's initial vision for each song.
> lessening the end result. Paul, in particular, was always ready with
> suggestions, and frequently ended-up taking John's sketches and
> tightening them up with impressive end results:
> the recordings according to exactly who did what is therefore not only
> impossible, but somewhat irrelevant, because not even the people who
> were there agree upon all of the details nor the process.
patrick mcgouhan
> > it is misrepresentative to
> > claim that innovations that are present in John's songs were strictly
> > the result of his vision. Most often, if one looks at the process,
> > some of the significant factors of the final version were created or
> > suggested by Paul, George or Ringo, or their production team.
>
>
> Your specific point right here is not in dispute. George Martin,
> in particular, had a lot to do with helping shape and develop the final
> arrangements for John's songs. However, Lennon was himself the key
> participant in suggesting to Martin ideas and abstractions from which to
> construct orchestral and tape-loop arrangements around.
Let's be real specific about how John was "the key participant in
suggesting to Martin ideas and abstractions from which to construct
orchestral and tape-loop arrangements" with regards to SFF.
In Martin's book "The Summer of Love -- The making of St. Pepper"
(1994), he notes that when John first played him SFF, it was in a
simple folk style, just his voice and a single acoustic guitar. After
the performance, here's what Martin has to say. (pp. 14-16) (I've
eliminated some descriptions that don't contribute to our discussion.)
" 'What do you reckon?' asked John, quite nervously ... He could tell
that I really liked the song even before I spoke. Lamely I replied,
'It's great, John. That's a really great song. How do you want to do
it?' 'I thought you were supposed to tell me that!' he flipped back
at me, laughing. In truth, I wish now that I had told him; I would
have taken the song just as I heard it. Oh, how I wish I had caught
that very first run-through on tape and released it!
Strawberry Fields Forever was gentle, dreamy, uncharacteristic of John
then. He had broken into different territory, to a place I did not
really recognize from his past songs. There had been a hint of it,
perhaps in 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. But this! ... It was completely
unlike anything we had done before. It was dreamlike without being
fey, weird without being pretentious. ... SFF wrapped its nostalgia in
an aura of mystery, conjuring up a hazy impressionistic idyllic
dream-world. ... How to begin recording such a song? John's one idea
on the arrangement was to use the mellotron, his favourite toy of the
moment. ... We began recording it ... on 24 November 1966. No
arrangement had been written for the song; the four Beatles sat down
to work it out as they went along. John had sketched out the basic
structure [in terms of placement of intro, verses, choruses, etc.].
John wanted to keep his acoustic guitar for this session, so Paul took
over on the mellotron. With Ringo on drums and George on electric
guitar, the song was heavier-sounding than I had imagined it from my
initial run-through with John."
[Martin then describes on pg. 17-18 how John had decided to do another
take because he had decided to do a rearrangement of the song's
structure, starting off with the chorus after the intro -- whereas the
first version had begun with a verse after the intro. Also, the
characteristic intro that is on the final version was created by Paul
for this version -- Martin stresses that the particular pattern of
notes was entirely Paul's idea. For this take, Ringo decided to
change his drum part to a simpler feel, and George H had decided to
try a finger-picked type of part. So, Paul's, Ringo & George's
changes in musical styles were NOT a result of John's suggestions, but
due to their own personal musical preferences. One week after this
take, however, John decided that another change was in order. Martin
again:]
(pg. 18) "There was just one small thing: John came to me a week later
and said he still wasn't entirely happy with what we had done. The
song kept eluding him: he could hear what he wanted, in his head, but
he couldn't make it real. ... His suggestion suprised me: I still had
that early simplicity in mind. But he wanted to use strings and brass,
and would I score them for him?"
OK. Let's contextualize all of this in light of what we're talking
about. John's initial vision of the song was just guitar and voice.
The first band version (which is on Anthology II) was developed
collaboratively, without John's directing any of the band as to what
to play. They worked out their own parts -- this is in distinct
contrast to Paul's approach, say on Penny Lane, where he had all of
the instrumental parts & orchestrations worked out -- there's a series
of bootleg versions of PL which has Paul singing brass parts and
directing GM and other musicians as they record the orchestration.
Back to SFF: so, the second version (which ended up being the first
minute of the final version) features new drum, electric guitar &
mellotron parts developed once again, without any input from John.
Even Martin comments how the end result was so different from what
John had played him. The fact that John wasn't entirely satisfied
with that take has a lot to do with his inability to describe what he
wanted to anyone. Obviously P, R & G simply did their best to play
sympathetically to what developed in the studio, but the end result
wasn't satisfactory to John's ears. So what does he do -- he simply
asks Martin to use cellos and trumpets and "to score them for him".
