Beatles rip off Rolling Stones
Krister Lund
Just by incident, Satisfaction with Rolling Stones came up, and immediately
after that came Day Tripper with the Beatles.
And it struck me how alike each other they were.
I wonder if the Beatles did this intentionally since Satisfaction was a
really huge success for Rolling Stones?
--
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
Christopher Jepson
> I was listening to my MP3 collection the other day with shuffle on.
> Just by incident, Satisfaction with Rolling Stones came up, and immediately
> after that came Day Tripper with the Beatles.
>
> And it struck me how alike each other they were.
> I wonder if the Beatles did this intentionally since Satisfaction was a
> really huge success for Rolling Stones?
There are some points of similarity.
1. Both feature a heavy "hook" phrase built from blues-scale notes. But an
awful lot of pop songs do. (I think George Harrison said something to the
effect that you can fool around with those notes and get a million riffs. Note
how similar the riff from "Taxman" is to "Day Tripper", by the way.)
2. Both have a similar tempo and a sort of Motown-style beat (thump, thump,
thump-thump-thump...).
I don't think the similarities are specific enough to make a strong case that
there was any direct influence... more likely that both simply contain musical
devices that were relatively common to pop music of the era.
I don't think the Beatles at that point felt any need to copy someone else's
formula as a way of being successful. But they were certainly still absorbing
influences as a way of broadening their music.
Chris Jepson
I McFly
I don't hear any between "Satisfaction" and
"Day Tripper" whatsoever.
paulisme
"I McFly" <WhenWe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12581-3FD...@storefull-2271.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> >>There are some points of similiarity<<
>
> I don't hear any between "Satisfaction" and
> "Day Tripper" whatsoever.
>
From a broad, "yeah both songs have guitars and drums in them" standpoint,
they sound similar. I suppose if I were a space alien hearing rock music
for the first time I'd think they sound similar, but having listened to lots
of rock music and having a greater understanding of the subtilties among
blues-based rock 'n' roll, I'd say they're not very close to each other.
Paul
Marston Moor
riff of one on top of the other. Do it!
They're both in E!
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
R. Stevie Moore
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
Krister Lund
>
> From a broad, "yeah both songs have guitars and drums in them" standpoint,
> they sound similar. I suppose if I were a space alien hearing rock music
> for the first time I'd think they sound similar, but having listened to
lots
> of rock music and having a greater understanding of the subtilties among
> blues-based rock 'n' roll, I'd say they're not very close to each other.
>
> Paul
>
Day Tripper sounds more like a follow-up or an answer to Satisfaction. Day
Tripper is a little more complicated though, simply because Beatles we're
better musicians and more skilled songwriters than Rolling Stones.
Rich Forman
> >>There are some points of similiarity<<
>
> I don't hear any between "Satisfaction" and
> "Day Tripper" whatsoever.
I hear what he means and have always thought the two songs were
musically related. It's just the presence of the signature, two-bar,
single-note guitar riff "hook," made maybe more explicit and
Satisfaction-like in "Day Tripper" than in any previous Beatles tune
(and maybe any subsequent one). Of course, the riff and the entire
song is better, more sophisticated, and more interesting in DT than in
the Stones tune but the Stones did create or contribute majorly to an
influential, important device in rock songwriting with "Satisfaction."
richforman
Doug Cunningly
news:mhdBb.37352$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net:
Actually, it's ironic that you mention that particular Stones song. The
riff to Satisfaction is the same as the one the Beatles used in Anna, just
moved up one fret (0-2-3 instead of 0-1-2) with the same rhythm, just
faster.
Doug
Blackburst
Satisfaction is acoustic based: It is built around Brian's E-A-D chord
sequence, with a then-trendy fuzz tone guitar added.
Day Tripper is electric based, a classic electric E riff.
Which one was recorded first?
From Me To You
>Actually, it's ironic that you mention that particular Stones song. The
>riff to Satisfaction is the same as the one the Beatles used in Anna, just
>moved up one fret (0-2-3 instead of 0-1-2) with the same rhythm, just
>faster.
Very cool observation! I had never noticed that, but listening to it now I
can see that you're right!
Very cool, Doug! Thanks!
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
Donz5
"Satisfaction" was recorded May 10-13, 1965 and released June 5.
"Day Tripper" was recorded October 16, 1965.
As I wrote in an earlier post that hasn't yet appeared, the riff to "Day
Tripper" comes from the V-IV break in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step," as John
himself acknowledged in his interview on WNEW-FM 9/74.
Richard
Tripper" comes from the V-IV break in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step," as
John
himself acknowledged in his interview on WNEW-FM 9/74.
I believ e it was I feel fine that was ripped of Watch Your Step.
--
Richard
http://www.wiz.to/richardsnow/
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031210182807...@mb-m18.aol.com...
Donz5
>>>As I wrote in an earlier post that hasn't yet appeared, the riff to "Day
>Tripper" comes from the V-IV break in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step," as
John
>himself acknowledged in his interview on WNEW-FM 9/74.
>I believ e it was I feel fine that was ripped of Watch Your Step.
Both songs are appropriated from "Watch Your Step"; the rhythm (which itself
came from Ray Charle's "What'd I Say") was used for "I Feel Fine"; the guitar
riff as described above was incorporated into "Day Tripper."
nick
> I just tried it: played them back-to-back. Interesting! You can sing the
> riff of one on top of the other. Do it!
Try to find a song called "I Like To Rock" by a Canadian band known as
April Wine. They do just that at the end of the song, to interesting
effect.
Regards,
Nick
Tom Hartman
What are they putting in your water supply?
Tom Hartman
Wow! And they were both recorded on tape! And the players were
breathing while they were playing! And both studios where these songs
were recorded had bathroom facilities! This is amazing! There seems to
be no END to the similarities to these two songs!!!
Tom Hartman
Seriously, the similarity, and I use that word ridiculously loosely,
is due to the fact that both guitar riffs pause on a D note after the
first bar, and both are in the key of E.
Closer to "Day Tripper" is Orbison's "Pretty Woman." But all of this
is silliness. The songs are all so different in feel and sound that to
imply that one was copied off the other is really stretching.
Brooklyn NYC
"Tom Hartman" <t...@aerovons.com> wrote in message
news:47153260.03121...@posting.google.com...
This was done by quite a few groups in the 60s. All of these guys were
friends and contemporaries. On the Bluesbreakers with Eric Clapton album
Eric plays the intro to "Day Tripper" after the band comes out of the drum
solo. According to Clapton this was his way of paying tribute to his friend
George Harrison. Day Tripper had just been released at the time EC was
recording. So, it's actually quite cool how these guys would do little
things like that. It was almost an inside joke between them and they didn't
give a rat's ass if the public picked up on it or not.
Marston Moor
And then there's Lennon's million-selling single "I Feel Fine" which at
the time..despite the trite, throwback lyrics..boasted one of the most
imaginative and innovative guitar riffs up to that time. Or so we
thought. Wrong. John sheepishly admitted once in an interview that it
was a direct rip-off of the riff in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step".
If you've ever heard Parker's recording, you can't help wondering how
John escaped a lawsuit.
I can't agree with you. I've heard "Watch Your Step",
which sounds (to me) to be more closely related to
"Leave My Kitten Alone" than "I Feel Fine" is related to "Watch Your
Step"; since John was a fan of both "Step" and "Kitten", it's not
surprising that both songs may have inspired "I Feel Fine".
But inspiration isn't necessarily theft, and I think
that's an important point to make.
Note also the interesting guitar lick in Bobby Parker's "Step" just
before he begins his vocals; doesn't that riff show up in "Day Tripper"
too? But just the riff....
> I suppose the explanation is that Bobby Parker > was.even at that
time..a fairly obscure R&B artist, > so that no one even realized it.
John acknowledged his debt to R&B artists, freely and
openly. He even pointed out that "Watch Your Step"
derived from Ray Charles' "What'd I Say", which was also a big favorite
of Lennon's.
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
R. Stevie Moore
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
KeithWoodyBob
Let's see--we have the Stones hitting up John & Paul for a tune, then
recording I Wanna Be Your Man. We have Sgt. Pepper followed by Satanic
Majesties, and Let It Be followed by Let It Bleed. Billie Preston
plays with the Beatles, then later the Stones take him on tour with
them. Is there a pattern here?
