Notes on "She Said She Said" (SSSS)
Alan Pollack
Notes on "She Said She Said"
============================
Although the most conspicuous feature of "She Said She Said" (SSSS) is
the metrical high jinks of the break, this song also provides us with object
lessons about two other general compositional topics: modal harmony and,
on a higher level, how to experiment without things falling apart. Delving
into these last two topics will make for a longer than usual introduction
before we get to the song itself, so in advance, I beg your indulgence.
Modal Harmony
-------------
The harmonic vocabulary of SSSS is purely from the Myxolydian mode; this
mode being the scale with the Major bottom half, and a whole step instead
of a half-step at the very top -- think of it as the white note scale starting
on G.
The key of the song is ostensibly B-flat but the key signature features
an A-flat instead of an A-natural. This means that the key signature,
scale, and chord selection of Mixolydian B-flat is identical to that of E-flat
Major. It's worth noting that this phenomenon is somewhat analogous to
the relative Major/Minor relationship. However, in this particular case,
the scalar coincidence leads in turn to several distinctive harmonic
characteristics:
- the naturally occurring "v" chord in the Mixolydian mode is minor and
does not make for an effective V-I cadence. As a result ...
- the burden for establishing the key in this mode falls on the sub-dominant
IV chord and the pseudo-dominant flat VII chord; in our modal B-flat key,
these are the E-flat and A-flat chords respectively. Although these
chords can be used individually in apposition to the tonic I chord, they
are often used together, as in the ubiquitous "Hey Jude" progression:
B-flat A-flat E-flat B-flat
B-flat: I flat VII IV I
By the way, I've been often tempted to label that A-flat chord a "IV-of-IV"
when used in this context; does anybody else hear it that way ?
- the common pitch content between the tonic and the key of the IV chord
makes it very easy in Mixolydian mode to effect a pivot modulation to that key.
In fact, this key of the IV is actually capable of being established more
firmly than the tonic (I) itself because of the following paradox: the
I chord makes a stronger V-of-IV cadence with IV than does the naturally
occurring minor v chord with the I.
- finally, I would re-emphasize the modal purity of our current song. There
are many other Beatles songs with a strong Mixolydian flavor to them
which nonetheless contain a fair amount of the regular Major mode added
to the mixture; for examples take a look a "A Hard Day's Night" where
the "pure" Mixloydian spell is first broken in the fourth line of the
verse ("I find the things that you do ...") by the appearance of a V chord.
Leaving modality aside, the harmony of this song is also distinguished
by its frugality. There are only four different chords used throughout,
one of which doesn't even make an appearance until the climax of the break
(on the word "Boy") but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Experimentation
---------------
Among other things, this song teaches us yet another of the composer's
trade secrets: whenever you are pushing one parameter of your musical
grammar to the max, hold at least some if not all of the other parameters
steady lest your meaning become obscured by sensory overload, or your
composition come apart as though from centrifugal force. This principle
potentially operates on many different levels to the extent that the
"parameters" involved may include as diverse elements as form, rhythm,
texture, harmony, even lyrics.
In our current song, I believe this principle is illustrated on the high level
by the choice of form, and on a more detailed level in the way the arrangement
pits rhythm and meter against each other. The issue of rhythm and meter will
be covered as we go through the music itself, but I want to discuss the
formal issue here.
In spite of the fact that SSSS flaunts inscrutably psychedelic lyrics, heavy
limiting applied to virtually every instrument as well as the voice track, and
of course, that wobbly meter, it also sports a positively buttoned down,
classic form:
Intro - Verse - Verse - Break - Verse - Break - Verse - Outro
While this may seem obvious, it's a point worthy of emphasis: No matter how
experimental they were in other aspects of composition, The Beatles with very
rare exception, clung to such classic forms in their songs; it is as though
they needed these forms as a bedrock on which to anchor their experiments lest
they fall apart.
The usage of asymmetric, acyclic (albeit clearly articulated) forms are rare
enough in their output that their identification and examination as a group
would itself make an interesting study. Start with "Happiness is a Warm
Gun" and "You Never Give Me Your Money" and see how many more you can find!
Going even further, I'm tempted to argue that it is no coincidence that
the even fewer cases where they abandoned articulated form entirely, (e.g.,
"Revolution 9", "What's the New Mary Jane") have turned out to be among
their least popular work over the long run.
