# Classical Influence on Beatles



## sree

Hi,

I am sure many of you have listened to Beatles "Yesterday". It has violins in the compositions. I wounder if beatles has been influenced by classical music?

Even thought in today's musid we have rock, pop, new age, jazz etc., Knowledge of classical music gived an extra edge in understanding music and composing it.

Cheers!!!


----------



## Bach

Erm.. yeah..


----------



## Cyclops

They were most definitely influenced by classical music,but also Indian,Chinese and African music. But Beatles weren't alone there. Most bands were influenced by classical,even many new bands today.


----------



## sree

Indian classical music ( carnatic or hindustani) has its own music theory, and at the same time western classical and indian classical do have a few common ground and in a few areas they differ. Each music system has it own unique charm. Being music lovers we enjoy all kinds of music. 

Either way, as cyclops said most band thesy days do refer to classical music. It is the encyclopedia of Music Theory.

Cheers!!!


----------



## Aramis

I don't think so. They were musically uneducated, so even if they liked classical music there is no way that their songs could be seriously influenced by it. Presence of classical instruments doesn't equal classical music.


----------



## Cyclops

Aramis said:


> I don't think so. They were musically uneducated, so even if they liked classical music there is no way that their songs could be seriously influenced by it. Presence of classical instruments doesn't equal classical music.


Musically uneducated,hmmm not sure I want to go there! But I do maintain that they WERE influenced by classical. Just because you can't play it doesnt mean you can't enjoy it.


----------



## Bach

They write tonal music, and classical composers developed tonality. That's as far as the influence goes.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> They write tonal music, and classical composers developed tonality. That's as far as the influence goes.


But if you listen to a certain music and enjoy it then that music influences you.


----------



## sree

Either they know what music is or not... But they did had a great fans and a big market. If you analysis their harmonic pattern they did an excellent job. And it does shows to how classical music has influenced their music and their lives.


----------



## sam richards

Bach said:


> They write tonal music, and classical composers developed tonality. That's as far as the influence goes.


True.

Really using violins doesn't automatically make them classically influenced. George Harrison was liked Indian Classical but it doesn't show in the beatles music.

Speaking of fans, Britney Spears, and Lil' Wayne have them too.  Doesn't make them good, does it?


----------



## Cyclops

sam richards said:


> . George Harrison was liked Indian Classical but it doesn't show in the beatles music.


Actually yes,in one or two pieces it does! But this is all irrelevant really. The Beatles were the best band ever,period. Nothing anywhere near them since.


----------



## sam richards

Cyclops said:


> The Beatles were the best band ever,period. Nothing anywhere near them since.


I beg to differ.


----------



## Cyclops

sam richards said:


> I beg to differ.


Yes well we're all different. Don't worry,I'm not going to get all defensive because someone doesn't hold a band I like in as high regard as I do. 
I'd like to think I was beyond that kind of thing. I bet there's some music I like that many would laugh at and vice versa. Such is life.


----------



## sree

If you see the notation of norwegian wood, you will see the usage of sitar ( indian instrument ) in 12/8 . Sitar is used is all india classical music. Even though this instrument is not a western classical instrument but still they were influenced.

*Any music composer does gets influenced by other composers*. This is a truch in all parts of the world. 
In today's pop culture Beatles created History. If you take Yanni composition, his music has classical and pop touch.

Cheers!!!


----------



## sam richards

I like The Beatles but don't consider them to be the best band.
There were (and are) much better bands than them.

To sree: As I have said earlier, use of violins or sitar doesn't make the music classically influenced. They were still a good band though.


----------



## Cyclops

sam richards said:


> I like The Beatles but don't consider them to be the best band.
> There were (and are) much better bands than them.
> 
> To sree: As I have said earlier, use of violins or sitar doesn't make the music classically influenced. They were still a good band though.


I think Harrison at least was influenced,and McCartney played a bass shaped like a mandolin which tells me had an interest in early music.


----------



## sree

Cyclops is correct..... 

With out influence new music is difficult to create.

A student who is studing music composition , he /she will be learning music history and during the course he /she will study about classical composers and any one composers will surely influence the student and you can clearly see his influence in the students compositions. Look at yannis composition for example. And for reference if you study art history see the great masters like raphel and see his students you will see the influence of the teachers works. 

The core composition will have the influence, like a child inherits a few of the characters of his/her father and mother.


----------



## Aramis

Cyclops said:


> McCartney played a bass shaped like a mandolin which tells me had an interest in early music.


LOL.

No, he had this bass (it's called viola bass) because when he first came to the musical shop, this was the only one that he could buy.


----------



## Cyclops

Aramis said:


> LOL.
> 
> No, he had this bass (it's called viola bass) because when he first came to the musical shop, this was the only one that he could buy.


Ah thats buggered that theory then


----------



## Bach

sam richards said:


> True.
> 
> Really using violins doesn't automatically make them classically influenced. George Harrison was liked Indian Classical but it doesn't show in the beatles music.


apart from the slightly tacky use of sitar in 'norwegian wood'


----------



## jhar26

They were influenced by classical music. Not that they composed with the theoretical know-how of classical composers, but they were definitely influenced by what they heard. The use of the sitar for _Norwegian Wood_ and _Within You Without You_, the string quartet in _Yesterday_, the Bach trumpet in _Penny Lane_, the harpsichord in _In My Life_ and some 'weird' effects that I guess they picked up from modern avant garde composers - for example the use of that back to front tape in _Tomorrow Never Knows_ and the way they use the orchestra in the crescendo at the end of _A Day in the Life_ where each player has to make his way to the top without hearing what everyone else is playing. I'm sure there are many other examples, but these were the first ones that came to mind.


----------



## Tapkaara

I can't remember whch album it was they were working on, but, during the formulation of one of their albums, the listed to Kindertotenlieder with some frequency.


----------



## bdelykleon

Actually, as far as I know most "classical" influences in the beatles, Eleanor Rigby, Norwegian Wood, etc, are the work of George MArtin, most beatles didn't have the knowledge needed to write anything with a little more complexity. Paul McCartney composed some crap like Liverpool Oratorio without actually reading music, is easy to imagine how bad is the work.


----------



## sree

If you have seen the symphony of The Lords of the Rings composed by Howard Shore, you will see a tipical classical composition with a little modern techniques. Even he is influenced by the classical great composers. Even though the Beatles do not know how to read music , but still they got the people attraction. 

Any art needs to have an aesthetic element. And in the Beatles composition they did had that element. 

If you have seen any of the yanni's composition in you tube you will see that even he is influenced by the classical masters. He too don not know how to read and write music. But still he composed excellent works.

Cheers!!!


----------



## Cyclops

bdelykleon said:


> Actually, as far as I know most "classical" influences in the beatles, Eleanor Rigby, Norwegian Wood, etc, are the work of George MArtin, most beatles didn't have the knowledge needed to write anything with a little more complexity. Paul McCartney composed some crap like Liverpool Oratorio without actually reading music, is easy to imagine how bad is the work.


Ah but have you actually listened to it? Or are you just dissing it because he's not high brow enough for you? I detect a lot of snobbery on here,my music is better than your music type stuff. Its ridiculous!


----------



## bdelykleon

What, Beatles? I think we can't manage to live without hearing them, and was very fond of them in my late childhood. And as for the Liverpool Oratorio, I listened it, unfortunately. I was sleepless and saw Kiri te Kanawa singing a very cheesy music, with such a bored face, I decided to go through the end and know what crap was that, and found out that it was McCartney's _magnum opus_. The oratorio was nothing mmore than silly Penny-lane like tunes with orchestra, the orchestration was ok, but I'm sure it was not from McCartney.


----------



## jhar26

bdelykleon said:


> What, Beatles? I think we can't manage to live without hearing them, and was very fond of them in my late childhood. And as for the Liverpool Oratorio, I listened it, unfortunately. I was sleepless and saw Kiri te Kanawa singing a very cheesy music, with such a bored face, I decided to go through the end and know what crap was that, and found out that it was McCartney's _magnum opus_. The oratorio was nothing mmore than silly Penny-lane like tunes with orchestra, the orchestration was ok, but I'm sure it was not from McCartney.


That oratorio is hardly McCartney's magnum opus - more a side project it seems to me. I believe the orchestration was done by Carl Davis.


----------



## bdelykleon

Just kidding about the magnum opus thing.


----------



## Cyclops

I've heard that Liverpool oratorio once on TV. Not bad,nothing to write home about but I've heard a lot worse.


----------



## danae

Cyclops said:


> I've heard that Liverpool oratorio once on TV. Not bad,nothing to write home about but I've heard a lot worse.


I'm sorry to have to point this out to you, but the fact that you 've heard "a lot worse" doesn't make this work any less bad!


----------



## jadelee

I suppose that classic music is in some kind a source from which every other genre appeared. Maybe i am wrong, but the influence of classic music is easily seen not only in Beatles' "Yesterday".


----------



## sree

jadelee said:


> I suppose that classic music is in some kind a source from which every other genre appeared. Maybe i am wrong, but the influence of classic music is easily seen not only in Beatles' "Yesterday".


You are correct.. all music genre do have the classical origin... It is not only with Beatles, but will all major genre... A person having knowledge in classical music can easly understand other music....

Cheers!!!


----------



## Edward Elgar

"I love him, especially his poems" - Ringo Starr, when asked about what he thought of Beethoven.

It's lovely when you can make a very nice living from something you know absolutely nothing about!


----------



## jhar26

Well, they knew about rock and pop, which is all that matters since that was the field in which the Beatles were active. Nobody cares whether Federer also knows about golf.

Besides - it's obvious that Ringo was only joking when he made that remark.


----------



## Methodistgirl

Besides the Beatles there are other groups like Electric Light Orchestra, Moody Blues,their Days of Future Passed was based on Divojak. Sorry my computer can't spell either.
Pink Floyd as well somewhere.
judy tooley


----------



## Mr Dull

From various things I have seen and heard over the years I would say the Beatles were influenced by classical music. One story was that after hearing Bachs Brandenberg concertos they wanted the same trumpet sound on one of their records. Some of them went to Stockhausen concerts.
They didn't have the musical education to do the arrangements but George Martin did. What happened is the Beatles would come up with an idea explain it to George Martin who would then turn the ideas into reality.
The quote from Ringo is obviously Ringo making a joke not an example of ignorance.


----------



## jhar26

Mr Dull said:


> From various things I have seen and heard over the years I would say the Beatles were influenced by classical music. One story was that after hearing Bachs Brandenberg concertos they wanted the same trumpet sound on one of their records.


Yes - on 'Penny Lane.'


----------



## JoeGreen

Mr Dull said:


> Some of them went to Stockhausen concerts.


Yes, it was Paul McCartney, who was really into him, he had listened to Stockhausen's _Gesang der Junglinge_ and _Kontakte_ ( awesome piece by the way) and then he decided he wanted some of those same effects and techniques in thier music. They even put a picture of his face in the collage at the front cove of _Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band _album.


----------



## mbib

I don't see beatles on classical music more on rock and pop.


----------



## sree

Hi,

Their music is rock and pop, but they have been influenced by the classical masters. For example... The song Because by beatles is inspried from Beethoven's Moonlight sonata... With out the influence of great masters new composition is difficult to create. Many bands in the early 70's and 80's are influenced by beatles. So this cycle is universal and is natural.