If you want similar, compare the riffs to Day Tripper and Paperback
Writer. They are similar.
Satisfaction is a blues-based riff--totally different.
Donz5
>Note also the interesting guitar lick in Bobby Parker's "Step" just
>before he begins his vocals; doesn't that riff show up in "Day Tripper"
>too? But just the riff....
Does no one read my posts?
Marston Moor
Your Step" (1961) is available reissued on any v/a compilations?? Love
to hear it!
Please advise!
Got my mind set on you,
RSM (some other guy)
Donz5
>Anybody here know if Bobby Parker's original V-Tone version of "Watch
>Your Step" (1961) is available reissued on any v/a compilations?? Love
>to hear it!
I have it on a vinyl compilation deal.
BlackMonk
"KeithWoodyBob" <KeithW...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:79a865fd.03121...@posting.google.com...
> The Beatles ripped off the Stones? Huh?
>
> Let's see--we have the Stones hitting up John & Paul for a tune, then
> recording I Wanna Be Your Man.
The proper writers credits were given and the two versions have completely
different arrangements.
We have Sgt. Pepper followed by Satanic
> Majesties,
Musically, the two albums don't have all the much in common.
>and Let It Be followed by Let It Bleed.
Puns are now rip-offs?
Billie Preston
> plays with the Beatles, then later the Stones take him on tour with
> them.
Of course, since Preston played with Ray Charles, both groups were ripping
Ray off.
From Me To You
What are they putting in your water supply?
Tom, you seriously don't see that the opening guitar riff on "Anna" by The
Beatles is the same as The Rolling Stone's hook on "satisfaction"?
I think this is a major revelation!
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
Al
are in the key of "E," and both are built around a stock guitar riff.
Variations of that lick have been played a million times before either of
the two songs were released, and a million times since.
I don't find the arrangements, the melody, the harmony, or the rhythm all
that similar, though. And of course Keith's fuzztone effect gave the Stones
tune a whole different sense.
Day Tripper was no rip off of Satisfaction, nor was it as "important" as
Satisfaction. Keith pretty much invented riff-rock with that tune. It's up
to you and me to decide whether that's a good thing...
Alan
P.S. If you want to hear some pretty shameless musical ripoffs, listen to a
Steve Miller album sometime.
"Krister Lund" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mhdBb.37352$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Danny Caccavo
t...@aerovons.com (Tom Hartman) wrote:
Something that converts a half-step to a whole step? <g>
dc
Danny Caccavo
I thought the only similarity was the tambourine "cha cha" beat in the
chorus of Day Tripper....
dc
Danny Caccavo
dond...@mail.ru (nick) wrote:
Hey, if you offset the riff from "you really got me" by one beat, it's
"Hocus Pocus" by Focus!
<g>
dc
Doug Campbell
> t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>
> What are they putting in your water supply?
>
> Tom, you seriously don't see that the opening guitar riff on "Anna" by The
> Beatles is the same as The Rolling Stone's hook on "satisfaction"?
> I think this is a major revelation!
There are similarities, mainly in the rhythm and the fact that both
riffs ascend and then descend, but there are more differences you could
point out. It's not the same at all.
DC
Doug Campbell
'Jingle Bells' fits perfectly over 'Scotland The Brave' on the bagpipes.
Don't take my word for it, people - try it!
DC
Donz5
>Krister Lund wrote:
>I don't think the Beatles at that point felt any need to copy someone else's
>formula as a way of being successful. But they were certainly still absorbing
>influences as a way of broadening their music.
The main lick comes from the V-IV break in Bobby Parker's "Watch Your Step."
John himself acknowledged as such in his 9/74 WNEW radio interview.
paramucho
wrote:
>I was listening to my MP3 collection the other day with shuffle on.
>Just by incident, Satisfaction with Rolling Stones came up, and immediately
>after that came Day Tripper with the Beatles.
>
>And it struck me how alike each other they were.
>I wonder if the Beatles did this intentionally since Satisfaction was a
>really huge success for Rolling Stones?
"Day Tripper" and "Satisfaction" might both owe a debt to "Pretty
Woman".
The Bee Tells
think they sound similar,
Well there you have it.
The Bee Tells
>"Hocus Pocus" by Focus!
Hey, VERY close!
The Bee Tells
the fact that both guitar riffs pause on a D note after the first bar, and both
are in the key of E.
That's it exactly. "Satisfaction" actually goes to the D/A chord. If there was
an unconscious influence on "Daytripper" it wasn't reflected in the rhythm
guitar which holds E7. All IMO.
>Closer to "Day Tripper" is Orbison's "Pretty Woman." But all of this is
silliness. The songs are all so different in feel and sound that to imply that
one was copied off the other is really stretching.
At a club this past Friday I played the "Daytripper" riff against "Oh Pretty
Woman." It works even though OPW is in A because the riff is played against the
V chord. Smiles and confusion all around. :)
Okitekudasai
it ? Canadian band ?
The Bee Tells
>John escaped a lawsuit.
A riff is not a song. An arrangement is not a song.
The Bee Tells
>Beatles is the same as The Rolling Stone's hook on "satisfaction"?
> I think this is a major revelation!
Shirley you jest.
The Bee Tells
>Something that converts a half-step to a whole step? <g>
Water alone won't do that. Unless they're smoking it ... ???
Ehtue
I can't get mine lit.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>At a club this past Friday I played the "Daytripper" riff against "Oh Pretty
>Woman." It works even though OPW is in A because the riff is played against the
>V chord. Smiles and confusion all around. :)
Peter Buck of REM has been known to sneak the 'Daytripper' lick into
various songs.
Lizz 'but I may have been the only one old enough in the audience to
appreciate it' Holmans
--
i feel as visible as a hyphen but not half as self assured--archy
paramucho
Yeah, and I've noticed you ask that vefore. I could say the same thing
in this thread but ya know there's timezone differences and other
factors...
Mitch Simmons
Yes..EVERYTHING the Beatles did was a rip off of the stones.
The haircuts...the suits.....
The stones even let the Beatles( Lennon & McCartney) write a hit for
them ( I wanna BeYour Man).
Shameful how Paul sang Yesterday which he got be hiding in a closet
whilst mick jagger wrote " AS Tears Go By"
Horrible how the Beatles Shamelessly stole the SGT. Pepper idea from the
Stones even before the Stones set out to do " Satanic Majesty"
Then the Batles only grew their hair longer knowingthe stones would
eventually do that too.
Let It Be was a ripp off of Let It Bleed !
The WHITE Album was a ripp off of Exile on Mainstreet even though it
came out after the beales' breakup.
Johnmarried a Jap cause Mick would eventually marry a niceraguan.
I McFly
I just tried it: played them back-to-back. Interesting! You can sing the
riff of one on top of the other. Do it!
Interesting sort of, but you're more like singing
over the two main chords that are the same.
Alot of songs contain those same two chords in that order. The riff of
both songs do help to identify the similarities. There are no
similarities in the bridge sections, therefore it's not that big of a
discovery.
Mister Charlie
news:20031211025607...@mb-m15.aol.com:
>>> What are they putting in your water supply?
>
>>Something that converts a half-step to a whole step? <g>
>
> Water alone won't do that. Unless they're smoking it ... ???
Bong water might.
Blackburst
Well you can imitate every thing you see
Yes, you can imitate every thing you see
Rich Forman
> The Beatles ripped off the Stones? Huh?
>
> Let's see--we have the Stones hitting up John & Paul for a tune, then
> Majesties, and Let It Be followed by Let It Bleed. Billie Preston
> plays with the Beatles, then later the Stones take him on tour with
>
None of that has anything to do with what we were talking about! Yup,
the Stones seemed to take the lead from the Fabs in lots of other
cases. I don't know about "they ripped off the idea of using Billy
Preston," but or "Let it Bleed ripped off Let It Be" (did Paul
therefore rip off the previous pop hit "Let it Be
Me"?)....BUT....certain things the Stones did, "As Tears Go By,"
baroque/harpsichord sound in "Lady Jane," certainly sound influenced
by things the Beatles did, use of sitar in "Paint it Black," etc.
> If you want similar, compare the riffs to Day Tripper and Paperback
> Writer. They are similar.