All this is *not* intended as a criticism; I mention it to acknowledge that
for all their glibly touted breaking of barriers, the Boys were really
neo-classicists at heart.
At any rate, with thanks for your patience, let's finally move into our
run-through!
The Intro and Verse
-------------------
We have a comparatively short verse of eight measures built out of very
spare resources. Here's the harmonic scheme:
------------- 3X --------------
|B-flat A-flat |E-flat |B-flat A-flat |E-flat B-flat|
B-flat: I flat- IV I flat- IV I
VII VII
Measures 7 and 8 feature strong syncopation, and are given an immediate
instrumental reprise. The syncopation is all the stronger for coming
after three identical repeats of an unsyncopated, almost stodgy harmonic
rhythm. Notice, in fact, how the fancy drumwork in the second half of the
measures containing only the E-flat chord helps counteract this stodginess
and effectively pushes the music forward; a Ringo signature going all the
way back to "I Saw Her Standing There." The bassline, on a more subtle
level, is also used to push things along here.
Other tasty details:
- an additional source of rhythmic turbulence is to be found in measures
3 and 5 where we have slow triplets (3 notes against two beats) in the voice
part; the same trick as in the break of "We Can Work it Out."
- the drum part in the two measure reprise following the verse neatly
reinforces the syncopations *without* fancy figuration; a good example of
how less can be more.
- the lead guitar part antiphonally imitates the voice part in measures
3, 5, and the two measure reprise.
- look back at our three measures of introduction and notice how it
foreshadows both the mocking-bird guitar figure and the fancy-footwork
drumming which so heavily contribute to the overall flavor of the song.
- regarding the mix, note how in addition to the heavy limiting applied to
everything including the drums, you find the organ mixed almost subliminally
far back; it's barely noticeable but for that fleeting tickling sensation you
get on the high end of your ears.
The Break
---------
If the gory details are too daunting at first sight, here's a high-level
view of this break:
- the f minor chord is introduced for the first time in the song at what is
possibly the moment of climax, and is used to help make a pivot modulation
to E-flat, the key of the IV.
- the meter may be erratic but it's not without its own pattern. This little
chart indicates the succession of measures and the number of beats in each:
She said "you don't understand what I said". I said [ 4 + 4 ]
"No, no, no, you're wrong. When I was a Boy, [ 3 + 3 + 3 ]
every thing was right. [ 6 + 3]
Everything was right. [ 6 + 3]
- our great illustration of the principle of keeping some musical parameters
steady when maxing out on others is two-fold: rather than "fight" the
changing meter (at risk of obscuring it), both the harmonic rhythm and
the drumming are slavishly at the meter's service. The chords change
on every measure boundary, and the drumming (and the bass as well) forgo
fancy syncopation for strictly even eighth-note marking of the beat.
- one detail you might quibble with me on are the measures shown as
being six beats instead of two measures, each with three beats. I've
chosen to go with six beats because of where the chord changes are,
and because I hear the those six beats accented by the voice part
as though they are broken into 4+2, not 3+3; i.e., I hear the words
accented as "everyTHING", not "EVERYthing."
Without further ado, here are the gory details!! Without music paper, this
will be a bit awkward to map out, but let's go for it. This is the notational
convention used below:
- each group of lines enclosed within dashed lines below represents one
measure of music.
- the number in the left margin indicates the number of beats in the measure.
- the beats in the measure are marked out in the top line of the group.
- the lyrics are laid out across the measure in the second line of the group.
- the chords are labeled in the third line of the group.
- the "Roman Numerals" for the chords are labeled in the bottom line of the
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
4 She said "you don't under-
B flat A flat
B flat: I flat VII
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4
4 stand what I said". I said
B flat
B flat: I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
3 "No, no, no you're
A flat
B flat: flat VII
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
3 wrong. When I was a
B flat
B flat: I
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
3 Boy - -
f
B flat: v
E flat: ii ** point of pivot
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 - - - every- thing was
B flat
E flat: V
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
3 ri- ght.
E flat
E flat: I
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3 4 5 6
6 - - - every- thing was
B flat
E flat: V
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
1 2 3
3 ri- ght.