Now, in Martin's other book "All you need is ears" (1979), he
describes the arrangement process as follows (pg. 200):
"Between us [referring to John], we worked out that I should write for
cellos and trumpets, [playing] together with [the Beatles]", but then
George went away and devised all of the particulars. Martin notes
that the only particulars that John gave him in terms of musical
instructions as to what these instruments should play was that they
should be "bright and punchy" (pg. 20). Martin notes that "I decided
the cellos should speak with one voice, in unison, forming a bass
counterpoint to the melody. The trumpets I wrote either in simple
triad (i.e. three-finger) chords, or with a unison staccato emphasis,
blasting away on one note. I confess I had heard a lot of American
records with very groovy horn sections by this time, and lifted one or
two ideas from them. As the song developed further it seemed natural
to use the trumpets as a harmony behind the voice, sounding the same
phrase as in our lovely intro. ... Recording the parts I had written
was very difficult to get exactly right; all four trumpets had to play
loud punchy spiky stabs in perfect time, while the cello parts
demanded equally accurate and strident bowing."
As you can see, most of what sounded really "weird" and psychedelic
about the arrangement of this sound, was Martin's doing, with very
little input from John other than a bright and punchy sound for the
trumpets and cellos. In the hands of a lesser talent than Martin, the
end result could have been really terrible indeed. To suggest that
John had anything to do with the end result is like someone telling
Stephen King to write a scary story about people in a cemetary and
then trying suggesting that this very basic sketch has anything to do
with the end result.
Yes, John said he wanted to have mellotron, but Paul worked out the
specifics. Yes, John said he wanted cellos and trumpets, but it was
Martin who worked out the specifics. Creating music is much more than
selecting the instrument you want to hear. Particular notes, rhythms,
dynamics, harmonies, counterpoints, etc. have to be figured out and
the musicians have to be told what to play and how to play it. The
orchestral tracks were conceived without any assistance from John as
to their content; all of the "weirdness" in what the cellos and
trumpets played was worked out by Martin. John did not, as Paul
frequently did, sing the parts to Martin, and then Martin wrote them
down. John simply told Martin to "do the score" -- which is what he
also did, BTW, for "I am the walrus". If you listen to the Anthology
version of the backing tracks of IATW, you can hear that the original
tracks sounded heavy, but not nearly as "psychedelic" as George
Martin's orchestrations made them sound later.
The other peculiar instrumentation of SFF was the wild percussion
track, which Lewisohn notes was recorded on December 8th. Martin in
The Summer of Love, (pg 19) notes that this involved John & Paul on
bongo drums, George H on kettledrums, Neil Aspinall on a gourd
scraper, Mal Evans on tambourine, and a friend of George H's (Terry
Doran) on maraccas. Someone else (unnamed) was also playing
finger-cymbals. Ringo was playing his regular drum kit. This rhythm
section had been collaboratively developed while the Beatles were
waiting for Martin & engineer Geoff Emerick who arrived late to this
session, because of a prior commitment. It's not clear whether or not
John directed this ensemble, but given how sessions had gone up to
this point, it's quite likely that everyone was simply goofing around
together. (This wild percussion is featured at the end of the final
version.)
Martin also notes two other ingredients to SFF, one devised by John,
the other by Paul, for the end section. Again from SOL, pg. 20, he
notes how John managed to get the mellotron to play a repeated section
of notes while Paul worked out a ringing guitar part.
> Obviously, the
> whole band as well had a contributory role.
You seem to really minimize this. When Ringo, Paul & George totally
devise their own parts, the results are extremely significant in
shaping the end result. Judging by Martin's descriptions of the
sessions, John did not direct the sessions the way that Paul would.
> However, the fundamental point
> remains that it was Lennon who initiated all this type of surrealism
> -inspired, "psychedelic" music and considered it very much what he wanted
> to do and put out as a writer.
You're *really* stretching the meaning of "initiated" here. OK. He
wrote the song, but he had very, very little to do with how the song
ended up. Yes, John's basic song had a surrealistic feel in terms of
lyrics and some of the harmonies, but most of the impact of the final
recording was mostly due to John's having the fortune to have the rest
of the Beatles playing with him, and especially in Martin's
orchestration skill. If John had gone off and released this song as a
solo recording (either by himself or with other musicians) in the fall
of 1966, after he finished writing it (during his filming of "How I
won the war"), I think that there is no doubt that the final product
would not bear ANY resemblance to the Beatles version, other than the
basic tune and the words.