>
Yes, although PW doesn't use the technique of the riff prominently
identifying and defining the whole song as in DT and Satisfaction. It
powers the song musically (and PW can definitely be heard as sort of a
descendant of DT - two of my favorite Beatles songs BTW), but when
most people think of "Paperback Writer," they don't immediately think
of the guitar riff like I think they would with the other two songs in
question.
> Satisfaction is a blues-based riff--totally different.
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. It's not that the
riffs themselves are that similar, but the crucial, primary, essential
part they play in the identity of the whole song. In this way "Day
Tripper" is somewhat similar to, or a descendent of "Satisfaction" to
my ears.
'Nuff said!
richforman
Marston Moor
Marston Moor wrote:
>>Note also the interesting guitar lick in Bobby Parker's "Step" just
before he begins his vocals; doesn't that riff show up in "Day Tripper"
too? But just the riff....
D5: "Does no one read my posts?"
--------
Cmon Donzie.. this implies: no one should ever write until completely
reading ALL related posts in a thread first? I saw yers after having
sent mine. It's all relative, just discussing an ongoing topic here.
Relax.
BTW, I DID locate Watch Your Step '61: it's on a groovy Time-Life Blues
Classics CD in my stacks.
-arlene francis
BlackMonk
"Rich Forman" <rfor...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f354f363.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Me"?)....BUT....certain things the Stones did, "As Tears Go By,"
Marianne Faithful's version came out before The Beatles recorded Yesterday.
> baroque/harpsichord sound in "Lady Jane,"
The harpschord was a fairly common sound in the mid sixties. However, The
Beatles didn't use one until 1968.
Donz5
>> Me"?)....BUT....certain things the Stones did, "As Tears Go By,"
>Marianne Faithful's version came out before The Beatles recorded Yesterday.
But Faithful's version had no strings. The Rolling Stones' version did, and
that was recorded and released after "Yesterday."
I McFly
I suspect the apparent similarity is mostly due to the fact that both
songs are in the key of "E," and both are built around a stock guitar
riff<<
That would be correct.
>> Variations of that lick have been played a million times before
either of the two songs were released, and a million times since<<
That would be correct too.
>>I don't find the arrangements, the melody, the harmony, or the rhythm
all that similar, though<<
They aren't.
>>And of course Keith's fuzztone effect gave the Stones tune a whole
different sense<<
Yeah.
>>Day Tripper was no rip off of Satisfaction, nor was it as "important"
as Satisfaction.<<
I'm not sure I agree with you about the importance of "Satisfaction"
being better.
>> Keith pretty much invented riff-rock with that tune. It's up to you
and me to decide whether that's a good thing...
Alan<<
Was "I feel fine" recorded before "Satisfaction'?
Donz5
>Was "I feel fine" recorded before "Satisfaction'?
Yes.
paramucho
>I suspect the apparent similarity is mostly due to the fact that both songs
>are in the key of "E," and both are built around a stock guitar riff.
>Variations of that lick have been played a million times before either of
>the two songs were released, and a million times since.
>
>I don't find the arrangements, the melody, the harmony, or the rhythm all
>that similar, though. And of course Keith's fuzztone effect gave the Stones
>tune a whole different sense.
>
>Day Tripper was no rip off of Satisfaction, nor was it as "important" as
>Satisfaction. Keith pretty much invented riff-rock with that tune. It's up
>to you and me to decide whether that's a good thing...
The Stones got a much bigger sound -- but then again, they often did.
The Beatles really struggle with with a flat studio response on "Day
Tripper". The counterplay between the riff and the bass on
"Satisfaction" also stands out.
I McFly
I just tried it: played them back-to-back. Interesting! You can sing the
riff of one on top of the other. Do it!
They're both in E!
>>Wow! And they were both recorded on tape! And the players were
breathing while they were playing! And both studios where these songs
were recorded had bathroom facilities! This is amazing! There seems to
be no END to the similarities to these two songs!!!<<
I was shocked Tom, realizing you wrote this, but it was still very
funny. Thanks for the humor.
LOL
BlackMonk
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031211174624...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Putting strings on a ballad isn't all that much of an innovation.
Tom Hartman
> I was listening to my MP3 collection the other day with shuffle on.
> Just by incident, Satisfaction with Rolling Stones came up, and immediately
> after that came Day Tripper with the Beatles.
>
> And it struck me how alike each other they were.
> I wonder if the Beatles did this intentionally since Satisfaction was a
> really huge success for Rolling Stones?
Yes, they are almost exactly alike, in that both songs have bass,
drums, and guitars in them. You may be on to something here.
Phred - RMB '93
> Satisfaction. Keith pretty much invented riff-rock with that tune.
Oh Please....
What about the Stone's ripoff of Sgt Pepper?
Anyone remember the National Lampoon radio parody of John Singing a
rant of quotes from the Rolling Stone interview?
My favorite rip of the Day Tripper riff is "Crazy on You"
Donz5
Well, not after "Yesterday," no.
BlackMonk
Or before. There's these guys, Frank Sinatra and Nelson Riddle...
Donz5
>"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031212001019...@mb-m23.aol.com...
>> BlackMonk wrote:
>
>> >
>> "Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20031211174624...@mb-m27.aol.com...
>> >> BlackMonk wrote:
> >
>> >> >> Me"?)....BUT....certain things the Stones did, "As Tears Go By,"
> >
>> >> >Marianne Faithful's version came out before The Beatles recorded
> Yesterday.
> >
>> >> But Faithful's version had no strings. The Rolling Stones' version did,
> and
>> >> that was recorded and released after "Yesterday."
>
>> >Putting strings on a ballad isn't all that much of an innovation.
>
>> Well, not after "Yesterday," no.
>Or before. There's these guys, Frank Sinatra and Nelson Riddle...
You're fighting a losing battle here, BlackMonk -- to deny the innovation of
the string arrangement to a Beatles song within the pop/rock-music world of the
mid-60s is awfully silly.
Brooklyn NYC
"BlackMonk" <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:brbgh3$1h8n4$1...@ID-133514.news.uni-berlin.de...
I really don't understand what this fuss is all about.
I wrote in an earlier post that all of the musicians, particularly more
close-nit in the UK than here in the States, were contemporaries and
friends. On the Bluesbreakers with Eric Clapton cd Eric does the riff to
"Day Tripper" on "What'd I Say" when he comes back in after the drum solo.
According to Eric it was as a tribute to his friend George. "Day Tripper"
had just been released when The Bluesbreakers were recording.
It's also known that "Helter Skelter" was an answer to a Who song (can't
think which one at the moment) because they wanted a song that was "the
loudest" or "meanest."
Also, if you want to start arguing about "stealing" Chuck Berry is credited
with creating a lick that he actually took from T-Bone Walker and every
single guitar player in the world has stolen it from Chuck Berry. So, does
that make one person or band better or worse?
I think that it's actually great when musicians acknowledge their peers in
musical form -- I would find it flattering. And just think, if the riff from
"Satisfaction" did inspire "Day Tripper" aren't we better off for that? I
mean if "Satisfaction" didn't exist than maybe "Day Tripper" would have
turned out differently.
Roger McGuinn of The Byrds was very heavily influenced by George Harrison's
12-string playing, that he used it on most of their 1965 recordings.
"Tambourine Man" has a little bit of "Ticket to Ride in It."
Also, the riff in "Paperback Writer" is not at all like "Day Tripper." The
only similarities is the use of the open E (6th) string to alternate the
bass riff between the E and G.
Mister Charlie
"Brooklyn NYC" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:nycCb.12270$7p2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> It's also known that "Helter Skelter" was an answer to a Who song
(can't
> think which one at the moment) because they wanted a song that was
"the
> loudest" or "meanest."
I Can See For Miles
BlackMonk
All I have is facts on my side. The fact that Yesterday is just the type of
song that many artists had previously used strings on, the fact that As
Tears Go By was written and recorded before Yesterday. The fact that there
are strings on Marianne Faithfull's version. Beyond the strings, how do you
explain the melodic similarities between the two songs, especially in the
hummed fades?
Doug Cunningly
news:3FD8009A...@maine.rr.com:
> From Me To You wrote:
>> t...@aerovons.com wrote:
>>
>> What are they putting in your water supply?
>>
>> Tom, you seriously don't see that the opening guitar riff on
>> "Anna" by The
>> Beatles is the same as The Rolling Stone's hook on "satisfaction"?
>> I think this is a major revelation!