E flat
E flat: I
B flat: IV ** point of pivot back
------------------------------------------------------
The Coda
--------
Two details worthy of attention in the coda:
- the cannonic imitation in the split voice parts is a novel development
of the idea originally presented in the verse.
- the sudden release of all syncopation is a final, rhythmic coup de grace,
coming as it does at the end of two full minutes during which we're constantly
bombarded by either syncopation, or a fickle meter. The tempo remains the
same, but those evenly-pounded-out eighth notes in the fade out give me a strong
feeling of acceleration; as though driving into a free skid on ice.
... and One Final Rumination
----------------------------
Anyone else out there struck by the underlying, albeit unlikely, similarities
between SSSS and "Good Day Sunshine" ? Consider it -- each have metric
changes, an unusually restricted harmonic vocabulary, and cascading vocals
in the coda. With all that we read about the "friendly" competition between
J and P, it makes me wonder if they would possibly set themselves an abstract
musical problem statement or recipe, then go off and develop their own
personalized solutions to it. Granted, this might be a totally fantastical
notion, but nonetheless, the two songs mentioned are about as quintessentially
typical of each songwriter as any you could find!
Alan (a...@prism.tmc.com)
---
"They tried to fob you off on this musical charlatan,
but *I* gave him the test." 101889#12
---
Copyright (c) 1989 by Alan W. Pollack
All Rights Reserved
This article may be reproduced, retransmitted, redistributed and
otherwise propogated at will, provided that this notice remains
intact and in place.
Fred Bergen
Alan Pollack's analysis was interestingly verbose, yet I've always
thought that the Beatles success at songwriting stemmed from a number
of other reasons. Since the Beatles lacked a formal training in
musical theory, they pretty much did what they wanted. Instead of
constricting them, their theoretical ignorance made them approach
their writing without pretension. It's common knowledge that the
Beatles did not read music --> so why judge them as if they did? To
understand the full scope of anyone's music, the underlying factors
must be weighed in as well. Their rejection of musical convention
hallmarked everything they recorded. Trying to analyze the Beatles'
music with traditional Western analysis is, in the best case, futile.
The only thing that's in my head right now is an analogy, so here it
goes...
If the backyard is fenced, nothing else can be seen from it.
Fred Bergen
ber...@topaz.rutgers.edu
D.L. Maclaughlan
>...It's common knowledge that the Beatles did not read music, so why
>judge them as if they did?
Shakespeare didn't have a B.A. in English Literature, either, but plenty
of degreed folk from B.A. through PhD have written reams about him. Is
this invalid as well? Should one analyze only from the artist's level?
I'm reminded about Shakespeare's (probable) intent in writing his plays;
I'll bet it was more to entertain the masses than to provide fodder for
lit. profs...yet I can't believe the bulk of criticism should be discarded,
merely because Old William was the Neil Simon of his age!
The curious fact (and fairly remarkable too) is that the Beatles' music
stands up perfectly well to analyses such as Pollack's. This is, of course,
not the *only* approach to Beatles' music. But as the Boys were steeped
in many musical traditions (American pop, rhythm and blues, British music
hall) they were not untrained per se, except scholastically. And the
absorption of these traditions, mixed with Lennon and McCartney's synthesis
and re-creation, seems to have generated an original corpus of artwork.
Sometimes I wonder myself whether they were geniuses or what...idiot
savants, perhaps? No matter that they couldn't read music. Their harmonic
talent suggests an incredible intuition of musical forms, chord changes,
melodic progressions that might just as well have been mapped on a
computer. I'm no musicologist myself, and sometimes find myself rather
lost in technical discussions. But applying standard musical critiques
to the Beatles' music seems only to enhance its power, from my vantage---
even to elevate it beyond mere pop. Something almost supernatural was
at work, I sometimes feel. And I can feel that by reading Pollack's
"She Said She Said" review, or by going downstairs to the CD and blasting
the song itself into my humble, untrained ears. Which I did, just after
reading the review. And I heard things in the song (one of my favorites
anyway) that I've never heard before.
>If the backyard is fenced, nothing can be seen from it.
Haven't you tried looking *over* the fence sometimes, Fred?
----
"I said/Who put all those things in your head?"