>In other words, the Beatles would expand the boundaries of pop -
> precisely because Lennon did not feel such type of music was "off limits" or
> that mere "pop" was, by itself, necessarily the band's artistic
> function and it was John that was initiating that evolution.
Again, this is really overstating things. You've conveniently ignored
most of my (albeit lengthy) original post, which has a number of
examples of contributions by others to John's songs that helped make
them sound the way they did. If anything, John's "weird" period
(1966-68) coincides with the time in which he was heavily into drugs
and was very paranoid and self-admittedly lazy. He wasn't motivated
to do very much other than watch TV (which has been documented in many
books -- I don't have the time to look all of them up now, but I know
they're there). The "looseness" at Beatles sessions involving John's
songs has very much to do with his not knowing what he wanted, so as a
result, P, G & Ringo (and Martin) would make suggestions and fill-in
John's sketches. Yes, he went along with what the others did, but I
don't think that there's any evidence that John directed the
proceedings. Martin notes in AYNIE (pg 200) that "John was the least
technical of the Beatles" when it came to musical specifics. He
frequently spoke in metaphor gave poetic descriptions of what he
wanted, but those sorts of directions need to be translated into
notes, rhythms, chords and musical specifics. The fact that the rest
of the Beatles thus created the arrangements to John's songs means
that they were very much partners in making these sorts of records.
> > Two
> > examples (out of very many): John hated the recordings of Mr. Kite
> > and Strawberry Fields, because he felt that they were too far-removed
> > from his initial vision, which, in truth, were not clearly presented
> > nor conceived in the first place. Both songs received significant
> > input from outside of John's initial vision for each song.
>
> 1. Strawberry Fields did evolve in the studio. It has been
> documented by Martin that John brought in the Mellotron
> specifically to be used for this song. John chose to
> develop the arrangement with Martin and with the band
> in the studio, but I don't know if it is fair to say that
> it was then poorly conceived.
I mean "poorly" conceived in that John didn't really know what he
wanted, nor did he communicate effectively what was in his head to
either the rest of the band nor to Martin. They had to guess, and in
the end, John didn't like the recording of SFF, quite obviously
because most of what ended up on the recording were other's ideas. If
his presentation of what he wanted done with SFF had been well
presented/conceived, then the end product would have please him.
> There is a natural process and also
> a big, big difference between conception and implementation.
>
> You may have the right instruments and the right tempo and
> overall arrangement but - not get the implementation or
> performance ideal.
That's my point. The implementation and performance of SFF was mostly
a result of other people's musical ideas; very little of what we hear
on that record was the result of John's ideas.
> John did feel, ultimately, like he lost control of the
> process and complained about "an attitude of loosness and causalness"
> in the studio that he thought was unhelpful.
As I've noted, he basically created this attitude, because he often
didn't know what he wanted. By 1966, the other Beatles had very clear
ideas of how and what to play, so they were full of ideas to suggest
if John wasn't clear or specific about what he wanted. It was very
much their band, too!
> 2. I have not read where John ever criticized the arrangment
> for "Mr. Kite" which he and Martin developed. He did
> however dismiss the song - since the lyrcis were just an
> adaptation of a circus poster and not something he wrote
> from the heart. For this reason, he dismissed it as a
> throwaway track. However, the strange organ tape-loops
> and steam organ based arrangement was something that
> he developed with George Martin. I don't think he ever
> criticized that apsect of the work.
You're right in that I've never read where John criticized the tracks
or the approach. But in this case, the song and the recording are
pretty much the same thing. i.e., if John dismisses the song, he
basically dismisses the recording. As to the specifics of the organ
tape-loops, in SOL, pp 90-94, Martin recounts how both the idea of the
tape-looped organ, and their creation, i.e., chopping up different
recordings of circus organs was entirely his idea, not John's. To
John's credit, though, he did specify that he wanted a tooty organ
sound and that he wanted to "smell the sawdust".
In both instances, it's primarily due to Martin's sensitivity, talent,
and avant-garde attitude, that he created something that John felt
comfortable with (at least at the time).
> > John often resented others' contributions as somehow ruining or
> > lessening the end result. Paul, in particular, was always ready with
> > suggestions, and frequently ended-up taking John's sketches and
> > tightening them up with impressive end results:
>
> This is inaccurate.
> John did not resent others contributions.
If he didn't resent others' contributions, why did he dislike SFF so
much?