>
>
> There are similarities, mainly in the rhythm and the fact that both
> riffs ascend and then descend, but there are more differences you
> could point out. It's not the same at all.
>
> DC
>
>
Please explain the differences, other than the 1-2/2-3 change and tempo.
Here are the tabs.
Riff for Anna (Beatles version)
E--------------------------------------------
B--------------------------------------------
G-0--0--0--1--2--1--2--1--2--1---------------- repeat
D--------------------------------------------
A--------------------------------------------
E--------------------------------------------
Riff for Satisfaction
E--------------------------------------------
B--------------------------------------------
G-0--0--0--2--3--2--3--2--3--2--------------- repeat
D--------------------------------------------
A--------------------------------------------
E--------------------------------------------
Doug
Donz5
>> You're fighting a losing battle here, BlackMonk -- to deny the innovation
of
>> the string arrangement to a Beatles song within the pop/rock-music world
of the
>> mid-60s is awfully silly.
>All I have is facts on my side. The fact that Yesterday is just the type of
>song that many artists had previously used strings on, the fact that As
>Tears Go By was written and recorded before Yesterday. The fact that there
>are strings on Marianne Faithfull's version. Beyond the strings, how do you
>explain the melodic similarities between the two songs, especially in the
>hummed fades?
Your "facts" lack perspective and context. "Yesterday" was unlike any song
being played on the pop-rock radio stations of the day and its impact can't be
dismissed, no matter how many "facts" you believe you have at your disposal.
Here's one example of "being there" vs. "reading about it" matters.
Ehtue
BlackMonk
So because a 14 year old fan thought it was different, musicians,
songwriter, and producers would have heard it the same way?
Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears Go
By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
xex6...@monoman.com
<Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
>strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
>haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears Go
>By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
>
Marianne Faithfulls version of as tears go by was a studio band with
strings.
nothing unusual about that.
a top 40 hit..
The Beatles version of yesterday was an acoustic six string Guitar
with a string quartet
Absolutely unique style. a number one hit.
Then the rolling stones redid their song with an acoustic 12 string
guitar and a string quartet....mimiking the style of the beatles with
their own song but altering this new style slightly because of the 12
string guitar instead of a 6 string guitar.....a number 2 hit.
The songs are completely different, and the style that the beatles
created was unique.The style the rolling stones did was created from
what the beatles did but changed slightly for a slightly different
result.
Strabbo
204.127.204.17:
> The Bee Tells writes:
>
>>>> What are they putting in your water supply?
>>
>>>Something that converts a half-step to a whole step? <g>
>>
>> Water alone won't do that. Unless they're smoking it ... ???
>
>
> I can't get mine lit.
My rolling paper keeps falling apart. Any suggestions? Am I in the right
newsgroup?
Marty
Brooklyn NYC
"Mister Charlie" <smokerdu...@myway.com> wrote in message
news:brbmj1$1b2k1$1...@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de...
Thanks! Remembered it after I posted. Damn brain farts!!!!
Donz5
<Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
>strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
>haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears Go
>By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
The arrangement was the key here, as xex606 patiently explained.
Of course where were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem" and
"Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated and
produced in "Yesterday," and the RS's _ARRANGEMENT_ of "As Tears Go By" was
indeed a direct left of the ARRANGEMENT_ of "Yesterday."
Doug Cunningly
133514.news.uni-berlin.de:
Buddy Holly arranged for and got strings in the 50s on "It don't matter
anymore," which was quite unusual for a rock band at the time.
Mister Charlie
"Doug Cunningly" <Lo...@valhalla.org> wrote in message
news:LZmCb.553$X97...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I was under the impression that Norm Petty did that posthumously.
Donz5
>Buddy Holly arranged for and got strings in the 50s on "It don't matter
>anymore," which was quite unusual for a rock band at the time.
Heck, Charlie Parker had a craving for strings in the early '50s. But none of
this dismisses the impact the strings on "Yesterday" -- how they were used; not
as mere background wash but integral to the arrangement of the song -- had in
the pop/rock music world of the mid-60s.
Doug Campbell
Those are both incorrect.
DC
BlackMonk
He overdubbed a rock band on some solo demos (the band was The Fireballs,
who later had hits under their own name). I think one of the songs was
Holly's cover of Slipping and Sliding. But the strings on "It Doesn't Matter
Any More" were done by Holly.
>
BlackMonk
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:09:20 -0500, "BlackMonk"
> <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
> >strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
> >haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears
Go
> >By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
>
> The arrangement was the key here, as xex606 patiently explained.
>
Didn't see it. What did he say? While you could make the argument that the
Stones version of As Tears Go By was influenced by Yesterday (and it's not
as direct a lift as you suggest), I wouldn't be surprised if the composition
of Yesterday was influenced by As Tears Go By. Not only are there musical
similarities (the similar endings are a giveaway), but both songs have
similar lyrical themes. (To give Paul his due, he does a better job with it.
Everyone involved with ATGB was too young to convincingly bemoan the passage
of time and their lost youth. Yesterday at least partially gets away with it
by tying the feeling into something specific."
> Of course there were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem" and
> "Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated and
> produced in "Yesterday,"
Meaning? I'm sure we both could name plenty of records where the strings
weren't a "background wash."
Donz5
>"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031212122856...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:09:20 -0500, "BlackMonk"
>> <Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
>> >strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
>> >haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears
Go
>> >By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
>
>> The arrangement was the key here, as xex606 patiently explained.
>
>Didn't see it. What did he say?
Here's xex's post:
****************** [beg. of post]
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:09:20 -0500, "BlackMonk"
<Blac...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Again, you were wrong about the Marianne Faithful record, it did have
>strings. Many pop/rock records used strings before Yesterday, and you
>haven't said one word about the melodic similarities. Claiming "As Tears Go
>By" was simply ripping off "Yesterday" is unrealistic.
>
Marianne Faithfulls version of as tears go by was a studio band with
strings.
nothing unusual about that.
a top 40 hit..
The Beatles version of yesterday was an acoustic six string Guitar
with a string quartet
Absolutely unique style. a number one hit.
Then the rolling stones redid their song with an acoustic 12 string
guitar and a string quartet....mimiking the style of the beatles with
their own song but altering this new style slightly because of the 12
string guitar instead of a 6 string guitar.....a number 2 hit.
The songs are completely different, and the style that the beatles
created was unique.The style the rolling stones did was created from
what the beatles did but changed slightly for a slightly different
result.
************* [end of xex's post]
>While you could make the argument that the
>Stones version of As Tears Go By was influenced by Yesterday (and it's not
>as direct a lift as you suggest)
It's nothing _but_ a direct life.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the composition
>of Yesterday was influenced by As Tears Go By.
Debatable. For one, the tempos of each suggest no relationship at all.
>Not only are there musical
similarities (the similar endings are a giveaway), but both songs have
similar lyrical themes.
What musical similarities? And how are the endings a giveaway that they're
similar? "Similar lyrical themes?" Similarity in a lyrical theme that's not all
that unique to begin with isn't much evidence.
I think you're attempting to establish a cause-effect relationship here between
"As Tears Go By" and "Yesterday," and thus far I don't see it. Please specify
just how similar these songs are, similarities that indicate a clear,
unmistakable relationship between the two and that are unique to each other
outside of other influences.
>> Of course there were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem" and
>> "Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated and
>> produced in "Yesterday,"
>Meaning? I'm sure we both could name plenty of records where the strings
>weren't a "background wash."
I explained what I meant in the passage above that you elected, for whatever
reason, not to copy, so I'll repeat in full:
<<Of course where were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem" and
"Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated and
produced in "Yesterday," and the RS's _ARRANGEMENT_ of "As Tears Go By" was
indeed a direct left of the ARRANGEMENT_ of "Yesterday.">>
The strings in "Yesterday" and RS's "As Tears Go By" are integral to the
arrangment of both; both aren't merely a background wash, as the two songs I
mentioned above are.
I honestly think you're just advocating a losing argument for the sake of
simply disagreeing, because you're being awfully stubborn about a item that's
been established as common knowledge and accepted wisdom for decades. Does
common knowledge and accepted widsom necessarily by themselves always "prove"
that such ideas stand the test of time? Of course not; but in this
circumstance, they do.