----
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <backbone>}!gryphon!pnet02!saki
INET: sa...@pnet02.gryphon.com
Alan Pollack
Oh boy! Part of the problem is the series of articles has wound up appearing
as though loose chapters from a book, out of order, and without clarifying notes
of introduction. At risk of more verbosity, and even some defensiveness,
just a couple of points of counter-response:
- Yes, I'm often times verbose; just ask my wife who has to live with it :-)
The unavailability of examples written on a music staff or audio clips only
exacerbates this problem.
- My intent with these articles is to describe the internal design and
engineering of the songs, not explain their "success" or "greatness"
even if I can't keep from gasping in delight over certain details.
- IMHO, the fact that the Beatles supposedly did not read music does not
of itself remove their output from the purview analysis. The fact is that
they were composers of well organized, highly sophisticated stuff, even if
they did it largely on intuition, or trial and error. By analogy, can't one
imagine a great poet who was unable to write his/her work down ?
- Don't be mislead by the use of "erudite" technical terms. They're nothing
more than shorthand "handles" by which to identify certain musical phenomena;
without them you'd have to repeat the same detailed description every time.
I don't mean to imply in the articles that there is a direct connection
between good compositional practice per se and the use of techniques with
fancy terms. I also don't mean to imply that the Beatles used any of
these techniques with pre-meditation. Having spent many years with
classical music, I'm not even so sure on a gut level, that more trained
composers who *would* know all the jargon by training, necessarily begin
a work with very much technical forethought.
- Ahh, but you're not comfortable with the analytical premise per se ? Even
I have days where I strongly identify with Walt Whitman in his poem "When I
Heard the Learn'd Astronomer". The poet describes having sat through a lecture
in which he is "shown the charts and diagrams" only to become "unaccountable
tired and sick", the antidote for which is to look up "in perfect silence at
the stars." It's a wonderful commentary on the limitations, even futility of
technical analysis in general, but it's not enough to deter me.
I'll apologize to those regulars in this group who've heard me up on this
soapbox before. The fan mail on the articles runs heavily on the favorable
side, but, as you can see, I have sufficient self-doubt that it takes me very
little to get going :-)
Next time, it's back to the music!
Alan (a...@prism.tmc.com)
---
"Where would they be without the steady beat of your droooms!"
---
Mark D. Walters
I am one who enjoy's Alan's postings, even though I wouldn't consider myself
very knowledgeable on the technical aspects of music theory.
However, I have always been curious about something when I read things like
Alan's articles or the book "Twilight of the Gods - the Music of the Beatles",
and that is -- are the Beatles unique in warranting such investigation of their
music ? That is, if someone knowledgeable were to dissect works from other
"popular music artists" in technical terms, would we also find examples of
musical "genius" or "originality" or "expertise".
My feeling is (and remember I'm no musical technocrat) that we would find other
artists/groups who are the technical equal of the Beatles (groups like Yes
come to mind) while we would find a far greater number who are obviously
inferior (plug in any generic Monkees-type of group).
But as many have pointed out, it's not just the technical aspects that made
the Beatles' music the standard by which others are judged.
T Bowers
>
>
>
> I am one who enjoy's Alan's postings, even though I wouldn't consider myself
> very knowledgeable on the technical aspects of music theory.
>
> However, I have always been curious about something when I read things like
> Alan's articles or the book "Twilight of the Gods - the Music of the Beatles",
> and that is -- are the Beatles unique in warranting such investigation of their
> music ?
I would say not.
That's the thing that bothers me about those posts.
They present the insidious idea that the Beatles had a
monopoly on talent.
I might have believed that when I was in 8th grade but I
dropped the idea a *long* time ago.
> That is, if someone knowledgeable were to dissect works from other
> "popular music artists" in technical terms, would we also find examples of
> musical "genius" or "originality" or "expertise".
>
That words "genius" or "expertise" are highly subjective.
The word "originality" is less subjective but doesn't
necessarily imply quality.
When using words like those above in a technical discussion, you
pollute the discussion with bias.
> My feeling is (and remember I'm no musical technocrat) that we would find other
> artists/groups who are the technical equal of the Beatles (groups like Yes
> come to mind)
What are you implying by the phrase "technical equal"???