> He did make specific criticisms of two songs that he felt
> were not well recorded:
>
> 1. Strawberry Fields ( the only song that required a hybrid of two
> versions )
> 2. Across the Universe ( a song with out-of-tune background
> singers on it - later Spectorized )
With regards to ATU, this is another example of a song that John was
very vague about when he presented it to the band. Another situation
where he basically "lost control" of what happened in the recording
process, because he exerted very little control and hadn't thought
about what he wanted beforehand.
> I think those criticisms are valid. There were factually speaking
> problems with the recording of these two songs. The first results were not
> sufficient and the final results were compromises.
>
> It is a big leapfrom this - to then say that John did not
> appreciate anything that the other band members were doing.
I never said he didn't appreciate what they were doing, but his lack
of clear directions resulted in songs going places that he often had
little say in, once the ball was rolling.
> Secondly, "John's sketches" were tightened-up not by one
> individual, but by a processing of him working with both
> George Martin and the band to refine ... with himself as
> the primary decision maker and engaged throughout.
Again, your labelling John as "the primary decision maker" is not at
all accurate for SFF, as I've supported with Martin's description of
the recording and arranging process. John was very much a spectator
with this one -- which ironically, is considered by many critics and
fans to be the Beatles best and most creative recording.
> It is inaccurate to portray things as if John just came into
> to the studio with only a "sketch" and one guy "fixed it".
As Martin notes above, John absolutely *did* come into the studio with
no idea about how SFF should sound. I never said that "one guy fixed"
it. John's ideas weren't "defective" or "broken", but merely
incomplete -- only a blueprint (but a very, very good one) for
something different. And there were MANY guys who participated in the
process of adding and collaborating with John's initial idea, not
"one".
> The process may have began with just a "sketch" but
> he was the decision maker about his own songs throughout
> the process of collaborating with both George Martin and
> the band members.
Repeating yourself about this doesn't make it so. See my comments
above.
> > Trying to dissect this process and
> > the recordings according to exactly who did what is therefore not only
> > impossible, but somewhat irrelevant, because not even the people who
> > were there agree upon all of the details nor the process.
>
>
> The point is, Paul's Beatle music never deviated too much
> from conventional pop music form.
Many scholars and critics strongly disagree with you on this point.
Paul's contributions to the Beatles' avant-garde direction from 1966
to 1970 were immense -- and actually preceded John's work, if you
adopt a less narrow definition of "avant-garde" like the one I
presented in my original post. SPLHCB was the most influential rock
recording of the 1960s, reaching more people and breaking down more
barriers than anything ever in the history of music -- no, I'm not
overstating things! The Beatles' best selling album is Abbey Road,
which was also primarily shaped by Paul's & George Martin's idea for
side 2 -- once again, although I'm highlighting Paul's contributions,
I of course emphasize that the execution of these ideas was
collaborative, and involving all of the Beatles and their production
team. Paul broke many, many conventions of typical popular music, in
terms of song structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, and orchestration:
see Walter Everett's books (Beatles as musicians) and Ian MacDonald's
"Revolution in the head", to cite two out of many scholars who also
have this point of view. The main problem with your critique of my
position is that your definition of "avant-garde" is primarily your
own -- you prioritize weird-sounding music, like Tomorrow never knows,
I am the Walrus, Revolution 9, and SFF, but that's NOT what the term
means by scholars and critics.
Examples of Paul's highly-creative music that deviated significantly
from the "conventional pop music form" of the sixties:
Things we said today
Yesterday -- not so much in terms of melody/harmony/lyrics, but using
a string quartet for a rock record had never been done before.
Martin suggested it,
but Paul sat down with Martin at the piano and worked out the
parts, singing
most of the key lines to Martin, which he then wrote down.
Ticket to Ride (John's song -- arrangment mostly Paul's; totally
original
drum groove that he showed Ringo to play)
Eleanor Rigby
For no one
Tomorrow never knows (Paul's contributions to John's song are immense:
bass/drum groove unlike anything else (somewhat reminiscent of
Ticket to ride), many of the tape-loops for this were Paul's
idea -- I know, I know, John & George also had their own loops)
Penny Lane (a mixture of music hall with a very original/creative
chord progression)
Getting better
Fixing a hole
She's leaving home
Lovely Rita
A day in the life (a true John & Paul collaboration, although it was
begun
from a partial song by John)
Hello goodbye (feel and orchestration very unique)
Fool on the hill (highly orignal melody/chord structure)
Hey Jude (basically set the mold for the rock ballad)
Wild Honey Pie
Martha my dear (incredibly modern take on music hall-isms)
Blackbird
Helter skelter
You never give me your money
She came in through the bathroom window
Just because Paul was also a master at conventional pop structures
like in "Here there and everywhere" and "Long and winding road", etc.,
doesn't mean that that was all he did.