Donz5
>>While you could make the argument that the
>>Stones version of As Tears Go By was influenced by Yesterday (and it's not
>>as direct a lift as you suggest)
>It's nothing _but_ a direct life.
Lift; it's nothing _but_ a direct _lift._
Donz5
>I wrote:
First, a caveat -- the following is not a direct source but rather an author
reporting on a source. If anyone can provide one, that'd be helpful.
From _The Rolling Stones: Complete Recording Sessions 1962-2002_ by Martin
Elliott (Cherry Red Books, 2002), p. 81:
[re the RS's version of "As Time Goes By"]:
>>This is the first Jagger, Richard composition which also credited Andrew
Oldham as a songwriter. It tends to confirm that the track, written in 1964,
was intended as little more than a money-maker for Marianne Faithfull. In
August 1964 it achieved this with a Number 9 UK hit for MIss Faithfull.
Possibly it surprised not only Andrew Oldham but also Jagger, Richard by its
success (not to mention Lionel Bart, Miss Faithfull's previous musical mentor).
Originally recorded in July 1964 as a demo, it was re-recorded [me: October 26,
1965] for a future American single, where the soft ballad was in mode. The
lyrics, inspired by Marianne Faithfull, hence her unique involvement, were
sentimental and soporific. The song was, however, a unique reminder of the
softer Stones aproach and musically was a milestone in their then short
song-writing career.
It was needed for inclusion on the "December's Children" album and would be
released as a US single a week before Christmas.
***In Britain, The Stones were concerned that the release of such a commercial
ballad would have British critics saying it was yet another Beatle imitation
(particularly of the song "Yesterday").*** [my emphasis]
Mick Jagger played almost a solo role in the song. He was backed only by Keith
on guitar and the Mike Leander Orchestra. Arrangements were credited to Keith
Richard.
***Although "As Tears Go By" had been written a year earlier, the arrangement
of "Yesterday" released on the "Help!" album was very similar. Paul McCartney
was the only artist featured on "Yesterday" with a string quartet accomparning
him.*** [my emphasis]
"Yesterday" had a low-key released in Britain, not even featuring on the
"Help!" soundtrack in the movie, but in the United States it was released as a
singing on October 1965 and went to number one. In the UK, "As Tears Go By" was
released as a low-key single B-side. In the United States it did not quite meet
the same ranks as "Yesterday" but achieved an impressive number 6. Just to
extend the integral connection between the two songs, Marianne Faithfull
released a version of "Yesterday" in November 1965.<<
[end of citation]
Summary:
1) A solo singer in a rock band. A single guitar accompaniment. A string
accompaniment that serves as more than just a background "wash." Thus are the
unmistakable similarities between "Yesterday" and the RS's "As Tears Go By,"
similarities that, according to Mark Elliott, even the Stones themselves were
concerned about when they anticipated copycat criticism by the British press.
2) I've been spelling Marianne's last name wrong.
Mister Charlie
I'll be darned. Thanks.
> >
>
>
J.
>
> Your "facts" lack perspective and context. "Yesterday" was unlike any song
> being played on the pop-rock radio stations of the day and its impact
can't be
> dismissed, no matter how many "facts" you believe you have at your
disposal.
>
> Here's one example of "being there" vs. "reading about it" matters.
I would like to just add a personal note about 'being there', and the song
'Yesterday'. I became a Beatle fan from the moment I saw them on the first
Ed Sullivan show at the age of 8, and luckily I had an older brother and
sister in the house to buy all the records and we listened and dreamed about
them all the time---- bless my parents who rather liked them too!
Anyway, to continue the story; I have a distinct memory of being in the car
and arguing with one or another of my siblings, when 'Yesterday' poured from
the car radio--- the jabbering and noise in the car suddenly stopped and we
all just listened in silence and wonder. I'll never forget the moment, and
when I finally saw the man himself do it live this past tour, this time with
a husband and two kids along for the ride, I became, surprisingly even to
myself, overwhelmed with emotion once again.
Donz5
>I would like to just add a personal note about 'being there', and the song
>'Yesterday'. I became a Beatle fan from the moment I saw them on the first
>Ed Sullivan show at the age of 8, and luckily I had an older brother and
>sister in the house to buy all the records and we listened and dreamed about
>them all the time---- bless my parents who rather liked them too!
>Anyway, to continue the story; I have a distinct memory of being in the car
>and arguing with one or another of my siblings, when 'Yesterday' poured from
>the car radio--- the jabbering and noise in the car suddenly stopped and we
>all just listened in silence and wonder. I'll never forget the moment, and
>when I finally saw the man himself do it live this past tour, this time with
>a husband and two kids along for the ride, I became, surprisingly even to
myself, overwhelmed with emotion once again.
Also, when Paul and the lads performed "Yesterday" on Sullivan, the audience,
for the first time, couldn't figure out how to respond. They had screamed
throughout every other song performed, but "Yesterday" left them just stumped.
One can see and hear this on the new DVD.
BlackMonk
Listen to Plasir D'amour from the first Marianne Faithfull album. It's not
exactly the same style as Yesterday, since the orchestration over the
acoustic guitar features woodwinds as well as strings, but it's close enough
to suggest that the Beatles didn't create something unique so much as
continue a line of evolution.
> >While you could make the argument that the
> >Stones version of As Tears Go By was influenced by Yesterday (and it's
not
> >as direct a lift as you suggest)
>
> It's nothing _but_ a direct life.
>
> >I wouldn't be surprised if the composition
> >of Yesterday was influenced by As Tears Go By.
>
> Debatable. For one, the tempos of each suggest no relationship at all.
>
How so? Are you saying that if two songs aren't in the same tempo, one can't
be influenced by the other?
> >Not only are there musical
> similarities (the similar endings are a giveaway), but both songs have
> similar lyrical themes.
>
> What musical similarities? And how are the endings a giveaway that they're
> similar?
Listen to them. Melodically, compare the "It is the evening of the day" to
"all my troubles seemed so far away."
"Similar lyrical themes?" Similarity in a lyrical theme that's not all
> that unique to begin with isn't much evidence.
>
Lyrical similarities in songs that are also musically similar suggest that
there is a relationship between the two songs.
> I think you're attempting to establish a cause-effect relationship here
between
> "As Tears Go By" and "Yesterday," and thus far I don't see it. Please
specify
> just how similar these songs are, similarities that indicate a clear,
> unmistakable relationship between the two and that are unique to each
other
> outside of other influences.
>
You're holding me to a higher standard than that which you hold for
yourself.
> >> Of course there were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem"
and
> >> "Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated
and
> >> produced in "Yesterday,"
>
> >Meaning? I'm sure we both could name plenty of records where the strings
> >weren't a "background wash."
>
> I explained what I meant in the passage above that you elected, for
whatever
> reason, not to copy, so I'll repeat in full:
>
> <<Of course where were strings on earlier pop records ("Spanish Harlem"
and
> "Stand By Me" come to mind), but not in the way they were incorporated and
> produced in "Yesterday," and the RS's _ARRANGEMENT_ of "As Tears Go By"
was
> indeed a direct left of the ARRANGEMENT_ of "Yesterday.">>
>
> The strings in "Yesterday" and RS's "As Tears Go By" are integral to the
> arrangment of both; both aren't merely a background wash, as the two songs
I
> mentioned above are.
>
And they aren't merely a background was in many other songs, so your citing
those two songs as a counter example is a red herring.
> I honestly think you're just advocating a losing argument for the sake of
> simply disagreeing, because you're being awfully stubborn about a item
that's
> been established as common knowledge and accepted wisdom for decades. Does
> common knowledge and accepted widsom necessarily by themselves always
"prove"
> that such ideas stand the test of time? Of course not; but in this
> circumstance, they do.
>
The fact that something is common knowledge and accepted wisdom is NEVER
proof of anything. If you think I'm wrong, fine. You've made some valid
points, though I still think the influence of Yesterday is very overstated,
but retreating to an appeal to popular opinion undercuts your whole
argument.
Doug Cunningly
news:20031211104100...@mb-m06.aol.com:
> I, I, I, I, I, roll a stoney
> Well you can imitate every thing you see
> Yes, you can imitate every thing you see
>
classic! never noticed that before!!! doug
Doug Cunningly
BlackMonk
>
> > > > Buddy Holly arranged for and got strings in the 50s on "It don't
> > > matter
> > > > anymore," which was quite unusual for a rock band at the time.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that Norm Petty did that posthumously.