Cheers!!!


----------



## danae

sree said:


> Hi,
> 
> Their music is rock and pop, but they have been influenced by the classical masters. For example... The song Because by beatles is inspried from Beethoven's Moonlight sonata...


Why do you think that? Is it because both the Moonlight sonata and "Because" are based on arpeggios? Because if that's the case, it's an illegitimate one.


----------



## bdelykleon

Well Because uses the reverse chord structure of the Moonlight sonata. The history goes like: Yoko was playing the Moonlight sonata in the piano, and John Lennon liked so much that he decided to write a song based in the chords reversed. Apparently from this story, John Lennon never had heard the Moonlight sonata before, a fact which tells more from the supposed classical influence on Beatles than any other thing...


----------



## JoeGreen

bdelykleon said:


> Well Because uses the reverse chord structure of the Moonlight sonata. The history goes like: Yoko was playing the Moonlight sonata in the piano, and John Lennon liked so much that he decided to write a song based in the chords reversed. Apparently from this story, John Lennon never had heard the Moonlight sonata before, a fact which tells more from the supposed classical influence on Beatles than any other thing...


But Paul McCartney was familiar, with some classical music. So don't dismiss all of them.


----------



## sree

Hi, Yes Paul did had classical knowledge. 
But i have read that the beatles do not know to read and to write music... Is this true....


Cheers!!!


----------



## bdelykleon

sree said:


> Hi, Yes Paul did had classical knowledge.
> But i have read that the beatles do not know to read and to write music... Is this true....


Yup, true. This is not unexpected when hearing their bad musicianship...


----------



## jhar26

bdelykleon said:


> Well Because uses the reverse chord structure of the Moonlight sonata. The history goes like: Yoko was playing the Moonlight sonata in the piano, and John Lennon liked so much that he decided to write a song based in the chords reversed. Apparently from this story, John Lennon never had heard the Moonlight sonata before, a fact which tells more from the supposed classical influence on Beatles than any other thing...


Well, if the Beatles say that they want a Bach trumpet in 'Penny Lane' that's definitely a classical influence. When they added a string quartet to 'Yesterday' - that's a classical influence. Doesn't matter whether they know the moonlight sonata or whether they can read music. I don't think they got the idea to add strings to 'Eleanor Rigby' after hearing a Little Richard or Chuck Berry record.


----------



## jhar26

bdelykleon said:


> Yup, true. This is not unexpected when hearing their bad musicianship...


The Beatles didn't compose symphonies or operas - they created two or three minute pop songs and they did it better than anyone else (better than most classical composers would have been able to do - educated or not) - that's enough.


----------



## bdelykleon

jhar26 said:


> Well, if the Beatles say that they want a Bach trumpet in 'Penny Lane' that's definitely a classical influence. When they added a string quartet to 'Yesterday' - that's a classical influence. Doesn't matter whether they know the moonlight sonata or whether they can read music. I don't think they got the idea to add strings to 'Eleanor Rigby' after hearing a Little Richard or Chuck Berry record.


Actually the strings in Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday are George Martin's idea.



jhar26 said:


> The Beatles didn't compose symphonies or operas - they created two or three minute pop songs and they did it better than anyone else (better than most classical composers would have been able to do - educated or not) - that's enough.


I was not complaining about the form or the genre, but their instrument playing which is very basic, even compared to their rock peers.


----------



## jhar26

bdelykleon said:


> Actually the strings in Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday are George Martin's idea.


Ok then. George Martin was influenced by ideas from classical music that he used on Beatles music. It's still a classical influence on the music of the Beatles. 


> I was not complaining about the form or the genre, but their instrument playing which is very basic, even compared to their rock peers.


I agree, but it's sufficient for what they did. In fact, it scares the living daylights out of me thinking what they would have done with those songs if they had been, say, Emerson, Lake & Palmer.  But the Beatles were never virtuosos. They weren't that great a live act either. But they were great songwriters and a great and very creative in the studio-recording group.


----------



## sree

bdelykleon said:


> Yup, true. This is not unexpected when hearing their bad musicianship...


Hi,
How come you say that they had bad musicianship... They have won many Grammy awards and still many fans love their music and above all Hope university is statting a B.A Beatles course...

Cheers!!!


----------



## sree

I am not harsh please.. Sorry if you feel bad...


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> They write tonal music, and classical composers developed tonality. That's as far as the influence goes.


That's right. Just because you hear a jazz chord in a classical piano concerto doesn't mean it's all of sudden jazz music.


----------



## sree

Hi,
Absolutely correct!!!

But if they do not know how to read and write music , 
1.how did thay learnt guitar or how did they played the chords?
2.And who wrote the notation as we see in books. I think Beatles producer George Martin who had musical knowledge should have contributed to the writing of notes?
3. From whome they learnt music?

Cheers!!!


----------



## Mirror Image

sree said:


> Hi,
> Absolutely correct!!!
> 
> But if they do not know how to read and write music ,
> 1.how did thay learnt guitar or how did they played the chords?
> 2.And who wrote the notation as we see in books. I think Beatles producer George Martin who had musical knowledge should have contributed to the writing of notes?
> 3. From whome they learnt music?
> 
> Cheers!!!


From my understanding, the Beatles knew how to read and write music, perhaps Ringo didn't know, but George Harrison knew how as I'm sure Paul and John did too. If my memory serves me correctly they used to practice their songs in every key until they found the key they all liked the best.

Don't quote me on this, because I don't know if it's true or not.


----------



## sree

Hi,

In some books and in a few websites, i have read that paul knew to read and write and the other three dont. But I feel with out musical knowledge they cannot play or compose music. 

If you study the chords progresion of Let it be or yesterday or she came in through the bathroom window. You will see that they have a strong knowledge of chords and chords progression. In a few places the application of a slash chord or any alterted chord is also present. 

Cheers!!!


----------



## bdelykleon

It is common knowledge that Paul McCartney doesn't know how to read music up to this day, only George read at any level, all their training was by ear. To know the chord positions in the guitar you don't need to read a score. And the compositions weren't by them, they were often helped by other people who may have interfered with the final outcome of the music (like putting an inverted chord in the right place of the music progression).


----------



## sree

bdelykleon said:


> It is common knowledge that Paul McCartney doesn't know how to read music up to this day, only George read at any level, all their training was by ear. To know the chord positions in the guitar you don't need to read a score. And the compositions weren't by them, they were often helped by other people who may have interfered with the final outcome of the music (like putting an inverted chord in the right place of the music progression).


Hi,

During my study in Beatles , i felt the same thought, so i think George Martin who knows to play piano, should have helped them in their composing sessions and may be he would have even helped more but it may been a secret....

Cheers!!!


----------



## Guest

sree said:


> Hi,
> Absolutely correct!!!
> 
> But if they do not know how to read and write music ,
> 1.how did thay learnt guitar or how did they played the chords?


They probably learned Guitar by trial and error/ by ear etc. to play chords does not require an ability to read the dots a chord sequence can be written thus: 
EM%%% AM%%%cm%% this is not any particular sequence but just to show how chords can be written all you have to know is what notes are in the chord


----------



## sree

Hi,

I have a strong feeling that George Martin should have helped Beatles in composing songs.... 

Cheers!!!


----------



## bdelykleon

sree said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a strong feeling that George Martin should have helped Beatles in composing songs....
> 
> Cheers!!!


Not in composing, I think, but in correcting some errors of harmony and instrumentation, for sure.


----------



## Mirror Image

sree said:


> Hi,
> How come you say that they had bad musicianship... They have won many Grammy awards and still many fans love their music and above all Hope university is statting a B.A Beatles course...
> 
> Cheers!!!


Winning a Grammy doesn't make something good. Music awards are all politically motivated and used as a tool to promote "mainstream" ideas and thoughts about music. They're useless much like the people who buy into the whole notion that winning a Grammy is some kind of achievement.


----------



## sree

Hi,

And at the same time, I read that Paul used to experiment and I have seen a video of Beatles in a jam session where Paul experiments and the other three are slient for some time and they all start the chords progression. 

Cheers!!!


----------



## sree

Mirror Image said:


> Winning a Grammy doesn't make something good. Music awards are all politically motivated and used as a tool to promote "mainstream" ideas and thoughts about music. They're useless much like the people who buy into the whole notion that winning a Grammy is some kind of achievement.


In a way you are correct. These days their is really a program in TV which promotes new talent and most of these awards are baised.....

Cheers!!!


----------



## jhar26

sree said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a strong feeling that George Martin should have helped Beatles in composing songs....
> 
> Cheers!!!


Maybe with some technicalities here and there, but it's not as though he was some sort of ghostwriter for John and Paul. If Martin was really the main guy he shouldn't have worried when the Beatles split up. He could have taken any other group, started composing for them and score another truckload of zillion sellers. The only real composing Martin did for the Beatles is the orchestral music on the B-side of the Yellow Submarine soundtrack and it makes for the most boring 15 minutes of 'Beatles music' on record.


----------



## sree

Hi,

Some kind of help he would have done that is sure. When I study composers work in various prespectives, they give a new light to the study.... . The Beatles had many people to help during their production. 

Cheers!!!


----------



## danae

Why are you all making all this fuss? About something so natural as a group jam session and trying out chord progressions on a guitar? When you listen to all a lot of music, you 're a teenager with a grudge, you happen to own a guitar, and you have a few friends and some space, you're probably gonna start a band. It's common, it makes you look cool, and most of us have done it. It just so happens that sometimes great bands are born out of this. And the Beatles were a great band, whether they knew how to read music or not, whether they followed many of their producer's ideas or not. 
They weren't virtuosos, but that's not what their songs were about.


----------



## Mirror Image

danae said:


> Why are you all making all this fuss? About something so natural as a group jam session and trying out chord progressions on a guitar? When you listen to all a lot of music, you 're a teenager with a grudge, you happen to own a guitar, and you have a few friends and some space, you're probably gonna start a band. It's common, it makes you look cool, and most of us have done it. It just so happens that sometimes great bands are born out of this. And the Beatles were a great band, whether they knew how to read music or not, whether they followed many of their producer's ideas or not.
> They weren't virtuosos, but that's not what their songs were about.


 I think whether they're great or not is purely subjective on the individual critiquing the music.


----------



## Guest

As a pop group they were completely successful if any one thinks otherwise they are prejudiced, they also wrote a lot of great tunes, is there another pop group that is equal or better?


----------



## JoeGreen

Only, George Harrison really ever became a great instrumentalist.


----------



## Mirror Image

JoeGreen said:


> Only, George Harrison really ever became a great instrumentalist.


I can agree with this as he did take sitar lessons from Ravi Shankar.


----------



## danae

Mirror Image said:


> I think whether they're great or not is purely subjective on the individual critiquing the music.


Whether they were great or not can be substanciated by their musical aesthetics, their place in the musical world of their time, their artistic choices and their impact in future generations. I agree that subjectivity always matters a great deal when it comes to art, commecrial or not, but there's also a certain point when things start to get a little more objective. I think the Beatles were a great band, and that's not purely subjective, since their "greatness" has been established by history.


----------



## Guest

JoeGreen said:


> Only, George Harrison really ever became a great instrumentalist.