> The far-out,
> surrealism-inspired,
> psychedelic, from-the-subconscious type of experimental music
> was, on the other hand, consistently generated by John Lennon
> throughout all of 1966 - 1968.
> Of course, the band collaborated
> on this material as they did on Paul's material as well - but the
> fundamental question of "avant gardism" has to be addressed
> by whose material ... actually fit into that extreme space.
My point is that avant-garde-ism ISN'T simply about "extreme spaces".
That's simply not what the word means. I think the only way to
dismiss the rest of the Beatles, Martin's and their engineers
avant-garde approaches to songwriting, arranging and recording is to
for you to hold fast to your self-created definition.
> Ringo Starr was there and his opinion matters far more than either
> yours or mine.
> He has said:
>
> "People -say- that Paul was on the fringe of this, that, or the
> other,but the point is, -John- was the fringe - and say what you
> will it was -his- band.
> Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone Magazine
Simply pulling a quote out of context doesn't mean much. What was
Ringo asked to produce this answer? To what was he referring? It
sounds like he was talking about John as a person, rather than his
abilities as a writer. Paul has frequently acknowledged that John was
the most likely to try crazy things in life. But living on the fringe
of life doesn't really have much to do with what one creates in one's
art. It also isn't really what being avant-garde is all about. It's
pushing the limits, boundaries, techniques, etc. -- see the
definition in my original post.
> The Beatles material itself also demonstrates the same conclusion.
I think you're just seeing what you want to see, mostly to support a
questionable definition of "avant-garde".
> So there is no real debate here - about who was the 'avant garde'
> writer ( John ).
>
> - Derek
>
I'll let John have the last word about himself, and his musical
preferences, rather than quote someone else about what he was like.
I'll even provide the FULL context. (Now, I'm sure after you read
this, you might suggest that this may have been John's views in 1980,
but there are many, many other times that John expressed similar ideas
about his musical eclecticism throughout his career. I've run out of
steam, so I'll let others dig them up. Or perhaps I'll do it later!!)
That's all folks! A pleasure dialoguing with you, Derek.
patrick
"The trouble with science is that it can be perverted."
READ ON FOR JOHN'S WORDS.......
Source: Newsweek interview, Dec. 1980, as printed in "Strawberry
Fields Forever: John Lennon Remembered" by Vic Garbini, Brian Cullman
with Barbara Graustark. pp 121
Barb has been discussing John & Yoko's recently released "Double
Fantasy" album.
"BARB: Why the decision to make a commercial album?
JOHN: Because I *love* commercial music!! I like commercials on TV,
I don't sit and watch them but as a form, if I had to do anything on
TV, it would be in the style of a commercial. I like pop records. I
like Olivia Newton-John singing "Magic", and Donna Summer singing
whatever the hell it is she'll be singing. I like the ELO singing
"All over the world". I can dissect it and criticize it with any
critic in the business. And put it down or praise it it or see if
from a sociological point of view or anthropological point of view, or
any fuckin' point of view, whatever. But without any thought, I
*enjoy* it. I just enjoy it! That's the kind of music I like to hear.
It's folk music. I always said it and it's true. It's folk music.
That's what I'm doing, folk music. I'm not intellectualizing it. I'm
not arranging it into a symphony and making it into a phony art form
and calling it a pop opera. And now I'm enjoying it and it comes in
the form of pop music to me."
goFab.com
<1bffc6ce.03081...@posting.google.com>, patrick mcgouhan stated:
>Examples of Paul's highly-creative music that deviated significantly
>from the "conventional pop music form" of the sixties:
>
>Things we said today
>Yesterday -- not so much in terms of melody/harmony/lyrics, but using
>a string quartet for a rock record had never been done before.
>Martin suggested it,
> but Paul sat down with Martin at the piano and worked out the
>parts, singing
> most of the key lines to Martin, which he then wrote down.