> > >
> >
> > He overdubbed a rock band on some solo demos (the band was The
> Fireballs,
> > who later had hits under their own name). I think one of the songs was
> > Holly's cover of Slipping and Sliding. But the strings on "It Doesn't
> Matter
> > Any More" were done by Holly.
>
> I'll be darned. Thanks.
Glad I could help. I took a look online to see what songs the Fireballs
played on. Mostly covers of contemporary material, and some stuff that Buddy
also recorded with his regular musicians, but it looks like two of the songs
they were overdubbed onto made it into the canon; "Peggy Sue Got Married"
and "Crying Waiting Hoping." But maybe not, there are also versions of both
songs that a different producer overdubbed a different set of musicians
onto. Either way, I'm surprised about "Crying Waiting Hoping," since I
always thought of the lead guitar as distinctly Buddy.
Donz5
>Listen to Plasir D'amour from the first Marianne Faithfull album. It's not
>exactly the same style as Yesterday, since the orchestration over the
>acoustic guitar features woodwinds as well as strings, but it's close enough
>to suggest that the Beatles didn't create something unique so much as
>continue a line of evolution.
And John Lennon didn't invent the first recorded instance of feedback on "I
Feel Fine." But because of the alignment of the stars, it remains the influence
for subsequent recordings. Jimi Hendrix wasn't the first to incorporate a
wah-wah pedal, but his use remains the influence for subsequent recordings.
It's all about which artist or song provided the impetus for others. Haydn
wasn't the first to incorporate the Sonata Form, but his music remains the core
influence for subsequent composers who wrote in that form.
Do you understand the difference between "first to do something" vs. "first to
have an influence on others?"
>> Debatable. For one, the tempos of each suggest no relationship at all.
>
>How so? Are you saying that if two songs aren't in the same tempo, one can't
>be influenced by the other?
Seems I prefaced my sentence with "for one." Meaning, here's one reason why
there's no relationship between these two songs. I'm referring to this
particular comparison. I'm not making a blanket declaration that applies to
every situation, and it'd be nice if you stopped putting claims into my mouth.
>> What musical similarities? And how are the endings a giveaway that they're
>> similar?
>Listen to them. Melodically, compare the "It is the evening of the day" to
>"all my troubles seemed so far away."
I listened. The emphases for each phrase are quite different.
>>> "Similar lyrical themes?" Similarity in a lyrical theme that's not all
> that unique to begin with isn't much evidence.
>
>Lyrical similarities in songs that are also musically similar suggest that
>there is a relationship between the two songs.
First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they are, despite
your example above that they're similar; they're not. Second, you haven't
established how unique these alleged "lyrical similarities" are in the opus of
popular music within this period. And when I asked you to provide such a
uniqueness, you chose deflection:
>You're holding me to a higher standard than that which you hold for
yourself.
That's not exactly an answer.
>And they aren't merely a background was in many other songs, so your citing
those two songs as a counter example is a red herring.
Indeed they are merely background washes, as opposed to "Yesterday" and "As
Tears Go By" (RS version). The distinctions are crucial. Just your declaring
the distinctions as a "red herring" don't quite make it so.
>The fact that something is common knowledge and accepted wisdom is NEVER
>proof of anything. If you think I'm wrong, fine.
It's not a matter of "thinking" you're wrong. In this particular case, you're
just wrong, plain and simple.
>You've made some valid
>points, though I still think the influence of Yesterday is very overstated,
>but retreating to an appeal to popular opinion undercuts your whole
>argument.
I'm "retreating to an appeal to popular opinion?" Where in heavens have I done
that? What I _said_ was that sometimes common knowledge and established fact
are sufficient in certain situations. This is one of them.
At any rate, I wrote another post that quoted from a RS recording book that
only further provides perspective that's been obvious for close to 40 years to
the world except, evidently, to you, it seems. Oops, there I go again,
"retreating" to "popular opinion." Weak.
BlackMonk
> Blackmonk wrote:
>
> >Listen to Plasir D'amour from the first Marianne Faithfull album. It's
not
> >exactly the same style as Yesterday, since the orchestration over the
> >acoustic guitar features woodwinds as well as strings, but it's close
enough
> >to suggest that the Beatles didn't create something unique so much as
> >continue a line of evolution.
>
> And John Lennon didn't invent the first recorded instance of feedback on
"I
> Feel Fine." But because of the alignment of the stars, it remains the
influence
> for subsequent recordings. Jimi Hendrix wasn't the first to incorporate a
> wah-wah pedal, but his use remains the influence for subsequent
recordings.
> It's all about which artist or song provided the impetus for others. Haydn
> wasn't the first to incorporate the Sonata Form, but his music remains the
core
> influence for subsequent composers who wrote in that form.
>
We're not talking about subsequent composers. We're talking about
contemporaries who had the same influences that The Beatles did.
The "great man" theory makes for tidy history, but it's an
oversimplification that assumes all artists who followed the great man were
completely ignorant of their history.
> Do you understand the difference between "first to do something" vs.
"first to
> have an influence on others?"
>
I understand what you're trying to say. That doesn't mean you're right.
> >> Debatable. For one, the tempos of each suggest no relationship at all.
> >
>
> >How so? Are you saying that if two songs aren't in the same tempo, one
can't
> >be influenced by the other?
>
> Seems I prefaced my sentence with "for one." Meaning, here's one reason
why
> there's no relationship between these two songs.
There's no logic to that statement.
I'm referring to this
> particular comparison. I'm not making a blanket declaration that applies
to
> every situation, and it'd be nice if you stopped putting claims into my
mouth.
>
Stop saying absurd things. The idea that because the tempos are different,
there's no relationship is absurd as a general rule, and there's no reason
why it should apply in this specific case.
> >> What musical similarities? And how are the endings a giveaway that
they're
> >> similar?
>
> >Listen to them. Melodically, compare the "It is the evening of the day"
to
> >"all my troubles seemed so far away."
>
> I listened. The emphases for each phrase are quite different.
>
Again, you're claiming that because you hear a difference, there are no
similarities.
If that's the case, then the fact that As Tears Go By has different
instrumentation than Yesterday means that there's no similarity in the
arrangement.
> >>> "Similar lyrical themes?" Similarity in a lyrical theme that's not all
> > that unique to begin with isn't much evidence.
> >
>
> >Lyrical similarities in songs that are also musically similar suggest
that
> >there is a relationship between the two songs.
>
> First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they are,
despite
> your example above that they're similar; they're not.
They are.
Second, you haven't
> established how unique these alleged "lyrical similarities" are in the
opus of
> popular music within this period. And when I asked you to provide such a
> uniqueness, you chose deflection:
>
As you point out, similarities don't have to be unique to demonstrate a
relationship.
> >You're holding me to a higher standard than that which you hold for
> yourself.
>
> That's not exactly an answer.
>
It's a valid point. Why should I be held to a greater standard than you?
> >And they aren't merely a background was in many other songs, so your
citing
> those two songs as a counter example is a red herring.
>
> Indeed they are merely background washes, as opposed to "Yesterday" and
"As
> Tears Go By" (RS version). The distinctions are crucial. Just your
declaring
> the distinctions as a "red herring" don't quite make it so.
>
Again, they may be background washes, but that's meaningless because I
DIDN'T BRING UP THOSE SONGS. YOU DID. My case isn't based on those two songs
and there are plenty of examples where the strings aren't background washes.
The fact that they might be background washes in those songs has nothing to
do with anything we're talking about.
> >The fact that something is common knowledge and accepted wisdom is NEVER
> >proof of anything. If you think I'm wrong, fine.
>
> It's not a matter of "thinking" you're wrong. In this particular case,
you're
> just wrong, plain and simple.
>
> >You've made some valid
> >points, though I still think the influence of Yesterday is very
overstated,
> >but retreating to an appeal to popular opinion undercuts your whole
> >argument.
>
> I'm "retreating to an appeal to popular opinion?" Where in heavens have I
done
> that? What I _said_ was that sometimes common knowledge and established
fact
> are sufficient in certain situations. This is one of them.
>
Saying that "sometimes common knowledge and established fact are sufficient"
is an appeal to popular opinion.
And you haven't given me one established fact. All you've done is repeat
your opinion.