Mirror Image said:


> I can agree with this as he did take sitar lessons from Ravi Shankar.


We are not talking about individuals, the subject is the Beatles, a band, group.


----------



## Yoshi

Probably someone has mentioned before, but wasn't the song "Because" inspired on Moonlight sonata played backwards?


----------



## sree

Hi,

They are the most succssful band and they have created histoy in many of their songs. If you see the chord progression in the first verse in *You never give me your money*, it is fantastic. The use of bm7b5 is really wounderful and that gives an excellent harmony and all its previous and next chords...

Similarly they have used a good chords progression in *she came in through the bath room window*.

do visit this page....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists see *1 billion records or more* label
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists_in_the_United_States see the number 1

Cheers!!!


----------



## SenorTearduct

I think the solo in "In My Life" says it all...


----------



## nickgray

sree said:


> see *1 billion records or more*


This is sad. I've read somewhere that all of the classical records ever sold amounts to less than 1 billion units, which sounds very much like truth, come to think of it. Just imagine, one (1) band sold more records than the entire classical music industry did.


----------



## SenorTearduct

Well..... It is Logical

Screaming Girls in the world>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classical fans


----------



## chillowack

Mirror Image said:


> That's right. Just because you hear a jazz chord in a classical piano concerto doesn't mean it's all of sudden jazz music.


Not sure what this comment has to do with the discussion. No one is saying the Beatles are _playing_ classical music, the question is whether they were _influenced_ by it.

I agree completely with *jhar26*. The classical influence on the Beatles' music--whether it came through George Martin or some other agent--is indisputable, given the clear examples of classical stylings in their repertoire. Easily a dozen prominent ones have been listed already, which is more than enough evidence to confirm that the influence existed.

It wasn't the only influence, or even the most prominent, but it was there beyond doubt.


----------



## chillowack

Jan said:


> Probably someone has mentioned before, but wasn't the song "Because" inspired on Moonlight sonata played backwards?


Yes, this was mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

The Beatles were indeed influenced by classical music but I would say not directly. I think the influence of George Martin is indisputable and while he was their producer they pushed the possibilities of rock forward. When Phil Specter took over, with "Let It Be", they took a step backward musically. And none of them, except possibly George, did anything as remotely progressive as they did under George Martin once the band was dissolved and they were solo artists. There is absolutely no progression musically by any of them. That's not to say that they didn't all write some nice songs and even memorable ones but their progress creatively and artistically ended after Abbey Road, in my opinion.

Kevin


----------



## Jaime77

I don't think the Beatles are that good. Come on, start the stoning of me.


----------



## SenorTearduct

Why?
What don't you like?


----------



## Jaime77

OK, they didn't release the first concept album, the Beach Boys did. A Day in the Life is a great song but songs like Meter Maid and When I'm 64 - I hate that kind of silly laughing policeman-type rubbish. It sounds like circus music. The lyrics are pretty dull too. 

As for themselves, Ringo was a mediocre drummer and none of them could play an instrument well. Consider other rock bands. were they not a rock band? They had no lead guitarist like Jimmy Page et al. 

I like Lennon's voice. Imagine is a great song but he was no Elvis Presley as regards phrasing or range or soul. 

MacCartney is an idiot. For some reason he behaves like the world owes him a big favour. He acts like a wannabe even though he should be very secure after all their success. Maybe it is because his solo career had been abysmal. 

They sold loads of records? So did Westlife. 

They have an enormous following? They were the first fanatical band so it figures. Their appearance was as much to do with that and their pop songs, which I grant you were well made but no more or less than Abba. 

I don't know why we think the Beatles are great lyricists. They do not come close to Dylan or Joni Mitchell in story-telling and depth of sentiment and originality! 

So they were experimental and picked up on the vibes of the time - so did Hendrick amoung countless others. Try contemporary classical music and Jazz, now that is really experimental. 

They also did that whole India trip because it was the done thing, it is not like they all converted to Buddhism. I think George was Buddhist. 

Consider the lyrics of Hey Jude or any other of their late number ones, do you really think these are clever lyrics? Mostly they don't even make sense. But of course idiot critics have been writing books saying how John was referring to Dada and Paul was influenced by Matisse and other nonsense just to try to glorify them more. 

I can think of more, give me time ;-)


----------



## chillowack

jaibyrne said:


> OK, they didn't release the first concept album, the Beach Boys did. A Day in the Life is a great song but songs like Meter Maid and When I'm 64 - I hate that kind of silly laughing policeman-type rubbish. It sounds like circus music. The lyrics are pretty dull too.
> 
> As for themselves, Ringo was a mediocre drummer and none of them could play an instrument well. Consider other rock bands. were they not a rock band? They had no lead guitarist like Jimmy Page et al.
> 
> I like Lennon's voice. Imagine is a great song but he was no Elvis Presley as regards phrasing or range or soul.
> 
> MacCartney is an idiot. For some reason he behaves like the world owes him a big favour. He acts like a wannabe even though he should be very secure after all their success. Maybe it is because his solo career had been abysmal.
> 
> They sold loads of records? So did Westlife.
> 
> They have an enormous following? They were the first fanatical band so it figures. Their appearance was as much to do with that and their pop songs, which I grant you were well made but no more or less than Abba.
> 
> I don't know why we think the Beatles are great lyricists. They do not come close to Dylan or Joni Mitchell in story-telling and depth of sentiment and originality!
> 
> So they were experimental and picked up on the vibes of the time - so did Hendrick amoung countless others. Try contemporary classical music and Jazz, now that is really experimental.
> 
> They also did that whole India trip because it was the done thing, it is not like they all converted to Buddhism. I think George was Buddhist.
> 
> Consider the lyrics of Hey Jude or any other of their late number ones, do you really think these are clever lyrics? Mostly they don't even make sense. But of course idiot critics have been writing books saying how John was referring to Dada and Paul was influenced by Matisse and other nonsense just to try to glorify them more.
> 
> I can think of more, give me time ;-)


But with all due respect, what does any of this have to do with the topic?


----------



## jhar26

jaibyrne said:


> OK, they didn't release the first concept album, the Beach Boys did.


Sinatra was already making concept albums in the 1950's, and I'm sure that he wasn't the only one.


> A Day in the Life is a great song but songs like Meter Maid and When I'm 64 - I hate that kind of silly laughing policeman-type rubbish. It sounds like circus music. The lyrics are pretty dull too.


Songs like "When I'm 64" were meant to sound like music hall songs or show tunes and succeeded in doing so. A song like "She's Leaving Home" was among the first - maybe even the first to comment on the generation conflict from the perspective of the parents. "Being for the Benefit of Mr.Kite" sounds like circus music, which is exactly what they intended it to sound like.


> As for themselves, Ringo was a mediocre drummer and none of them could play an instrument well.


They could play them well enough for the music they created, which is all that matters. 


> Consider other rock bands. were they not a rock band? They had no lead guitarist like Jimmy Page et al.


The Beatles weren't a jam band. When they were at their creative peak they didn't even perform live.


> I like Lennon's voice. Imagine is a great song but he was no Elvis Presley as regards phrasing or range or soul.


I for one think that Lennon was one of the better rock singers.


> McCartney is an idiot.


Rich rock stars should never be referred to as idiots. They are eccentrics. 


> For some reason he behaves like the world owes him a big favour. He acts like a wannabe even though he should be very secure after all their success. Maybe it is because his solo career had been abysmal.


Wings was one of the best selling acts of the 70's.


> They sold loads of records? So did Westlife.


Which still doesn't mean that it's a crime to sell a lot of records.


> They have an enormous following? They were the first fanatical band so it figures.


???


> Their appearance was as much to do with that and their pop songs, which I grant you were well made but no more or less than Abba.


If their appearance was such an important factor they would have been forgotten decades ago. Pop is not a dirty word for me and Abba was one of the best pop bands in history.


> I don't know why we think the Beatles are great lyricists. They do not come close to Dylan or Joni Mitchell in story-telling and depth of sentiment and originality!


Dylan and Mitchell come from the story song tradition of folk where the lyric was central. The Beatles' background is different. Their roots are the "Tutti Frutti/Be-Bop-a-Lula" world of early rock'n'roll. If you compare the lyrics of early Beatles tunes like "Love me Do" with the stuff they wrote just a few years later the evolution in their work was remarkable.


> So they were experimental and picked up on the vibes of the time - so did Hendrick amoung countless others.


I don't see why the fact that Hendrix was experimental too takes anything away from the Beatles' achievements. 


> Try contemporary classical music and Jazz, now that is really experimental.


Sure, but not in the context of a three minute pop song - so this is a case of apples and oranges.


> They also did that whole India trip because it was the done thing, it is not like they all converted to Buddhism. I think George was Buddhist.


I think they were genuinely interested at one point, but what does it matter? I didn't know you were required to become a Buddhist if you go to India.


> Consider the lyrics of Hey Jude or any other of their late number ones, do you really think these are clever lyrics? Mostly they don't even make sense.


Some Dylan lyrics don't make sense either. Only a gifted lyricist can write a beautiful nonsense lyric.


----------



## Jaime77

You raised some good points. It is true, a lot of what you say but none of it suggests that The Beatles be idolized as they are. Taste plays its part as regards Sargent Pepper - I also hate the title! 
I don't like people reading things into The Beatles that weren't there - like they were all high intellectuals, spiritual gurus who changed the face of the Earth. I prefer the poetry of Mitchell or the REAL rock and roll of Led Zeppelin (also highly ground-breaking, by the way) not this stuff in the middle. 
Wings did well yes but what about the last 30 years of Paul's life? 
Ringo released an album recently and it was so embarrassing. It could have been done by a 6 year old. 
Anyway, I love Argerich !! ;-)


----------



## jhar26

jaibyrne said:


> You raised some good points. It is true, a lot of what you say but none of it suggests that The Beatles be idolized as they are. Taste plays its part as regards Sargent Pepper - I also hate the title!
> I don't like people reading things into The Beatles that weren't there - like they were all high intellectuals, spiritual gurus who changed the face of the Earth. I prefer the poetry of Mitchell or the REAL rock and roll of Led Zeppelin (also highly ground-breaking, by the way) not this stuff in the middle.
> Anyway, I love Argerich !! ;-)


Well, I have every Beatles album, so I clearly love 'em. But I also have every Led Zeppelin and Joni Mitchell album, so we can be friends. 

Besides, since you love Martha we agree about the one person that REALLY matters.


----------



## sree

Hi,

The Chord progression of michelle is well composed with the lyrics. It gels well. In fact they used diagonal chord substitution in most of their songs. They key issus in diagonal chord substitution are again like classical. Like relative minor and parallel Major/minor.

Cheers!!!


----------



## SenorTearduct

I love the Zepp Rain song!!!


----------



## motpasm23

Of course the Beatles were influenced by classical music...all music after classical music is influenced by classical music. That's the way culture works. As others have said, "In My Life" pretty blatantly proves they were even directly influenced, which is a notch better. Also, clearly all four Beatles could read music. It's an absurd urban legend that they couldn't. That's like saying Martin Luther King was illiterate and he was an excellent orator by pure talent. Now ELP is a band that was influenced by classical music ad nauseam...