>Ticket to Ride (John's song -- arrangment mostly Paul's; totally
>original
> drum groove that he showed Ringo to play)
>Eleanor Rigby
>For no one
>Tomorrow never knows (Paul's contributions to John's song are immense:
> bass/drum groove unlike anything else (somewhat reminiscent of
>Ticket to ride), many of the tape-loops for this were Paul's
>idea -- I know, I know, John & George also had their own loops)
>Penny Lane (a mixture of music hall with a very original/creative
>chord progression)
>Getting better
>Fixing a hole
>She's leaving home
>Lovely Rita
>A day in the life (a true John & Paul collaboration, although it was
>begun
> from a partial song by John)
>Hello goodbye (feel and orchestration very unique)
>Fool on the hill (highly orignal melody/chord structure)
>Hey Jude (basically set the mold for the rock ballad)
>Wild Honey Pie
>Martha my dear (incredibly modern take on music hall-isms)
>Blackbird
>Helter skelter
>You never give me your money
>She came in through the bathroom window
>
>Just because Paul was also a master at conventional pop structures
>like in "Here there and everywhere" and "Long and winding road", etc.,
>doesn't mean that that was all he did.
Excellent article! I think it's a great demonstration about how John's avant
garde impulses were nourished by the rest of the group and its advisors. It's
also instructive to recall John's complaint from the RSI in 1970 about the
atmosphere of looseness that arose when recording a Lennon song as opposed to
the highly finished perfectionism he thought accorded to Paul's efforts -- one
way of reading this is John complaining that the band was *too* loose and
experimental when it came to his efforts.
That's a good list. I too was thinking of Eleanor Rigby is perhaps the most
radical thing the band had done to that date. You raise some other songs that
are truly pathbreaking and even subversive in their impact and effect. "Fixing a
Hole" is, in particular, one of the most complex and bizarre songs the Beatles
ever recorded, in its instrumentation, its musical progression and
hallucinogenic imagery of its cryptic lyrics -- which manage to be so without
ever calling attention to themselves. In fact, lyrically, I'd put it right up
there with SFF; it's that good.
And, of course, Helter Skelter. Although FOTH has never been a favorite of mine,
it is a very strange and very original song structure.
We always come back to the competition among John and Paul, and the others as
well, as a key in the spark of what the Beatles were. I think the avant garde
impulse is no exception here. You can only contribute to an idea by introducing
the idea of change to that idea, and that is why many of the Beatles most
bizarre moments came out of the mixing and clash of their ideas. Remember Paul's
anthology comments about keeping the Hey Jude non-sequitur filler "movement you
need is on your shoulder" because of an insight from John that it was perfect.
interstate5
paramucho
wrote:
> They worked out their own parts -- this is in distinct
>contrast to Paul's approach, say on Penny Lane, where he had all of
>the instrumental parts & orchestrations worked out -- there's a series
>of bootleg versions of PL which has Paul singing brass parts and
>directing GM and other musicians as they record the orchestration.
I've heard some of the outtakes of the "Penny Lane" sessions but I
don't recall Paul in the role you describe. Perhaps you could be more
precise. As I recall George Martin was responsible for the
orchestrations -- are you saying that he took dictation for these
parts from McCartney? Some parts weren't used and some of the other
parts are cheesy and trite.
In any case, my reading of Lewisohn indicates that Paul's original
keyboard parts weren't up to scratch. Lennon and Martin were
responsible for adding keyboard parts to "Penny Lane" until they got
it right. They seem to have done that incrementally -- a lot of studio
work takes place like that. So, I don't see your contention that Paul
had the whole thing planned holding up (and I doubt the value of the
approach).
Ringo has said elsewhere that the band was more adventurous on John's
songs because John's songs were more adventurous. Essentially, they
recorded three different versions of the song, each complete and
rather wonderful in itself. Indeed, Martin says the best was Lennon's
unrecorded demo of the song.
Martin says, on page 24 of SUMMER OF LOVE, that Lennon's approach to
"Strawberry Fields" changed the way they approached recording and
defined how they'd work during PEPPERTIME and he says the song was a
work of an undoubted genius.
Paul's controlled approach produced songs such as "Here, There And
Everywhere", which are, essentially, Paul songs with the Beatles
acting as session musicians. Lennon tended to use the band as a rock
should be used -- as a creative unit. The question one might ask then
is how much of a finished track is due to Lennon and how much to the
band. I think Martin gives his opinion in detail and at length on page
24 of SUMMER OF LOVE where he says plainly that Lennon's revolutionary
approach to "Strawberry Fields" changed the way they approach
recording and defined their approach during PEPPERTIME. If you're
looking for the "avant garde" element here, then it's in Lennon's
approach. Martin says the piece was the work of an "undoubted genius".
--
Ian
Impressive If Haughty - Q Magazine
BlackMonk
news:1bffc6ce.03081...@posting.google.com...
> OK. Let's contextualize all of this in light of what we're talking
> about. John's initial vision of the song was just guitar and voice.