> At any rate, I wrote another post that quoted from a RS recording book
that
> only further provides perspective that's been obvious for close to 40
years to
> the world except, evidently, to you, it seems. Oops, there I go again,
> "retreating" to "popular opinion." Weak.
Yes, your argument is weak.
All you did was quote Jagger as saying that critics might hear similarities
between the two songs. That's VERY different from showing that As Tears Go
By was a "direct lift" from Yesterday.
Donz5
>> Do you understand the difference between "first to do something" vs.
"first to
>> have an influence on others?"
>
>I understand what you're trying to say. That doesn't mean you're right.
It's not an influence if no one's heard it.
>> >Listen to them. Melodically, compare the "It is the evening of the day"
to
>> >"all my troubles seemed so far away."
>
>> I listened. The emphases for each phrase are quite different.
>
>Again, you're claiming that because you hear a difference, there are no
similarities.
No, I'm stating that the similarities you claim are there aren't.
>If that's the case, then the fact that As Tears Go By has different
>instrumentation than Yesterday means that there's no similarity in the
arrangement.
Not quite, but go down that road if you wish.
>> >Lyrical similarities in songs that are also musically similar suggest
that
>> >there is a relationship between the two songs.
>
>> First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they are,
despite
>> your example above that they're similar; they're not.
>They are.
They aren't. They are. They aren't. They are.
I explained why they aren't; you've yet to explain why you think they are.
>It's a valid point. Why should I be held to a greater standard than you?
You're the one claiming uniqueness in similarity. Thus far, you've offered
nothing of proof.
>Again, they may be background washes, but that's meaningless because I
>DIDN'T BRING UP THOSE SONGS. YOU DID. My case isn't based on those two songs
>and there are plenty of examples where the strings aren't background washes.
>The fact that they might be background washes in those songs has nothing to
>do with anything we're talking about.
You brought up the fact that "Yesterday" wasn't unique because pop music
utilized strings before it. You made a blanket statement with zero examples. I
provided examples of such pop music that utilized strings. I then explained
that such usage was completely different to the usage heard in "Yesterday" and
the RS version of "As Tears Go By."
So, please -- provide examples within the pop-music world of the '60s before
"Yesterday" where "the strings aren't background washes.
>Saying that "sometimes common knowledge and established fact are sufficient"
is an appeal to popular opinion.
And we're back to "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" exchange.
>> At any rate, I wrote another post that quoted from a RS recording book
that
>> only further provides perspective that's been obvious for close to 40
years to
>> the world except, evidently, to you, it seems. Oops, there I go again,
>> "retreating" to "popular opinion." Weak.
>Yes, your argument is weak.
Oy. I see "irony" appears to be beyond your grasp.
>All you did was quote Jagger as saying that critics might hear similarities
between the two songs. That's VERY different from showing that As Tears Go
>By was a "direct lift" from Yesterday.
Actually, I never quoted Jagger. I quoted an author who referred to the Stones'
concern that their rendition of "As Tears Go By" would be seen by critics as
just another example of the Stones copying the Beatles. Which is the entire
point of this -- the Stones were aware of it, and they feared their critics
would be aware of it as well.
And in addition, actually, I laid out in detail precisely how the RS
arrangement of ATGB was a direct lift from "Yesterday"; your convenient
selection of what I wrote is revealing in the honest approach you're taking
this discussion.
Doug Campbell
If you don't mind, I'll try to describe the differences. I don't have it
in me at the moment to make up tabs. To start with:
1.) Anna is in D, Satisfaction in E. Most people would play the Anna
riff on the G string starting on A(2) up to B(4). (I hear it as capoed
on 7, but I"ve stated that before and it's another subject)
The Satisfaction riff is played on the A string: B/2, C#/4,D/5
The Satisfaction riff opens with a very aggressive two-note attack (the
two B's). The Anna riff has the single note (A), which almost disappears
into the 2nd guitar's chording. The Anna riff does the little
alternating note dance at the top of the phrase (Bb, B, Bb, B, Bb, B,
Bb) while Satisfaction does not. It goes in a straight ascending and
descending line. There's no C# between the D's as your tab indicates.
These may seem like small differences, but they are both only 3-note, 2
measure riffs. Little things mean alot. Like I said, there are
similarities but they are by no means the same.
DC
From Me To You
>You're the one claiming uniqueness in similarity. Thus far, you've offered
>nothing of proof.
Hey, it certainly wasn't argued way back win because Frank Sinatra, and Bing
Crosby and Al Jolson had done it years before!
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
The Beatles
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
BlackMonk
> BlackMonk wrote:
>
> >> Do you understand the difference between "first to do something" vs.
> "first to
> >> have an influence on others?"
> >
>
> >I understand what you're trying to say. That doesn't mean you're right.
>
> It's not an influence if no one's heard it.
>
it. I think the Rolling Stones would have been familiar with Marianne
Faithfull's recordings.
> >> >Listen to them. Melodically, compare the "It is the evening of the
day"
> to
> >> >"all my troubles seemed so far away."
> >
> >> I listened. The emphases for each phrase are quite different.
> >
>
> >Again, you're claiming that because you hear a difference, there are no
> similarities.
>
> No, I'm stating that the similarities you claim are there aren't.
>
And you're wrong.
> >If that's the case, then the fact that As Tears Go By has different
> >instrumentation than Yesterday means that there's no similarity in the
> arrangement.
>
> Not quite, but go down that road if you wish.
>
Just applying your logic, or lack thereof.
> >> >Lyrical similarities in songs that are also musically similar suggest
> that
> >> >there is a relationship between the two songs.
> >
> >> First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they are,
> despite
> >> your example above that they're similar; they're not.
>
> >They are.
>
> They aren't. They are. They aren't. They are.
>
> I explained why they aren't; you've yet to explain why you think they are.
>
Wrong. You've explained why they aren't identical.
> >It's a valid point. Why should I be held to a greater standard than you?
>
> You're the one claiming uniqueness in similarity. Thus far, you've offered
> nothing of proof.
>
No, I never claimed uniqueness. You're the one who brought uniqueness into
this conversation.
> >Again, they may be background washes, but that's meaningless because I
> >DIDN'T BRING UP THOSE SONGS. YOU DID. My case isn't based on those two
songs
> >and there are plenty of examples where the strings aren't background
washes.
> >The fact that they might be background washes in those songs has nothing
to
> >do with anything we're talking about.
>
> You brought up the fact that "Yesterday" wasn't unique because pop music
> utilized strings before it. You made a blanket statement with zero
examples. I
> provided examples of such pop music that utilized strings. I then
explained
> that such usage was completely different to the usage heard in "Yesterday"
and
> the RS version of "As Tears Go By."
>
> So, please -- provide examples within the pop-music world of the '60s
before
> "Yesterday" where "the strings aren't background washes.
>
"I'm Gonna Be Strong" Gene Pitney
"There Goes My Baby" Drifters
"Hallelujah, I Love Her So" Ray Charles and Eddie Cochran.
> >Saying that "sometimes common knowledge and established fact are
sufficient"
> is an appeal to popular opinion.
>
> And we're back to "is not" "is too" "is not" "is too" exchange.
>
If you wish.
> >> At any rate, I wrote another post that quoted from a RS recording book
> that
> >> only further provides perspective that's been obvious for close to 40
> years to
> >> the world except, evidently, to you, it seems. Oops, there I go again,
> >> "retreating" to "popular opinion." Weak.
>
> >Yes, your argument is weak.
>
> Oy. I see "irony" appears to be beyond your grasp.
>
Sarcasm seems to be beyond yours.
> >All you did was quote Jagger as saying that critics might hear
similarities
> between the two songs. That's VERY different from showing that As Tears Go
> >By was a "direct lift" from Yesterday.
>
> Actually, I never quoted Jagger. I quoted an author who referred to the
Stones'
> concern that their rendition of "As Tears Go By" would be seen by critics
as
> just another example of the Stones copying the Beatles. Which is the
entire
> point of this -- the Stones were aware of it, and they feared their
critics
> would be aware of it as well.
>
Again, that doesn't mean they copied As Tears Go By. That just means they
knew the mindset of popular music critics.
> And in addition, actually, I laid out in detail precisely how the RS
> arrangement of ATGB was a direct lift from "Yesterday"; your convenient
> selection of what I wrote is revealing in the honest approach you're
taking
> this discussion.