----------



## Kevin Pearson

motpasm23 said:


> Also, clearly all four Beatles could read music. It's an absurd urban legend that they couldn't. That's like saying Martin Luther King was illiterate and he was an excellent orator by pure talent. Now ELP is a band that was influenced by classical music ad nauseam...


Um...actually the Beatles are one of the most researched, and well documented groups of all time ,and no they could not read music. I mean, I remember reading that over 30 years ago for crying out loud! They have had plenty of time to disprove it! George Martin was the main force of classical influence. Without him I doubt they ever would have had the success they achieved. He isn't referred to as the 5th Beatle for no reason you know! Do some more research and get back to us will ya?

Kevin


----------



## Bgroovy2

Here's one for ya. Listen to or play on your guitar Andantino by Fernando Carulli and you will soon realize this is the same tune as "Mother Natures Son." They had to learn that from someone who new classical music!!


----------



## Landon

The Beatles had classical influences and they helped break down some barriers in pop music because of it. The strings on "Eleanor Rigby" was Paul's idea not George Maritn by the way. The Beatles "Love You To" is considered to be the first pop song to emulate non-western form, in this case Indian music, in structure and instrumentation. "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Revolution #9 uses influences from classical avant music that were really created by McCartney and Lennon. Many of their songs have classical influences "For No One", "Blackbird, and the synth and Beethoven fusion of "Because" which is basically progressive rock. Many debate if "A Day in the Life" is the first progressive rock song. The Beatles did not need to read music they learned music by playing for years before they became famous. The best education is playing and devoloping an ear. Many of their chord progressions were hardly common in the rock and roll that was before them.


----------



## Landon

Kevin Pearson said:


> Um...actually the Beatles are one of the most researched, and well documented groups of all time ,and no they could not read music. I mean, I remember reading that over 30 years ago for crying out loud! They have had plenty of time to disprove it! George Martin was the main force of classical influence. Without him I doubt they ever would have had the success they achieved. He isn't referred to as the 5th Beatle for no reason you know! Do some more research and get back to us will ya?
> 
> Kevin


George Martin has done nothing really that great without the Beatles has he. While the Beatles as solo artists have three in the rock and roll hall of fame. It's about the songs and most of the ideas like feedback, tape loops, backward music, Indian music, and the quirky time changes were from the Beatles themselves. I mean Paul McCartney and Harrison were producing people by 1967. Yes they partnered with George Martin when it came to the orchestral arrangements especially on "Eleanor Rigby', Peny Lane", and "A Day in the Life".


----------



## Kevin Pearson

Landon said:


> George Martin has done nothing really that great without the Beatles has he. While the Beatles as solo artists have three in the rock and roll hall of fame. It's about the songs and most of the ideas like feedback, tape loops, backward music, Indian music, and the quirky time changes were from the Beatles themselves. I mean Paul McCartney and Harrison were producing people by 1967. Yes they partnered with George Martin when it came to the orchestral arrangements especially on "Eleanor Rigby', Peny Lane", and "A Day in the Life".


I wouldn't say that Martin has done nothing that great without the Beatles.

Grammy Award 1973 - Best Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s) (as arranger of 'Live and Let Die')
BRIT Awards 1977 - Best British Producer (of the past 25 years)
BRIT Awards 1984 - Outstanding Contribution To Music
Grammy Award 1993 - Best Musical Show Album (as producer of 'The Who's Tommy')
Martin was named the British Phonographic Industry's "Man of the Year" for 1998. 
He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on 15 March 1999 and into the UK Music Hall of Fame on 14 November 2006. 
Martin has also been honoured with a Gold Medal for Services to the Arts from the CISAC (the World Federation of Authors and Composers) and the Lifetime Achievement Award for Services to Film at Belgium's Flanders Film Festival. 
In November 2006, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Music by Leeds Metropolitan University
He was granted his own Coat of Arms in March 2004 by the College of Arms. His shield features three beetles.
In September 2008, he was awarded the James Joyce Award by the Literary and Historical Society of UCD.

And he was made a Knight Bachelor in 1996!

And if McCartney actually had the idea for the strings in Eleanor Rigby I cannot say conclusively but we do know that Martin said he was inspired by the Bernard Hermann score to the Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. So, if McCartney suggested the strings he had nothing to do with the sound or arrangement thereof.

Kevin


----------



## danae

sree said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Chord progression of michelle is well composed with the lyrics. It gels well. In fact they used diagonal chord substitution in most of their songs. They key issus in diagonal chord substitution are again like classical. Like relative minor and parallel Major/minor.
> 
> Cheers!!!


What do you mean by "diagonal chord substitution"????


----------



## sree

*diagonal chord substitution*



danae said:


> What do you mean by "diagonal chord substitution"????


Hi,

Diagonal chord subsitution means. a chord is subsitutited with either its relative minor or relative major or with its parallel minor or parallel major....

Cheers


----------



## Landon

sree said:


> Hi,
> 
> Diagonal chord subsitution means. a chord is subsitutited with either its relative minor or relative major or with its parallel minor or parallel major....
> 
> Cheers


The Harrison-penned "Think for Yourself" which has layering of bass and fuzz bass blends major and minor modes in the same song. Some of Harrison songs were very interesting as one song "Blue Jay Way" is Lydian Mode which at the time was rare in rock music. Also yes "Eleanor Rigby" use of strings were McCartney idea.


----------



## sree

The use of diagolan chord subsitution is one the best they did in they 10 years journey....


----------



## danae

sree said:


> The use of diagolan chord subsitution is one the best they did in they 10 years journey....


I still don't understand. I mean, how can you tell that the actual chord you're hearing is indeed "substituting" another one? If you indeed expect to hear something, which is, in turn replaced by something else (the relative minor, parallel major, etc, etc), then I see the point. But this kind of replacement / substitution is soooo common (from Bach to the Beatles and beyond) that I don't understand why you consider it so important. Unless of course I haven't understood anything you said.

But if I have understood correctly, then the "deceptive cadence" would also be a form of diagonal chord substitution, right?


----------



## sree

In the beatles notations you will be able to see that they have implemented the diagonal chord subsitutions. Eventhough that is simple and many have used it in the past. But the topic of interest is how this helps.... When the chord is subsituted the harmony is given a new perspective. And they did this because they wanted the harmony to go with the lyrics. Again many people do this. One of the key area where they focused more is in the harmony and in many places you can see that the harmony dominates.

Cheers


----------



## nimmysnv

Hi,

For me, if someone asks me about the favourite classic band than I will jump and say The Beatles as they are my favourite and I love to listen them.


I do listen Yesterday, Revolution 9 which are in my list.



Thanks!!


----------



## Mark Harwood

danae said:


> I still don't understand. I mean, how can you tell that the actual chord you're hearing is indeed "substituting" another one? If you indeed expect to hear something, which is, in turn replaced by something else (the relative minor, parallel major, etc, etc), then I see the point. But this kind of replacement / substitution is soooo common (from Bach to the Beatles and beyond) that I don't understand why you consider it so important. Unless of course I haven't understood anything you said.
> 
> But if I have understood correctly, then the "deceptive cadence" would also be a form of diagonal chord substitution, right?


Quit worrying, danae. It's simple. A diagonal chord substitution is what happens when you play the banjo with too little blood in the lager stream. They happen to me a lot. Deceptive cadences result. The Beatles didn't play banjos, and I'll bet they didn't drink a lot of lager, so they must have had their own way of producing these effects. I'm told that they were also the innovators in implementing the demented seventh in asymmetric chordicles, and that their drummer Rinton Starfield invented the brushes whilst grooming his moustache. Even the rhythm guitar's wife, Yokel Omen, was active in the avant-garde (a clue) movement.


----------



## Davidjo

Aramis - 

The Beatles might not have had a lot of classical musical education but George Martin certainly had some and could write arrangements in the classical tradition. 

Some of their music is as solid as some of the best classical music and I think their legacy will last. The dynamics of a track like "I Am the Walrus" are very complex and the modulations are far more intriguing than a lot of classical music. 

Paul McCartney has of course gone on to write in the classical tradition (with a little help).


----------



## Mark Harwood

Davidjo said:


> Aramis -
> 
> The Beatles might not have had a lot of classical musical education but George Martin certainly had some and could write arrangements in the classical tradition.
> 
> Some of their music is as solid as some of the best classical music and I think their legacy will last. The dynamics of a track like "I Am the Walrus" are very complex and the modulations are far more intriguing than a lot of classical music.
> 
> Paul McCartney has of course gone on to write in the classical tradition (with a little help).



I request further analysis. 
Please explain these intriguing modulations in the Walrus song. I don't hear any.
The complex dynamics have also passed me by, so please enlighten us.
Cheers.


----------



## Davidjo

Not sure why some people seem terrified by cross fertilisation. There was nothing you could call "classical" music until about the 16th century. Originally classical music was just a parasite growing on religious music. And then beginning with people like Beethoven, classical music started feeding off folk music, which it did for the next 150 years, all the way through to people like Vaughan Williams. Folk music is just another name for popular music (The Beatles music was heavily influenced by the sea shanty folk music of the port of Liverpool). In the last 50 years, classical has drawn a lot on modern popular music and techno music which is as much the territory of pop as it is classical. 

Why are people so afraid to admit that the Beatles were influenced by classical music. The Beatles quickly moved into middle class circles when they moved to London and they heard plenty of classical music. Combined with George Martin, it is quite clear that they were not just influenced by classical music but incorporated it in many of their songs, using the best classically trained musicians of their day.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Fine by me. 
But, again, please explain the "intriguing modulations" and "complex dynamics" in the Walrus song. 
Cheers.


----------



## Davidjo

Well I'm not really qualified to explain about I Am a Walrus - but have a look at this from Alan W Pollack (this is the sort of thing I was getting at):

_"Melody and Harmony
Next note The song is ostensibly in the home key of A Major, but a number of harmonic factors keep you off balance and give the song what I sometimes describe as a perilously high center of gravity:

* the prominence and sense of tonal focus given to the B-Major chord (V-of-V in this context) at the beginning of the intro and at the end of the second verse sections;
* similarly, the sense of tonal arrival given to the E-Major chord (V in this context) at the end of the refrain;
* the use of block chords moving root-wise along the scale in all sections; especially in the outro, where its step-wise descending chord progression and a top voice which is ascends step-wise conjures visions of an limitless expansion.

Next note Balanced off against these forces of tonal instability you ironically find almost equal prominence given to the very clear, very bluesy V -» IV -» I chord progression as I already mentioned. The tune, when it is not hammering away on a single pitch for rhetorically haranguing emphasis is quite prone to bluesy licks that contain flat third and seventh scale degrees; same thing for the licks played by the horns and strings."_

Pollack also refers to the dynamics of the song - interplay of orchestra, recorded speech, highly processed lead vocal, classical vocal chorus and rock band underlay. It is a highly complex song.

Here's a link to Pollack: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/iatw.shtml


----------



## Mark Harwood

Thanks, Davidjo. 
All of the above is plain to hear. I'd say that none of it points to real complexity or any usage of Classical forms, but at least it's a song that's worth a close look. It was original and imaginative. The music isn't banal. Let's not get into the gibberish lyrics though.