YES is a bad band to compare the Beatles with because they produced
music from another genre. Neither band *wanted* to produce similar
music (making the question "*Could* they produce similar music?" mute).
Neither band could probably concentrate long enough
if they *tried* to slip into the other band's genre.
It's not a question of "can" or can't" - it's "wouldn't"
or "won't."
> while we would find a far greater number who are obviously
> inferior (plug in any generic Monkees-type of group).
>
The one reason why The Monkees (in general) can't be compared
with The Beatles is because The Monkees (for the most part)
relied on many different songwriters. For example, I think
"I'm a Believer" is a great song (and that's just an opinion,
not an uneqivocal fact). Funny thing is it's a Neil Diamond
song and should be discussed within the context of HIS work,
not the Monkees.
My point is you can't expect someone to provide a technical
reason why a song is great. "Greatness" is subjective.
I guess one can analyze a large group of songs and provide
technical reasons why they are alike or dissimilar and then
make an un-biased judegement about whether the writer tended
to repeat himself but this still doesn't lead to any conclusion
of "greatness." Chuck Berry, for example, milked the same
riff in *everything* he wrote. Funny thing, each and every
example is great for a different reason and I don't care if
"No Particular Place To Go" is the same song as "School Days"
(or whatever the title of the song is that begins "Up in the
morning and off to school...").
I'll give you one reason why a technical discussion of
Chuck Berry's music would be misleading. Keith Richards
after working with Chuck Berry and Jimmy Johnson (Chuck's
piano player from the fifties) came to a startling conclusion.
Chuck apparently stole from Jimmy Johnson. The reason why guitar
players were freaked out by Chuck is because he was playing
"piano chords" NOT "guitar chords." It's not too amazing.
It was just an accident because Chuck basically didn't KNOW
what he was doing. Chuck wasn't amazed by the fact that he
was playing chords that aren't "guitar chords." It was only
rigidly trained guitarists who wondered what the hell Chuck
was playing and who might have been ready to label him a
genius for playing the "unheard note". Funny thing is -
the *true* story seems to demonstrate that what someone is
calling original - is actually far from it (just "original"
within a different context).
I'm telling you, most "originality" probably comes from some wierd
accident. As another example - I could *always* recognize
the guitar playing of Lindsay Buckingham from a mile away.
I'm not a musician and I couldn't figure out WHY it sounded
different, I just knew it sounded different. Then one day,
I heard an interview where Mr. Buckingham said that he grew up
playing the banjo and didn't play the guitar until very late in
the game. He said that he plays the guitar LIKE A BANJO,
not like a guitar. Well folks, I assume THAT was the
reason why I always heard something different. No big mystery,
no real genius (in my opinion). Just an ordinary person
taking something simple from somewhere foreign and applying it
somewhere new. Same thing with Keith Richards. I could
always pick him out a mile away. Probably because he only
uses 5 strings and a wierd tuning (correct if I'm wrong, I
know he does something wierd - I believe it's called "open
tuning.")
> But as many have pointed out, it's not just the technical aspects that made
> the Beatles' music the standard by which others are judged.
I don't think the Beatles "are the standard."
I'd argue that there is no standard. Just listen and enjoy.
I do think Alan's posts are worthwhile, especially if someone
is a musician and has been trying to figure out a certain
chord or note. I respect the thought and time and expertise
that he puts into them, I just don't agreee with many of the
conclusions that are drawn or even worse - implied. The thought
of the "already converted" taking Alan's stuff and using it as
a "proof" of "greatness" is inappropriate in my opinion.
There, I've said my piece (again :-( )
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'd like to own a squadron of tanks" - Ron Nasty, 1964
rutgers!bellcore!nvuxe!txb or nvuxe!t...@bellcore.bellcore.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
T Bowers
>
>
> I'll give you one reason why a technical discussion of
> Chuck Berry's music would be misleading. Keith Richards
> after working with Chuck Berry and Jimmy Johnson (Chuck's
> piano player from the fifties) came to a startling conclusion.
> Chuck apparently stole from Jimmy Johnson. The reason why guitar
> players were freaked out by Chuck is because he was playing
> "piano chords" NOT "guitar chords." It's not too amazing.
I said this wrong. I meant to say that he was playing in
"piano keys" (i.e. keys not normally heard on the guitar).