Please, give me something specific.
Donz5
>Just because you haven't heard something, that doesn't mean no one's heard
>it. I think the Rolling Stones would have been familiar with Marianne
>Faithfull's recordings.
Kinda likely they were familiar with it. Regardless, their own arrangement was
derived instead from "Yesterday." To wit, yet again:
1. Solo singer with no vocal participation from any other member of rock group.
2. Solo acoustic guitar with no other instrumentation from any other member of
rock group.
3. Use of string accompaniment that serves as an integral part of the song as
opposed to it being a background wash.
None of these elements are present in the Faithfull rendition of "As Tears Go
By."
All of these elements are present in "Yesterday" and the Rolling Stones
rendition of "As Tears Go By."
Why you continue to dismiss the patently obvious is beyond me.
>> >Again, you're claiming that because you hear a difference, there are no
>> similarities.
>
>> No, I'm stating that the similarities you claim are there aren't.
>
>And you're wrong.
Ooh, another one -- I'm right, you're wrong; No, you're wrong, I'm right. No,
I'm right, you're wrong. Fascinating.
>> >If that's the case, then the fact that As Tears Go By has different
>> >instrumentation than Yesterday means that there's no similarity in the
>> arrangement.
>
>> Not quite, but go down that road if you wish.
>
>Just applying your logic, or lack thereof.
Don't credit me for your approach to a discussion. All yours.
>> >> First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they are,
> despite
>> >> your example above that they're similar; they're not.
>
>> >They are.
>
>> They aren't. They are. They aren't. They are.
>
>> I explained why they aren't; you've yet to explain why you think they are.
>
>Wrong. You've explained why they aren't identical.
Nope; I've explained _how_ they're different. You've _still_ not explained
_how_ they're similar. We can go as many rounds as you like, but the carousel
will end when you finally back up your claim of similarity with concrete,
viable evidence, instead of this "you're wrong, I'm right" cycle.
>> >It's a valid point. Why should I be held to a greater standard than you?
>
>> You're the one claiming uniqueness in similarity. Thus far, you've offered
>> nothing of proof.
>
>No, I never claimed uniqueness. You're the one who brought uniqueness into
>this conversation.
I honestly don't believe you're this thick. You're claiming a lyrical
relationship. I'm asking you to establish just how unique such a relationship
is to warrant such a connection.
>> So, please -- provide examples within the pop-music world of the '60s
before
>> "Yesterday" where "the strings aren't background washes.
>
>"I'm Gonna Be Strong" Gene Pitney
>"There Goes My Baby" Drifters
>"Hallelujah, I Love Her So" Ray Charles and Eddie Cochran.
Sorry -- in all three -- the strings do _not_ serve the same basis in terms of
arrangement as they do in "Yesterday" and "As Tears Go By" (RS).
Lemme guess how this will go now: "You're wrong, I'm right." "I'm right, you're
wrong."
>> And in addition, actually, I laid out in detail precisely how the RS
>> arrangement of ATGB was a direct lift from "Yesterday"; your convenient
>> selection of what I wrote is revealing in the honest approach you're
taking
>> this discussion.
>Please, give me something specific.
Already provided in the post that quoted from the RS book. And repeated above.
The Bee Tells
LOL! I see it now. It's all clear!
The Bee Tells
Other than different notes and tempo? :)
BlackMonk
> BlackMonk wrote:
>
> >Just because you haven't heard something, that doesn't mean no one's
heard
> >it. I think the Rolling Stones would have been familiar with Marianne
> >Faithfull's recordings.
>
> Kinda likely they were familiar with it. Regardless, their own arrangement
was
> derived instead from "Yesterday." To wit, yet again:
>
> 1. Solo singer with no vocal participation from any other member of rock
group.
>
> 2. Solo acoustic guitar with no other instrumentation from any other
member of
> rock group.
>
> 3. Use of string accompaniment that serves as an integral part of the song
as
> opposed to it being a background wash.
>
> None of these elements are present in the Faithfull rendition of "As Tears
Go
> By."
>
> All of these elements are present in "Yesterday" and the Rolling Stones
> rendition of "As Tears Go By."
>
> Why you continue to dismiss the patently obvious is beyond me.
>
Because it ISN'T patently obvious. As I pointed out, there's a track on the
Faithfull album that has a solo singer backed by an acoustic guitar and
orchestration. I doubt that was the first time, either.
> >> >Again, you're claiming that because you hear a difference, there are
no
> >> similarities.
> >
> >> No, I'm stating that the similarities you claim are there aren't.
> >
>
> >And you're wrong.
>
> Ooh, another one -- I'm right, you're wrong; No, you're wrong, I'm right.
No,
> I'm right, you're wrong. Fascinating.
>
> >> >If that's the case, then the fact that As Tears Go By has different
> >> >instrumentation than Yesterday means that there's no similarity in the
> >> arrangement.
> >
> >> Not quite, but go down that road if you wish.
> >
>
> >Just applying your logic, or lack thereof.
>
> Don't credit me for your approach to a discussion. All yours.
>
> >> >> First, they're not musically similar, despite your claim that they
are,
> > despite
> >> >> your example above that they're similar; they're not.
> >
> >> >They are.
> >
> >> They aren't. They are. They aren't. They are.
> >
> >> I explained why they aren't; you've yet to explain why you think they
are.
> >
>
> >Wrong. You've explained why they aren't identical.
>
> Nope; I've explained _how_ they're different.
I NEVER said they were identicial. Two pieces of music can have both
differences and simiarities. Why is that so difficult for you to understand.
You've _still_ not explained
> _how_ they're similar. We can go as many rounds as you like, but the
carousel
> will end when you finally back up your claim of similarity with concrete,
> viable evidence, instead of this "you're wrong, I'm right" cycle.
>
I've given specific examples. For you to pretend that I haven't suggests
that either you aren't actually reading before you respond or that you're
being willfully argumentative.
> >> >It's a valid point. Why should I be held to a greater standard than
you?
> >
> >> You're the one claiming uniqueness in similarity. Thus far, you've
offered
> >> nothing of proof.
> >
>
> >No, I never claimed uniqueness. You're the one who brought uniqueness
into
> >this conversation.
>
> I honestly don't believe you're this thick. You're claiming a lyrical
> relationship. I'm asking you to establish just how unique such a
relationship
> is to warrant such a connection.
>
Again, I never said the relationship was unique. I said that the lyrical
similarity combined with the musical similarity suggests more than
coincidence. You do the same thing. You listened three ways you think that
ATGB is similar to Yesterday, and even though there is precident for all
three, you think the combination of the three proves a relationship between
the two songs.
But you're probably going to say that the hummed ending of both songs is
just a coincidence, and the melodic similarities don't exist because the
melodies aren't identical.
> >> So, please -- provide examples within the pop-music world of the '60s
> before
> >> "Yesterday" where "the strings aren't background washes.
> >
>
> >"I'm Gonna Be Strong" Gene Pitney
> >"There Goes My Baby" Drifters
> >"Hallelujah, I Love Her So" Ray Charles and Eddie Cochran.
>
> Sorry -- in all three -- the strings do _not_ serve the same basis in
terms of
> arrangement as they do in "Yesterday" and "As Tears Go By" (RS).
>
Sorry, in all three the strings are more than a background wash. Why should
I assume you're even familiar with the songs? You're the one who claimed
that there were no strings on the Faithfull version of As Tears Go By.
> Lemme guess how this will go now: "You're wrong, I'm right." "I'm right,
you're
> wrong."
>
> >> And in addition, actually, I laid out in detail precisely how the RS
> >> arrangement of ATGB was a direct lift from "Yesterday"; your convenient
> >> selection of what I wrote is revealing in the honest approach you're
> taking
> >> this discussion.
>
> >Please, give me something specific.
>
> Already provided in the post that quoted from the RS book. And repeated
above.
>
Those weren't specifics. Instead you gave a vague quote about how critics
would hear similiarites and a vague reference to strings being the basis of
the arrangement in some unspecificed way that is somehow different from that
in other songs.
From Me To You
>"I'm Gonna Be Strong" Gene Pitney
One GREAT song by one of the greatest voices in Pop! Gene Pitney also wrote
songs with "He's a Rebel" being one of the best!
Brooklyn NYC
Boy, this shit is never going to end is it?