----------



## Davidjo

Well I don't know quite what "classical forms" means. I've heard plenty of classical music based on folk music. Is that in a "classical form"? Popular music is simply modern folk music in Europe and the USA (and much of the rest of the world). I've heard plenty of "classical" music that is simpler than I Am A Walrus. 

I don't myself accept that there are any rigid boundaries. Opera merges into operetta merges into musicals. Obviously I Am a Walrus is not a symphony, but for my money it's far more interesting than most symphonies. 

People often prepare the best of classical with the worst of pop, rock, folk and jazz. But I think when we look at the best of all these traditions we see a much more level playing field.


----------



## Patchman

> People often prepare the best of classical with the worst of pop, rock, folk and jazz. But I think when we look at the best of all these traditions we see a much more level playing field.


I think that in this case, genres are not bad or good, artists are, a lot of people forget about bad things because good stands the test of time (well, in extreme cases bad is remembered, Hitler and glam metal for example, but those are reminders of how low one can go, heh). I do think people sometimes hold their favorite form of art a little too seriously as sacred and will be dishonest in debates, cherry pick, choose the worst against the best, and it is very hard since in music very few things are truly objective, and even when you think you got it there is a subjective twist (for example, I might hold the opinion that complexity makes better music because it makes my brain work harder and I hold myself above other people for my taste, but another person could prove me wrong, being much more intelligent than me in subjects that can actually change the world we live in, decisions that might increase or decrease the suffering of sentient life rather than choosing what song to play today, and him preferring simplicity in music). I think one of the best measures of how good art can be is effort, because lately I think the word "art' has been loosing credibility and meaning in my mind, everything can be art you know, but not everything is made with great effort or thought behind it, in fact a lot of useful things are born from just fooling around one lonely day.



> Thanks, Davidjo.
> All of the above is plain to hear. I'd say that none of it points to real complexity or any usage of Classical forms, but at least it's a song that's worth a close look. It was original and imaginative. The music isn't banal. Let's not get into the gibberish lyrics though.


While I am frankly tired of hearing about the Beatles and having them be a standard "favorite band" for a lot of people that don't really listen to too much music (but of course, one can listen to a lot and still have them as favorites, but you can't deny it's almost a robotic answer to name the Beatles as a favorite artist, or maybe you can and it's just my experience), and in my personal opinion I don't really like them that much, I love the fact that "I am the Walrus" has a side that basically gives the finger to pretense or is a big joke, trying to make people figure it out when some of it really does not make any sense. I am very pleased about that because of a personal dislike of cryptic lyricists and people who try to interpret them, specially when most are just mediocre writers trying to cover the fact up (Jim Morrison for example), and that I think lyrics should be praised separately from music, if you gave me a band's work in the form of a book, then a lot of lyricist who are praised are going to get the upper hand, but most of the time i consider it unfair to call them MUSICAL geniuses when music for them most of the time is just something used to barely carry the lyrics (Patti Smith is IMO a good example of this, punk as a whole really), but that is just me.

For the topic, do I think there's classical influence on the Beatles? yeah, I don't think the Beatles are too lowly to integrate classical influence in their music, after all, maybe on a superficial level, but still. I don't hold music like classical and jazz as many people do, elevate it to otherworldly levels that no mere mortal can JUST make it (for example, all the talk about the years of preparation and theoretical study one must go through before playing one note in a jazz band, then how in the world did the first jazz musicians, who were not exactly of a privileged background do it?, it evolves of course, but you get my point, or you can inform me and correct me too, truth is truth), some is bad some is good some vary in levels of effort behind it, besides everything can be romanticized, look at graffiti, you can paint the most detailed portrait on my house, you can call it freedom fighting and man-sticking, but I still want you cleaning and re-painting my wall, still no more of an invasion of private property, of course classical music isn't graffiti, but I think you guys can get my point and my view on things, just my view tough.


----------



## Davidjo

Mark Harwood said:


> Thanks, Davidjo.
> All of the above is plain to hear. I'd say that none of it points to real complexity or any usage of Classical forms, but at least it's a song that's worth a close look. It was original and imaginative. The music isn't banal. Let's not get into the gibberish lyrics though.


Well I wasn;t going to come back on the lyrics as this is a musical site but I was just posting this on another site but couldn't (blocked) so thought I would throw it in. It is lyrically highly complex and the words are most definitely not gibberish. It's a meditation on meaning, consciousness, personhood versus social obligation...a lot for a pop song! It's definitely not a lurv song and it ain't rubbish.
*
"Meaningless? Or just about the most meaningful pop song ever?

Here are some thoughts:

An egg-man is a neat combination of male (man) and female (egg) possibilities. But Humpty Dumpty was an egg man also - and he was famous for claiming that he decided on the meaning of words. Couldn't be better for the apparent theme of the song.

Walrus - this is a bit more fanciful but then why not? If Lennon can play with us (as he declared he was doing in this song), we can play with him. Walrus = We all are us. The climax of the refrain is an echo of the opening line ("I am he as you are he as we are altogether...")! I think one can certainly say the Walr-US is well chosen in this respect. (The normal emphasis is shifted to the last syllable in the song. And Lennon played mind games about who was in the Walrus costume - again invoking the idea of anyone can stand in for anyone else.)

"If the sun don't come". That's what's printed but of course in terms of sound it could equally be "If the son don't come"...Jesus, second coming...Lennon was notoriously inclined to identify himself with Jesus and the second coming. Tan? Black and Tans... Lennon also identified with the Irish and gave money to the IRA. English reign/rain. I think there's a lot swirling around in his personal imagination. Doesn't matter too much whether we follow it - it's more important to recognise that the song gives a convincing impression of a mind swirling with possibilities and meaning. *

Without writing a treatise on it, I would say it is a whole lot more meaningful and significant than the average opera libretto.


----------



## SenorTearduct

If you wished to point the signifigance of their lyrics, you just needed to say "A day in the life" probably the single most signifigant pop song of all time in my opinion with the exception of Elvis Presly and America by U2.

More signifigant than average opera libretto? Maybe...
But I must argue that the underlying meanings that Mozart slipped under all of his comedy was masterful. And no other term could be used to describe his brillence as a writer of music, literature, a mathmatician, a logician, and a philosopher.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Davidjo said:


> "Meaningless? Or just about the most meaningful pop song ever?
> 
> Here are some thoughts:
> 
> An egg-man is a neat combination of male (man) and female (egg) possibilities. But Humpty Dumpty was an egg man also - and he was famous for claiming that he decided on the meaning of words. Couldn't be better for the apparent theme of the song.
> 
> Walrus - this is a bit more fanciful but then why not? If Lennon can play with us (as he declared he was doing in this song), we can play with him. Walrus = We all are us. The climax of the refrain is an echo of the opening line ("I am he as you are he as we are altogether...")! I think one can certainly say the Walr-US is well chosen in this respect. (The normal emphasis is shifted to the last syllable in the song. And Lennon played mind games about who was in the Walrus costume - again invoking the idea of anyone can stand in for anyone else.)
> 
> "If the sun don't come". That's what's printed but of course in terms of sound it could equally be "If the son don't come"...Jesus, second coming...Lennon was notoriously inclined to identify himself with Jesus and the second coming. Tan? Black and Tans... Lennon also identified with the Irish and gave money to the IRA. English reign/rain. I think there's a lot swirling around in his personal imagination. Doesn't matter too much whether we follow it - it's more important to recognise that the song gives a convincing impression of a mind swirling with possibilities and meaning. [/B]
> 
> Without writing a treatise on it, I would say it is a whole lot more meaningful and significant than the average opera libretto.


Oh dear. That takes me back to my drug-taking days, when even the most Godawful drivel could seem to be significant if you tried. I remember believing that The Hollies' "Silence Is Golden" was about taking a large LSD dose. An agile, playful or drug-addled mind can do these tricks with practically anything. It's fun, so long as you don't end up taking it seriously. Having various themes (and drugs) "swirling around in his personal imagination", his mind "swirling with possibilities and meaning" led to Mr. Lennon writing a playful ditty, not a profound meditation on the meaning of life. Good fun, though.


----------



## motpasm23

Kevin Pearson said:


> Um...actually the Beatles are one of the most researched, and well documented groups of all time ,and no they could not read music. I mean, I remember reading that over 30 years ago for crying out loud! They have had plenty of time to disprove it! George Martin was the main force of classical influence. Without him I doubt they ever would have had the success they achieved. He isn't referred to as the 5th Beatle for no reason you know! Do some more research and get back to us will ya?
> 
> Kevin


You remember reading it over 30 years ago? If you could enlighten me by citing your source, I'll take it back. But a simple google search reveals not a single credible source supporting this myth. First off, music is very easy to read. For someone as talented as a single one of the Beatles, they could have learned to read/write music in 20 minutes. That they, the most successful band of all time, never learned in 10 years, is beyond ridiculous. You really think they just magically learned tonal theory and George Martin would painfully transcribe every single piece? Noooooo. Just because you read something doesn't mean it's true. That's what common sense is for.


----------



## Guest

motpasm23 said:


> First off, music is very easy to read. For someone as talented as a single one of the Beatles, they could have learned to read/write music in 20 minutes.


A good few months ago a poster stated that they (personally) could master any instrument in 30-40 min and had indeed done so with Oboe, Flute, Clarinet + other instruments the above statement belongs in the same category.


> That's what common sense is for.


Common sense is only what *you *believe otherwise its rubbish.


----------



## Lukecash12

Andante said:


> A good few months ago a poster stated that they (personally) could master any instrument in 30-40 min and had indeed done so with Oboe, Flute, Clarinet + other instruments the above statement belongs in the same category.
> 
> Common sense is only what *you *believe otherwise its rubbish.


Hmmm... That's all fine and good, but what did they do for music? I don't mean to sound condescending, they were some of my favorite people ever. Wonderful people, lots of witty humor, a little suggestive lyricism, and a whole mass of different experiences. Not to mention Ringo Starr was just hysterical in the movie _Caveman_.

However much I love those guys, can you tell me what exactly they did for music? I never feel as if I've learned much of anything, and the lyrics don't really save the whole thing at all. I just don't get anything real or substantial out of it. I'd much rather go through my picture albums, and read their quotes, watch their hilarious short films, and think about it.

It wouldn't make a difference to me if there wasn't any music at all.


----------



## nickgray

motpasm23 said:


> First off, music is very easy to read


So you say that anybody can easily read and play in their mind any Mahler's symphony? Just like that, 20 minutes to read some short essay on reading musical notation and voila!  What's next? Programming in C# in 10 minutes? General Relativity in 5 and M-Theory just in two! Brilliant!

Oh and btw, the vast majority of rock (and its derivatives) musicians do not know how to read music and are unfamiliar with music theory. Also, that kind of music use simplistic forms and simple harmony (yes, even the mighty progressive/art rock in comparison to classical music falls into that category). Really, rock music is essentially folk music gone modern.



> That they, the most successful band of all time


Talent, or lack of it, should not measured by mass appeal. Beatles or any other band could sell hundreds of billions of records for all I care. It reminds me of a popular idiotic phrase "panel of experts states that...". Nobody really know who the hell those people are or, in some cases, if they even exist, yet the word "experts" seems to carry a significant weight for some crazy and insane reason.