Why?? Because he was just trying to capture Jimmy Johnson's
piano sound.
> It was just an accident because Chuck basically didn't KNOW
> what he was doing. Chuck wasn't amazed by the fact that he
> was playing chords that aren't "guitar chords." It was only
> rigidly trained guitarists who wondered what the hell Chuck
> was playing and who might have been ready to label him a
> genius for playing the "unheard note". Funny thing is -
> the *true* story seems to demonstrate that what someone is
> calling original - is actually far from it (just "original"
> within a different context).
>
Steve Horvath
> >
> > I'll give you one reason why a technical discussion of
> > Chuck Berry's music would be misleading. Keith Richards
> > after working with Chuck Berry and Jimmy Johnson (Chuck's
> > piano player from the fifties) came to a startling conclusion.
> > Chuck apparently stole from Jimmy Johnson. The reason why guitar
> > players were freaked out by Chuck is because he was playing
> > "piano chords" NOT "guitar chords." It's not too amazing.
>
> I said this wrong. I meant to say that he was playing in
> "piano keys" (i.e. keys not normally heard on the guitar).
> Why?? Because he was just trying to capture Jimmy Johnson's
> piano sound.
I glad you made the correction, I was about to jump on that one. I think
"key signatures that Jimmy Johnson used" would be more appropriate than
just "piano keys." (Leading one to think it's the physical "ebony and
ivory" (no pun intended :-)). I'm trying to imagine the typical "Intro
to Johnny B. Goode" riff done on the piano, and I'm just not sure if it
came from piano totally. I could see the part where the lead goes from major to
minor 3rd when going I -> IV in the rhythm. However, I believe that idea
came from swing music. (Alan, if you're listening can you explain how that
works? And also if I described it correctly, thanks). The rest has alot
of string bending and sliding techniques that can be done only on stringed
fretted instruments (here's where I know what I'm talking about :-).
I think what Keith meant is that keys such as Eb, Bb, and Ab on guitar caused
Chuck to gain a fuller sound. (Because he did not rely on chords that correspond
to "open positions" on the guitar which most self taught guitarists depend on).
Then Clapton goes on to describe (In the movie "Hail Hail Rock and Roll") how
conventional blues playing fits the Chuck Berry rhythm, but doesn't sound as
full as the signature Berry riffs.
Also Chuck wasn't first to do root/V - root/VI - root/bVII (the piano boogie woogie
thing or whatever the heck you call it) on guitar. It's all over the place on
Robert Johnson's Anthology.
Sorry for all the non-Beatles stuff here, but it just isn't the same when you
put into another newsgroup.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steve Horvath | Guitars, Cadillacs, etc. etc. |
| sp...@homxc.att.com | <-- Please use this e-mail address. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Alan Pollack
Tom Bowers writes, in part:
>
>I do think Alan's posts are worthwhile, especially if someone
>is a musician and has been trying to figure out a certain
>chord or note. I respect the thought and time and expertise
>that he puts into them, I just don't agreee with many of the
>conclusions that are drawn or even worse - implied. The thought
>of the "already converted" taking Alan's stuff and using it as
> a "proof" of "greatness" is inappropriate in my opinion.
Thanks, Tom, for leaving me some "space"; at root, I agree with much of
what you write. On the issue of conclusions (drawn or implied) perhaps
you can help me (via email, please) straighten some things out, since
on the one hand, I think analytical articles have "socially redeeming
value", yet having their motivation misunderstood is getting to be a habit.
No, of course not, The Beatles are not the only ones worthy of careful
examination. On the other hand, if you're interested in Pop/Rock music of
the mid-to-late '60s, and want to deal "vertically" with one set of works,
rather than opting for an exhaustive survey, you could do a lot worse than
Lennon and McCartney. What, IMHO, is so unusual and alluring about their
output is the *simultaneously* high grades you'd have to give it in
so many *objectively measurable* categories:
- richness of musical vocabulary
- number of stylistic influences absorbed and synthesized
- breadth of emotional and topical range in music and lyrics
- attention to subtle detail
- advancement of pop recording techniques beyond '63 status quo
All of the above, btw, has nothing to do with whether or not the music
is "great" per se. Don't get me wrong -- if we didn't all share a strong
sense of enjoyment of this music, I don't think I'd care to analyze it and
you wouldn't want to read about it either. But, in the final result I
don't claim to "prove" anything. On this score, perhaps I am culpable of
misleading y'all with a bit too much gasping and assigning of motives. On
the level of just-the-facts though, I've got no pangs of consicence about
what I've been doing.