No, he wrote it on guitar. At this point, there was no initial vision.
> The first band version (which is on Anthology II) was developed
> collaboratively, without John's directing any of the band as to what
> to play. They worked out their own parts --
Though Paul's melotron part WAS based on John's acoustic guitar playing.
this is in distinct
> contrast to Paul's approach, say on Penny Lane, where he had all of
> the instrumental parts & orchestrations worked out -- there's a series
> of bootleg versions of PL which has Paul singing brass parts and
> directing GM and other musicians as they record the orchestration.
So Paul was a control freak.
> Back to SFF: so, the second version (which ended up being the first
> minute of the final version) features new drum, electric guitar &
> mellotron parts developed once again, without any input from John.
Whose idea was it to use the melotron again?
> Even Martin comments how the end result was so different from what
> John had played him. The fact that John wasn't entirely satisfied
> with that take has a lot to do with his inability to describe what he
> wanted to anyone.
And has more to do with the fact that he had an idea of how it should sound.
Obviously P, R & G simply did their best to play
> sympathetically to what developed in the studio, but the end result
> wasn't satisfactory to John's ears. So what does he do -- he simply
> asks Martin to use cellos and trumpets and "to score them for him".
> Now, in Martin's other book "All you need is ears" (1979), he
> describes the arrangement process as follows (pg. 200):
>
> "Between us [referring to John], we worked out that I should write for
> cellos and trumpets, [playing] together with [the Beatles]", but then
> George went away and devised all of the particulars.
That's your editorializing, not his description.
Do we really need someone else promulgating the myth that John was some sort
of idiot savant who just wrote little ditties and was lucky enough to have
McCartney and George Martin to flesh them out?
<Yesterday -- not so much in terms of melody/harmony/lyrics, but using
a string quartet for a rock record had never been done before.
Martin suggested it,
but Paul sat down with Martin at the piano and worked out the
parts, singing
most of the key lines to Martin, which he then wrote down.>
You just said the innovative part was not the music itself, but the use of
the string quartet, which was Martin's suggestion, not Paul's.
I wouldn't even call that innovative, since strings had been used on pop
records for a long time.
<Ticket to Ride (John's song -- arrangment mostly Paul's; totally
original
drum groove that he showed Ringo to play)>
Paul didn't come up with the 12 string part. That was George. I doubt he
told John to put a tamborine on it, and the drum groove was changed by
Ringo.
You name a lot of songs that were well-written but weren't any major change
from what's went before. Merely having a clever chord progression doesn't
make a song "avant garde," especially since John, Paul, and Brian Wilson had
all been doing clever chord progressions for years before some of the songs
you mention. Something's only avant garde once. After the idea gets around,
it's only garde.
dlarsson
> > > it is misrepresentative to
> > > claim that innovations that are present in John's songs were strictly
> > > the result of his vision. Most often, if one looks at the process,
> > > some of the significant factors of the final version were created or
> > > suggested by Paul, George or Ringo, or their production team.
> > Your specific point right here is not in dispute. George Martin,
> > in particular, had a lot to do with helping shape and develop the final
> > arrangements for John's songs. However, Lennon was himself the key
> > participant in suggesting to Martin ideas and abstractions from which to
> > construct orchestral and tape-loop arrangements around.
> Let's be real specific about how John was "the key participant in
> suggesting to Martin ideas and abstractions from which to construct
> orchestral and tape-loop arrangements" with regards to SFF.
> In Martin's book "The Summer of Love -- The making of St. Pepper"
> (1994), he notes that when John first played him SFF,
> that I really liked the song even before I spoke. Lamely I replied,
> 'It's great, John. That's a really great song. How do you want to do
> it?' 'I thought you were supposed to tell me that!' he flipped back
> at me, laughing.
> With Ringo on drums and George on electric
> guitar, the song was heavier-sounding than I had imagined it from my
> initial run-through with John."
> For this take, Ringo decided to
> change his drum part to a simpler feel, and George H had decided to
> try a finger-picked type of part. So, Paul's, Ringo & George's
> changes in musical styles were NOT a result of John's suggestions, but
> due to their own personal musical preferences.
> (pg. 18) "There was just one small thing: John came to me a week later
> and said he still wasn't entirely happy with what we had done. The
> song kept eluding him: he could hear what he wanted, in his head, but
> he couldn't make it real. ... His suggestion suprised me: I still had
> that early simplicity in mind. But he wanted to use strings and brass,
> and would I score them for him?"