----------



## Lukecash12

nickgray said:


> So you say that anybody can easily read and play in their mind any Mahler's symphony? Just like that, 20 minutes to read some short essay on reading musical notation and voila!  What's next? Programming in C# in 10 minutes? General Relativity in 5 and M-Theory just in two! Brilliant!
> 
> Oh and btw, the vast majority of rock (and its derivatives) musicians do not know how to read music and are unfamiliar with music theory. Also, that kind of music use simplistic forms and simple harmony (yes, even the mighty progressive/art rock in comparison to classical music falls into that category). Really, rock music is essentially folk music gone modern.
> 
> Talent, or lack of it, should not measured by mass appeal. Beatles or any other band could sell hundreds of billions of records for all I care. It reminds me of a popular idiotic phrase "panel of experts states that...". Nobody really know who the hell those people are or, in some cases, if they even exist, yet the word "experts" seems to carry a significant weight for some crazy and insane reason.


Music to my ears. I don't see why so many classical fans want to give modern music a pat on the back for being a little more than absolutely pathetic.

Modern music is so careless, that any day of the week I'd take the most rudimentary Greek music (actually, the folk pieces of Greece and Israel are amazing in their melodic and orchestral qualities) over the jargon of pop culture. That said, I still love the world we live in today just fine.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... That's all fine and good, but what did they do for music? I don't mean to sound condescending, they were some of my favorite people ever. Wonderful people, lots of witty humor, a little suggestive lyricism, and a whole mass of different experiences. Not to mention Ringo Starr was just hysterical in the movie _Caveman_.
> 
> However much I love those guys, can you tell me what exactly they did for music? I never feel as if I've learned much of anything, and the lyrics don't really save the whole thing at all. I just don't get anything real or substantial out of it. I'd much rather go through my picture albums, and read their quotes, watch their hilarious short films, and think about it.
> 
> It wouldn't make a difference to me if there wasn't any music at all.


*Lukecash12*
What have your comments to do with my [quoted] remarks??


----------



## Lukecash12

I'm sorry if I wasn't so clear. You said they were so awfully talented, and replied: What does it matter? They didn't really do anything for music, however much they did for people in general.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm sorry if I wasn't so clear. You said they were so awfully talented, and replied: What does it matter? They didn't really do anything for music, however much they did for people in general.


Sorry old chap but you must be confusing me [Andante] with someone else


----------



## Davidjo

I very much doubt any of the Beatles apart from McCartney ever learned to read music to any significant degree. I think McCartney probably did a little. 

However, that is very much beside the point as far as I am concerned. There are virtuoso jazz musicians who can play note series that classically trained music-reading musicians would have difficulty replicating. 

No one is obliged to like the Beatles but they clearly are hanging around a long time - 4 decades since they broke up and there is still a phenomenal amount of interest in them. 

The reason I think they are a cut above the rest is because I think (a) there is a real freshness about their musicality which surprises and pleases time and time again (b) their music was somehow able to replicate our interior lives in a convincing manner and/or work narratively (c) the best of their music I think does take us to that other level - puts us in touch with consciousness - in a way that all the great music does. 

They weren't virtuoso musicians and their compositions are not always seamless in the manner of Mozart of Beethoven but that doesn't undermine their achievements as far as I am concerned. 

As for lyrics interpretation, Silence Is Golden was by the Tremeloes, not the Hollies, and I never had any doubt that was a standard pop song about thwarted love. There is a lot more to the lyrics of the Beatles.


----------



## Lukecash12

Davidjo said:


> I very much doubt any of the Beatles apart from McCartney ever learned to read music to any significant degree. I think McCartney probably did a little.
> 
> However, that is very much beside the point as far as I am concerned. There are virtuoso jazz musicians who can play note series that classically trained music-reading musicians would have difficulty replicating.
> 
> No one is obliged to like the Beatles but they clearly are hanging around a long time - 4 decades since they broke up and there is still a phenomenal amount of interest in them.
> 
> The reason I think they are a cut above the rest is because I think (a) there is a real freshness about their musicality which surprises and pleases time and time again (b) their music was somehow able to replicate our interior lives in a convincing manner and/or work narratively (c) the best of their music I think does take us to that other level - puts us in touch with consciousness - in a way that all the great music does.
> 
> They weren't virtuoso musicians and their compositions are not always seamless in the manner of Mozart of Beethoven but that doesn't undermine their achievements as far as I am concerned.
> 
> As for lyrics interpretation, Silence Is Golden was by the Tremeloes, not the Hollies, and I never had any doubt that was a standard pop song about thwarted love. There is a lot more to the lyrics of the Beatles.


One thing I'll give to George Harrison is that he learned Sitar from Ravi Shankar himself. Indian Classical music is much more complicated than simply learning to read. As a whole, I'd say that Indian Classical music is sophisticated, expressive, well developed, and just as important to learn as Western Classical music.


----------



## Mark Harwood

"Silence Is Golden was by the Tremeloes, not the Hollies..."
Of course it was. Cheers.


----------



## motpasm23

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... That's all fine and good, but what did they do for music? I don't mean to sound condescending, they were some of my favorite people ever. Wonderful people, lots of witty humor, a little suggestive lyricism, and a whole mass of different experiences. Not to mention Ringo Starr was just hysterical in the movie _Caveman_.
> 
> However much I love those guys, can you tell me what exactly they did for music? I never feel as if I've learned much of anything, and the lyrics don't really save the whole thing at all. I just don't get anything real or substantial out of it. I'd much rather go through my picture albums, and read their quotes, watch their hilarious short films, and think about it.
> 
> It wouldn't make a difference to me if there wasn't any music at all.


Geez some of you people are elitist. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to accept that culture kept evolving after 1920 and the Beatles are one of the strongest influences (if only musically) since then. They pioneered music production in the current sense. The Beatles innovated recording techniques, pop instrumentation, classical quotations, etc. I probably shouldn't have even included "pop" and "classical" in there, but you have to understand that this is what music is. Culture evolves, and there's no sense wasting time insisting that what happened 200 years ago was the crux of civilization. If you don't like The Beatles, fine, but I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are simply biased against music that's purely orchestral.

And to whoever said I was implying that you could read the score of Mahler 9 and hear it in your head and 20 minutes, that's not what reading music is. Only elite conductors can do that. Reading music implies being able to notate onto or read from a staff, and understanding the basic concepts of key and meter. To say that The Beatles never learned implies that they refused implies that they're extremely stubborn, which just doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

When ever new band hails themselves as "The New Beatles", you see their effect on the musical world.


----------



## Guest

motpasm23 said:


> And to whoever said I was implying that you could read the score of Mahler 9 and hear it in your head and 20 minutes, that's not what reading music is.


It would make it easier to follow your posts if you would do your homework and address the person that actually said this, and then use the quote button


----------



## Lukecash12

motpasm23 said:


> Geez some of you people are elitist. Unfortunately, you're just going to have to accept that culture kept evolving after 1920 and the Beatles are one of the strongest influences (if only musically) since then. They pioneered music production in the current sense. The Beatles innovated recording techniques, pop instrumentation, classical quotations, etc. I probably shouldn't have even included "pop" and "classical" in there, but you have to understand that this is what music is. Culture evolves, and there's no sense wasting time insisting that what happened 200 years ago was the crux of civilization. If you don't like The Beatles, fine, but I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are simply biased against music that's purely orchestral.
> 
> And to whoever said I was implying that you could read the score of Mahler 9 and hear it in your head and 20 minutes, that's not what reading music is. Only elite conductors can do that. Reading music implies being able to notate onto or read from a staff, and understanding the basic concepts of key and meter. To say that The Beatles never learned implies that they refused implies that they're extremely stubborn, which just doesn't make much sense.


There are plenty of people who still write good music, and not of all it sounds like Rachmanninoff, nor does it have to. But, I'm sorry, if you put such a minimal amount of thought into music, you're not putting anything substantial out there. And try not to tell me that what the Beatles did was awfully hard. Many a composer has spent over a year and a half (and often more) to write a great piece. I've been perfected my composing and playing for over two decades now, practicing at least four hours a day, and most times I've practiced six to eight hours a day.

From a music standpoint, pop music stars just fiddle fart around. They don't do much of anything. I'm not saying anyone is better or worse than anyone else, or that some composer is greater than any other. I'm saying that they didn't really put it all on the line in the first place. Trying to actually display your emotions through sound is complicated, period. It has to have stark characteristics, not necessarily be hard to play or a massive work overall.

I just don't see what the Beatles actually did. You say they brought some classical music influences to the new landscape of music, but what did they say in doing so? It sounds to me like "This is kind of what such and such a composer that is way better than me at writing music would have done". Nothing against the Beatles. They are some of the people who have done, said, and experienced things that I think about all the time. They just weren't really composers, didn't make music that got much of anything across.

It's okay to sound mundane, even, to go for simpler pleasures (for example Beethoven's Pastorale, or Debussy's Children's Corner), but even then you are still putting a lot into it. I'm not an elitist, and anyone can write good music if they put enough into it. I'm just a musician and composer.


----------



## Davidjo

And Schubert who wrote a trite song about a trout, with the amazingly sophisticated theme about fish and fishers as boys and girls playing the love game...his music's so superior to The Beatles.. who used far more complex chord structures and modulations and had a far more sophisticated view of the love game?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

I think this thread should stop 












(and this is coming from me - deviator-on-a-tangent-in-chief)


----------



## Mark Harwood

"...The Beatles.. who used far more complex chord structures and modulations [than Schubert]..."

Ye Gods. 
Carruthers, have that man taken out and shot.


----------



## nickgray

motpasm23 said:


> Geez some of you people are elitist.


So, is it strange to be aware of the fact that classical music is indeed the pinnacle of the musical art? And not be humble about that? After all, there's little to be humble about. I started to dislike that whole "patting on the head" idea applied to popular music, even unusually complicated one. Band X happened to use sonata form in one of their songs? Gee, what an extraordinary achievement... *tears of joy*



> Unfortunately, you're just going to have to accept that culture kept evolving after 1920 and the Beatles are one of the strongest influences (if only musically) since then.


To Rock/Pop music - yeah, they were. But overall? No. And oh, classical music was, were and is evolving, be it '20s, '70s or '00. If you're stuck with the idea that classical music = old music, think again.



> They pioneered music production in the current sense. The Beatles innovated recording techniques, pop instrumentation, classical quotations, etc.


Uhhhh... nope. Well, in a sense - yeah, a bit. But it was yet again classical music that was the most crucial element of sound recording advancements (besides engineering, knowledge, etc., obviously). Really, I'm not lying, just check with google. From reproducing piano to stereo (for consumers).

However record engineering isn't about what to record, it's about how. So it doesn't really matter if it was Stokowski they recording or Chuck Berry. It's not really about that.



> Culture evolves, and there's no sense wasting time insisting that what happened 200 years ago was the crux of civilization. If you don't like The Beatles, fine, but I'm getting the impression


200 years ago? Huh? You're saying there were no Shostakovich, no Stravinsky, no Schnittke? Jeez... (check the reply to the second quote). Beatles and the likes are much more closer to folk music than classical. It is popular music that never evolved - it was simple 200 years ago and it is [more or less] at the same level of complexity now. They certainly don't know what the hell serialism and atonality is.