A true story (warning -- not directly Beatles-related, so maybe hit 'n'
now!):
In an earlier professional incarnation, I used to teach a two-year sequence of
music theory courses covering harmony, counterpoint, and form as employed in
the "standard reportoire" from circa 1750 - 1925.
These courses used real music as the primary texts: Bach preludes, Beethoven
sonatas, Schubert song cycles, etc. The coursework centered on detailed,
measure-by-measure analysis of these scores, very matter-of-factly, and
with virtually no gushing. While most of the pieces examined were by the
"Masters", there were occassional pot-bolier examples from the "kleinmeisters."
For example, we would have fun comparing the Piano Sonatas of Hayden with
those of his contemporary, Wagenseill; though this took us into the grey
edges of subjectivity, you could see in quantifiable terms how one composer
could absorb the influence of another, the influencee sometimes beating the
influencer at his own game.
For better or worse, the above is an accepted and practiced way of studying
music. Not everyone cares for it, and perhaps that's why not many people
major in music :-), but it's there just the same. You either dig it or
you don't; no harm, no blame.
Regards,
Alan (a...@prism.tmc.com)
---
"We'd like you to give us your opinion of some clothing for teenagers."
---
saki
>That's the thing that bothers me about those posts.
>
>They present the insidious idea that the Beatles had a
>monopoly on talent.
I'm not sure that's implied by the Pollack postings at all. You can
apply exactly the same analysis to other musicians, if you want--Herman's
Hermits, Hedgehoppers Anonymous, Bob Dylan, Irving Berlin, Stephen
Foster...as you wish. It's a critical/analytical technique that may
reveal talent, but doesn't necessarily guarantee it. Using Russian
formalist criticism on William Faulkner doesn't insure his genius,
either, but it shows a different facet of the work than other types
of criticism: biographical/psychological/etc.
I keep thinking of theatrical lighting here as an analogy: use a blue
gel and the scene looks blue; that doesn't mean it is in essence, but
that particular aspects of it are vivid only under blue light. Use
lyrical analysis with the Beatles and in many cases I think they're
going to lose out to Dylan...or even Noel Coward in another genre.
Worse yet is determining who's really worthy of such analysis. How long
did it take before Gershwin was accepted in classical circles...and how
did he feel about being categorized under jazz or classical? If Mozart
saw himself as a popular composer, are we restricted from using classical
methodology on his work?
I'll admit I'm not the one to make the decision on the Beatles. I'm too
biased. But the fact that interesting points are brought up by musical
investigation (among them that the Beatles seemed to have a true inate
talent) does not mean this is the only group in the world with talent.
>I don't think the Beatles "are the standard."
>
>I'd argue that there is no standard. Just listen and enjoy.
Maybe they're not the standard by which pop music is measured, but they're
among the top of the heap within their own category. You're quite
right, there's no one "standard" but there are a plethora of types within
rock 'n' roll alone (classic '50's, Motown, rockabilly, heavy metal) and
if we don't admit to hierarchy, how do we decide what's great and what's
tripe? I don't think for one minute that Kansas comes near the talent of
the Kinks. Someday someone will write a dissertation on lyrical imagery
in the songs of Kansas, and if they can carry the argument with solid
analysis I'll vote for 'em (but I won't necessarily listen to the music
as a result!)
As a matter of fact, I once made an argument similar to yours in an
English class, asserting that the difference between Dickens and
A. A. Milne was illusory and we might just as well read "Bleak House"
as "The House at Pooh Corner", and to hell with all this criticism
anyway, couldn't we just read it and enjoy it? Maybe the problem here is
that the Beatles are too new for this sort of thing, that we're *not*
objective enough to apply high-and-mighty critical standards to their
work, that it's a trivialization of standards to even try.
But then where's rec.music.hedgehoppers-anonymous?
--
"You mean that posh bird who gets everything wrong?"
----
dmac...@agsm.ucla.edu (saki)