> The first band version (which is on Anthology II) was developed
> collaboratively, without John's directing any of the band as to what
> to play. They worked out their own parts -- this is in distinct
> contrast to Paul's approach, say on Penny Lane, where he had all of
> the instrumental parts & orchestrations worked out
> of bootleg versions of PL which has Paul singing brass parts and
> directing GM and other musicians as they record the orchestration.
> Even Martin comments how the end result was so different from what
> John had played him.
> with that take has a lot to do with his inability to describe what he
> wanted to anyone.
> about the arrangement of this sound, was Martin's doing, with very
> little input from John other than a bright and punchy sound for the
> trumpets and cellos.
> Yes, John said he wanted to have mellotron, but Paul worked out the
> specifics.
> Martin who worked out the specifics.
> selecting the instrument you want to hear. Particular notes, rhythms,
> dynamics, harmonies, counterpoints, etc. have to be figured out and
> the musicians have to be told what to play and how to play it.
> orchestral tracks were conceived without any assistance from John as
> to their content; all of the "weirdness" in what the cellos and
> trumpets played was worked out by Martin.
> frequently did, sing the parts to Martin, and then Martin wrote them
> down.
something absolutely like the end of the world. I'd like it to be
from extreme quiteness to extreme loudness, not only in volume
but also for the sound to expand as well."
able to write a score. What I did there was to write, at the
beginning of the twenty-four bars the lowest possible note
for each of the instruments in the orchestra. At the end of the
twenty-four bars, I wrote the highest note each instrument.
Then I put a squiggly line right through the twenty-four bars,
with reference points to tell them roughly what note they
should have reached during the bar. I marked the music
'pianissimo' at the beginning and 'fortissimo' at the end."
> He
> wrote the song, but he had very, very little to do with how the song
> ended up.
> (1966-68) coincides with the time in which he was heavily into drugs
> and was very paranoid and self-admittedly lazy. He wasn't motivated
> to do very much other than watch TV
I can write anything musically. You name it.
If you want a style and if you want something
for Julie Harris or Julie London, I could write it.
don't always enjoy doing that kind of work. I like
to do inspirational work. I'd never write a song
like that now. All the best paintings are Zen.
Painting wallpaper or making Muzak is not what
I want to do, although I have nothing against it.
I'm just trying to put a clear moment on canvas."
- John Lennon, 1980 Interviews with David Sheff
> > from conventional pop music form.
> Many scholars and critics strongly disagree with you on this point.
> Paul's contributions to the Beatles' avant-garde direction from 1966
> to 1970 were immense
> > yours or mine.
> > He has said:
> > "People -say- that Paul was on the fringe of this, that, or the
> > other,but the point is, -John- was the fringe - and say what you
> > will it was -his- band.
> > Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone Magazine
> Simply pulling a quote out of context doesn't mean much. What was
> Ringo asked to produce this answer? To what was he referring?
-Ringo Starr
> sounds like he was talking about John as a person, rather than his
> abilities as a writer.
> the most likely to try crazy things in life. But living on the fringe
> of life doesn't really have much to do with what one creates in one's
> art.
paramucho
<derek_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> He
>> wrote the song, but he had very, very little to do with how the song
>> ended up.
Many musicians are just like John -- they'll indicate what they want
to hear with music, rather than with words. One of Lennon's talents
was to get the best out of his band. We hear Lennon roughing out the
riffs in "Hey Bulldog" and, in particular, in "How Do You Sleep", but
he doesn't dictate these in the studio -- he urges the band.
There's a good example on "Strawberry Fields" -- you hear Lennon
experimenting at home in with the guitar gliss/slide that Harrison
ends up playing on the track. Lennon also experiments with Melletron
counterlines at home.
To say that Lennon had very, very little to do with the shape of the
song is very wide of the mark. The first version of the song is pretty
much just an extrapolation of how he was playing it at home. The
second version is a cleaner version of the first with Paul's beautiful
mellotron part brought out more strongly. The third version of
"Strawberry Fields" has as much to do with John as "Eleanor Rigby" has
to do with Paul.
On earlier albums Lennon would have stuck with the first version and
we would have thought of it as the immutable truth about "Strawberry
Fields". Lennon dumped the perfectly good track and went for something
better -- he wasn't satisified. And he did that again. The concluding
solution, combining the two sections, was all Lennon's idea.
It might help if you think of Lennon's "instrument" being his band and
the studio. Lennon produced the best *Beatle As A Band* music of the
lot of them. In many cases the Beatles are merely sidemen or not
present at all on Paul's better pieces.