> that a lot of people are simply biased against music that's purely orchestral.


I love chamber music 



> And to whoever said I was implying that you could read the score of Mahler 9 and hear it in your head and 20 minutes, that's not what reading music is. Only elite conductors can do that.


Not really. Lots of people can, it just takes practice. This is by no means an "elite conductor" feat. Although obviously elite guys are likely to be better at it, the name implies, sorta.



> Reading music implies being able to notate onto or read from a staff, and understanding the basic concepts of key and meter


Hehe... I can "read" music then. Would take me hours to decipher it though. Hell, anyone can read that way, this is no hard task. But no, reading music implies at least some level of understanding and the ability (to at least partially) "hear" it in your mind. Just knowing where the notes are and what does 3/4 mean doesn't classify as music reading, at least not by my standards.


----------



## Dim7

nickgray said:


> So, is it strange to be aware of the fact that classical music is indeed the pinnacle of the musical art? And not be humble about that? After all, there's little to be humble about. I started to dislike that whole "patting on the head" idea applied to popular music, even unusually complicated one. Band X happened to use sonata form in one of their songs? Gee, what an extraordinary achievement... *tears of joy*


What do you exactly mean with "patting on the head" in this context?


----------



## nickgray

Dim7 said:


> What do you exactly mean with "patting on the head" in this context?


Being tolerant (much more than should be) towards popular music. As I said - if some band happened to use something unusually complex in their music it's regarded as something uber-special, whereas looking at this from the context of classical music...


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

nickgray said:


> Being tolerant (much more than should be) towards popular music. As I said - if some band happened to use something unusually complex in their music it's regarded as something uber-special, whereas looking at this from the context of classical music...


Popular music is never about being complex. When it gets to being complex it's considered prog rock or something, and no one actually listens to it.

It's a whole different system of appreciation. The two really cannot be compared.


----------



## Lukecash12

Time and again, classical music isn't complexity. If anyone wants to label classical music as nothing more than aesthetically pleasing harmonic, melodic, and rhythmic structures, I feel quite a bit of pity for him/her. 

If you aren't specific with the music you make, there is nothing to enjoy in it. If we weren't specific and actually tried to give something to music, it wouldn't have nearly the central place in culture it does now. At the rate things are going, if these self appointed experts run amok selling increasingly immoral, vague, pointless jargon, then I think we all know what happens. No more music.


----------



## motpasm23

Lukecash12 said:


> From a music standpoint, pop music stars just fiddle fart around. They don't do much of anything. I'm not saying anyone is better or worse than anyone else, or that some composer is greater than any other. I'm saying that they didn't really put it all on the line in the first place. Trying to actually display your emotions through sound is complicated, period. It has to have stark characteristics, not necessarily be hard to play or a massive work overall.


I don't really see much difference in the Beatles entire output versus Chopin's if you're judging music on its scope. Chopin was incredibly one-dimensional, but he excelled in that single dimension (collections of short pieces involving piano) better than anyone else. The Beatles (for the record, the Beatles aren't my favorite band, I'm just using them at this point as representative of all pop[ular] music) excelled at collections (albums) of short pieces involving more modern instrumentation. I think to dismiss their albums as trifles or not worth serious academic study is just stubborn--Cambridge's series of music handbooks even has a volume for Sgt. Pepper and I read a Ph.D. thesis on Abbey Road.

I think the ultimate point here is that while they're not directly comparable (just as Scarlatti Sonatas don't compare to even Beethoven Sonatas, much less Prokofiev Ballets), both are extremely impressive musical and artistic outputs. Even if you ignore the cultural impact of The Beatles and the fact that Chopin was once popular music, I don't see how someone can't gain the same amount of emotional catharsis during the middle section of "You Never Give Me Your Money" or the dream sequence in "A Day in the Life" as the Adagio of Bruckner 8. But that's just me, I guess.

For the record, though, Pink Floyd is better.


----------



## Guest

motpasm23 said:


> I think the ultimate point here is that while they're not directly comparable (just as Scarlatti Sonatas don't compare to even Beethoven Sonatas, much less Prokofiev Ballets), both are extremely impressive musical and artistic outputs.


If you are comparing sonatas do you not mean Prokofiev sonatas ? or are you saying you can't compare apples with Bananas? also are you suggesting that Prokofiev sonatas (or Ballets) are superior to Beethoven's sonatas ?


----------



## Davidjo

Nickgray - 

But I suspect what you call classical music, or much of it: Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Smetna, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Tchaikovsky is in fact an amalgam of folk music and classical music. 

More recently it has been clear that classical music has been in communication with popular music on the electronic and recording front. 

I think it is rather absurd to say that genre type X is at the "pinnacle" of the musical art. Is Offenbach really better than Duke Ellington? Is Arthur Sullivan really a better composer than Richard Rodgers? Was Schubert really a better song writer than Lennon and McCartney? 

Undoubtedly classical music is often (not always) very complex. However, these days "popular" music can also be very complex as well.


----------



## jhar26

Davidjo said:


> Nickgray -
> 
> But I suspect what you call classical music, or much of it: Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Smetna, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Tchaikovsky is in fact an amalgam of folk music and classical music.
> 
> More recently it has been clear that classical music has been in communication with popular music on the electronic and recording front.
> 
> I think it is rather absurd to say that genre type X is at the "pinnacle" of the musical art. Is Offenbach really better than Duke Ellington? Is Arthur Sullivan really a better composer than Richard Rodgers? Was Schubert really a better song writer than Lennon and McCartney?
> 
> Undoubtedly classical music is often (not always) very complex. However, these days "popular" music can also be very complex as well.


After many years of being a member of internet forums I've come to the conclusion that it's almost pointless to discuss popular music on a classical music forum or vice versa. It's almost impossible to convince (for example) a Schubert fan that James Brown was a creative guy or a James Brown fan that Schubert had soul.


----------



## SenorTearduct

Random.. but everyone take a look at the newest composition on the site.. i think its good but am not sure...


----------



## Lukecash12

Davidjo said:


> Nickgray -
> 
> But I suspect what you call classical music, or much of it: Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Smetna, Vaughan Williams, Elgar, Tchaikovsky is in fact an amalgam of folk music and classical music.
> 
> More recently it has been clear that classical music has been in communication with popular music on the electronic and recording front.
> 
> I think it is rather absurd to say that genre type X is at the "pinnacle" of the musical art. Is Offenbach really better than Duke Ellington? Is Arthur Sullivan really a better composer than Richard Rodgers? Was Schubert really a better song writer than Lennon and McCartney?
> 
> Undoubtedly classical music is often (not always) very complex. However, these days "popular" music can also be very complex as well.


Have you been paying any attention at all? I'm not going to say you "missed the point" but let's try counting how many times I've reiterated that music has nothing do with complexity. I'm at above ten by now.

Give me a break, my friend.


----------



## Davidjo

Lukecash - 

Hint: read who the post is directed at. Nickgray was the person who put forward complexity as an indicator of merit. I was not responding to you. 

Jhar - 

I think you are talking about the ideologues who patrol the internet forums! Most people are a lot more tolerant of different music forms, although I would accept a large proportion of the general public can't focus on classical music and can absorb it only sub-consciously in film, TV and adverts. 

The Beatles clearly loved all forms of music: skiffle, rock and roll, blues, country and western, Indian, reggae, soul and Motown, folk, electric folk, ragtime, musicals, classical, electro-experimental, choral. That, for me, is one of their great merits. The only genre I can think that they did not make much use of is jazz - although I think Billy Preston's piano break on Get Back is quite jazzified.


----------



## Landon

Davidjo said:


> Lukecash -
> 
> Hint: read who the post is directed at. Nickgray was the person who put forward complexity as an indicator of merit. I was not responding to you.
> 
> Jhar -
> 
> I think you are talking about the ideologues who patrol the internet forums! Most people are a lot more tolerant of different music forms, although I would accept a large proportion of the general public can't focus on classical music and can absorb it only sub-consciously in film, TV and adverts.
> 
> The Beatles clearly loved all forms of music: skiffle, rock and roll, blues, country and western, Indian, reggae, soul and Motown, folk, electric folk, ragtime, musicals, classical, electro-experimental, choral. That, for me, is one of their great merits. The only genre I can think that they did not make much use of is jazz - although I think Billy Preston's piano break on Get Back is quite jazzified.


There is some jazz influence on songs like "You Know My Name" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy). Many of the Beatles songs are a balance of melody and harmony, unusual instrumentation, with unusual use of a studio as an instrument at the time for rock musicians like backward masking, backwards guitar solos, pudding drums, automatic double-tracking and direct injection on bass. "Norwegian Wood" uses sitar with modal songwriting. "Strawberry Fields Forever" uses backward tape with electronic instruments. "Penny Lane" uses piano through guitar amps to get feedback that you hear at the end of the track. "Tomorrow Never Knows" has vocals through leslie speakers. "Love You To" is almost full blown eastern song with fuzz-bass volume swells They had a formula and that was to create new sounds and push the boundaries of pop music.


----------



## Lukecash12

Davidjo said:


> Lukecash -
> 
> Hint: read who the post is directed at. Nickgray was the person who put forward complexity as an indicator of merit. I was not responding to you.
> 
> Jhar -
> 
> I think you are talking about the ideologues who patrol the internet forums! Most people are a lot more tolerant of different music forms, although I would accept a large proportion of the general public can't focus on classical music and can absorb it only sub-consciously in film, TV and adverts.
> 
> The Beatles clearly loved all forms of music: skiffle, rock and roll, blues, country and western, Indian, reggae, soul and Motown, folk, electric folk, ragtime, musicals, classical, electro-experimental, choral. That, for me, is one of their great merits. The only genre I can think that they did not make much use of is jazz - although I think Billy Preston's piano break on Get Back is quite jazzified.


Thanks for correcting me there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was about to go crazy there.


----------



## youralldumb

*seriously?*

actually classical music was a huge influence on the beatles considering george martin, also known as the "fifth beatle", who was was classically trained on piano and oboe and was a huge fan of bach, produced and arranged 95% of the beatles catalogue, so your all wrong. 
p.s. you don't have to be classically trained to listen to music and be influenced by it, its called having a good ear. come on guys, think outside the box, stop being such snobs, and realize that music of the twentieth century was just as creative and revolutionary as classical music was in its time. i would like to see any of you write that music those arrangements and those melodies without hearing anything like it before. i cant say the same for modern music, it started goin down the toilet in the late 80's.


----------



## Landon

youralldumb said:


> actually classical music was a huge influence on the beatles considering george martin, also known as the "fifth beatle", who was was classically trained on piano and oboe and was a huge fan of bach, produced and arranged 95% of the beatles catalogue, so your all wrong.
> p.s. you don't have to be classically trained to listen to music and be influenced by it, its called having a good ear. come on guys, think outside the box, stop being such snobs, and realize that music of the twentieth century was just as creative and revolutionary as classical music was in its time. i would like to see any of you write that music those arrangements and those melodies without hearing anything like it before. i cant say the same for modern music, it started goin down the toilet in the late 80's.


I think you are 100% wrong. Oh I respect George Martin but where is Gerry and the Pacemakers Sgt Pepper or Jeff Beck Revolver? The Beatles classical influence like Indian came from George Harrison and classical Avant came from McCartney. Yes George Martin help influence the Beatles to go into a more of a classical influence but songs like "Because" or "Martha My Dear" were written by the Beatles. As it is people like Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick will tell you it was Paul McCartney who was the Beatles main musical force. George Martin didn't write the songs.

Norman Smith (who was The Beatles recording engineer from Please Please Me through Rubber Soul)

I don't want to take anything away from anyone, but production of the Beatles was very simple, because it was ready-made. Paul was a very great influence in terms of the production, especially in terms of George Harrison's guitar solos and Ringo's drumming. The truth of the matter is that, to the best of my memory, Paul had a great hand in practically all of the songs that we did, and Ringo would generally ask him what he should do. After all, Paul was no mean drummer himself, and he did play drums on a couple of things. It was almost like we had one producer in the control room and another producer down in the studio. There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force. He was also that in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn't really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well… most of the ideas came from Paul.


----------



## graaf

> After many years of being a member of internet forums I've come to the conclusion that it's almost pointless to discuss popular music on a classical music forum or vice versa. It's almost impossible to convince (for example) a Schubert fan that James Brown was a creative guy or a James Brown fan that Schubert had soul.


exactly.
Which reminds me of attempts on "definition" of classical music, and what is (allowed to be) classical and what is not. When I asked myself about this question, I came to the conclusion that I do not see music as classical or not, but rather as "music requiring attention" or not. What is usually labeled as classical music in most cases needs attention to be experienced properly, while with most non-classical I have a feeling that I do not miss much if I don't pay all my attention to it.
There are numerous exceptions on both sides, being the reason for my avoidance of a lot of classics and appreciating _crazy diamond_ (by the way, which one is Pink?).


----------



## Argus

Landon said:


> I think you are 100% wrong. Oh I respect George Martin but where is Gerry and the Pacemakers Sgt Pepper or Jeff Beck Revolver? The Beatles classical influence like Indian came from George Harrison and classical Avant came from McCartney. Yes George Martin help influence the Beatles to go into a more of a classical influence but songs like "Because" or "Martha My Dear" were written by the Beatles. As it is people like Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick will tell you it was Paul McCartney who was the Beatles main musical force. George Martin didn't write the songs.
> 
> Norman Smith (who was The Beatles recording engineer from Please Please Me through Rubber Soul)
> 
> I don't want to take anything away from anyone, but production of the Beatles was very simple, because it was ready-made. Paul was a very great influence in terms of the production, especially in terms of George Harrison's guitar solos and Ringo's drumming. The truth of the matter is that, to the best of my memory, Paul had a great hand in practically all of the songs that we did, and Ringo would generally ask him what he should do. After all, Paul was no mean drummer himself, and he did play drums on a couple of things. It was almost like we had one producer in the control room and another producer down in the studio. There is no doubt at all that Paul was the main musical force. He was also that in terms of production as well. A lot of the time George Martin didn't really have to do the things he did because Paul McCartney was around and could have done them equally well… most of the ideas came from Paul.


I think you're forgetting someone.










Link to graph depicting Beatles songwriting credits


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Aramis said:


> I don't think so. They were musically uneducated, so even if they liked classical music there is no way that their songs could be seriously influenced by it. Presence of classical instruments doesn't equal classical music.


Very good point here...I don't think the Beatles really cared about or paid much attention to the classics when songwriting.


----------



## AC/DC

George Martin, official producer of the Beatles (but only officially, the Beatles were their own producer with their first record, "love me do")
George Martin is famous ? Thanks to the Beatles
He has produced hundreds of other bands, artists, albums, songs but nobody talks about these bands, artists, albums, songs.
If George Martin was so great, why nobody talks about these bands, artists, albums, and songs??? (lol)
Like said Geoff Emerick, a recording studio audio engineer, who is best known for his work with the Beatles - but also with Pink Floyd, Supertramp, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Jeff Beck and many others - himself, George Martin and the other technicians studios did what the Beatles wanted them to do. It was not their ideas, but ideas of the Beatles. 
Geoff Emerick, George Martin and the others were doing only their job: studio technicians.

The Beatles did not invent music Classical, Jazz, Ragtime, Blues, Waltz, Country, the Rock'Roll, Folk, Hard Rock, Concept Music, Pop, Skiffle, and other music, but ultimately, me, a fan of AC / DC I realize that about the music, the style of songs, they are everywhere.

And do not forget their harmony vocals. 

But for the moment an interesting link who prove that this band were special
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME03/Words_and_chords.shtml

few sentences



> Every typical Beatles' song has at least one rather unconventional chord progression.....the Beatles always seemed to enjoy importing some unusual notes into their melodies. These special notes clearly are related to their harmonies.....It is not the chords themselves, but the chord sequences that are at the core of the sound of the Beatles.....As Kramarz (1983) observes, the use of incidental chords in popular music is not new in itself. *The unusual amount of these chords, however, certainly is innovative, as are the chord sequences themselves*


----------



## sree

Hi all,
@ AC/CD... you are correct...


----------



## Petwhac

There were 4 Beatles on stage and 5 in the studio.
George Martin had ( I believe) an enormous influence on the way their songs were arranged and recorded.
What I continually marvel at in their productions is the clarity and the stripping away of anything unnecessary they are lean and mean but full of invention.
Eleanor Rigby - just string quartet, a brilliant arrangement by GM. (Brodsky and Elvis Costello, eat your heart out) 
Lady Madonna - the background "doo Doos" in close harmony that exactly mimic a saxophone section in a Glenn Miller type big band style.
Every production is laden with ideas ideas ideas.

I believe McCartney was the main experimenter but it was a truly collective effort.

The main difference between popular and classical.
Popular is generally small scale and in an aural tradition
Classical is ( or can be) large scale and in a written tradition.
A great pop song may become an 'art' song but it is when the non classical composer attempts to write a large scale unified and musically coherent work that the problem of lack of experience and knowledge of the tradition rears it's head.


----------



## sree

Hi all,

Actually if you see all the songs that they composed right from 1959 till abbey road... It was a joint effort between paul and lennon... though each of the beatle composed their own for ex octopus garden by Ringo... 

And at the end of 1964 -65, all 4 were expert in songwriting.. 

Cheers!!!


----------



## AC/DC

sree said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Actually if you see all the songs that they composed right from 1959 till abbey road... It was a joint effort between paul and lennon... though each of the beatle composed their own for ex octopus garden by Ringo...
> 
> And at the end of 1964 -65, all 4 were expert in songwriting..
> 
> Cheers!!!


In 1964-1965, there were only two good composers. (Lennon/McCarney.
And after, George Harrison became a good composers.
But Ringo Starr was essentially a drummer and a percussionist.
(If i remember, he composed only 2 songs with the Beatles)


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> There were 4 Beatles on stage and 5 in the studio.
> George Martin had ( I believe) an enormous influence on the way their songs were arranged and recorded.
> What I continually marvel at in their productions is the clarity and the stripping away of anything unnecessary they are lean and mean but full of invention.
> Eleanor Rigby - just string quartet, a brilliant arrangement by GM. (Brodsky and Elvis Costello, eat your heart out)
> Lady Madonna - the background "doo Doos" in close harmony that exactly mimic a saxophone section in a Glenn Miller type big band style.
> Every production is laden with ideas ideas ideas.
> 
> I believe McCartney was the main experimenter but it was a truly collective effort.
> 
> The main difference between popular and classical.
> Popular is generally small scale and in an aural tradition
> Classical is ( or can be) large scale and in a written tradition.
> A great pop song may become an 'art' song but it is when the non classical composer attempts to write a large scale unified and musically coherent work that the problem of lack of experience and knowledge of the tradition rears it's head.





> George Martin had ( I believe) an enormous influence on the way their songs were arranged and recorded.


Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, had a greater influence than George Martin.
Martin was only a classical pianist. (not a composer, not a singer).

The Beatles arranged their own songs. They had already written songs before being contracted with EMI. In reality, they used George Martin on some songs because he knew solfege. Not them. (they were autodidact)
For example Paul McCartney wasn't competent for play piccolo trumpet , so he composed the piccolo trumpet solo with his mouth. (lol)...and George Martin has transcribed the notes sung by Paul McCartney on a partition.
But George Martin said to Paul McCartney there was a note impossible to reach.
But Paul McCartney said to David Mason, the player of piccolo trumpet : " I want this note"....And David Mason has managed to play that note!
(Book of Geoff Emerick : "Here, There and Everywhere" )...confirmed by David Mason.

Geoff Emerick said himself and a few other studio technicians have created effects studios (without George Martin).
Geoff Emerick wrote that George Martin always forgot to say it, because he wanted people believe it was him.
On the Beatles' song "Tomorrow Never Know", the Beatles wanted a special effect on the John Lennon's voice.
This effect was created by Geoff Emerick.
Geoff Emerick, George Martin made a good job, sometimes a fantastic job, but like wrote Geoff Emerick on his book, only because it was the requirements of the Beatles.

interesting links
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-anderson/the-beatles-changed-every_b_11738.html



> 3. Prior to the Beatles artists recorded with whom record labels dictated. EMI matched The Beatles with George Martin, which would have seemed completely insane, considering that the classically trained Martin's prior work was largely with comedy recorded acts, in other words, someone working a non-emotionally connected day gig. He largely hated pop music, and only agreed to work with the lads because...wait for it...IT WAS HIS JOB! He had no choice! "Right, George, we think these boys might have something unique, see if you can polish it up a bit." "Uh, righto, then, boss."


----------



## Petwhac

AC/DC said:


> Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, had a greater influence than George Martin.
> Martin was only a classical pianist. (not a composer, not a singer).
> 
> The Beatles arranged their own songs. They had already written songs before being contracted with EMI. In reality, they used George Martin on some songs because he knew solfege. Not them. (they were autodidact)
> For example Paul McCartney wasn't competent for play piccolo trumpet , so he composed the piccolo trumpet solo with his mouth. (lol)...and George Martin has transcribed the notes sung by Paul McCartney on a partition.
> But George Martin said to Paul McCartney there was a note impossible to reach.
> But Paul McCartney said to David Mason, the player of piccolo trumpet : " I want this note"....And David Mason has managed to play that note!
> (Book of Geoff Emerick : "Here, There and Everywhere" )...confirmed by David Mason.
> 
> Geoff Emerick said himself and a few other studio technicians have created effects studios (without George Martin).
> Geoff Emerick wrote that George Martin always forgot to say it, because he wanted people believe it was him.
> On the Beatles' song "Tomorrow Never Know", the Beatles wanted a special effect on the John Lennon's voice.
> This effect was created by Geoff Emerick.
> Geoff Emerick, George Martin made a good job, sometimes a fantastic job, but like wrote Geoff Emerick on his book, only because it was the requirements of the Beatles.
> 
> interesting links
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-anderson/the-beatles-changed-every_b_11738.html


Who did the string arrangements on Rigby, She's Leaving Home (and harp), I am the Walrus?


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> Who did the string arrangements on Rigby, She's Leaving Home (and harp), I am the Walrus?


She's Leaving Home : Beatles ( George Martin has done nothing for this song: he hasn't participated in the sessions)

I am the Walrus, Eleanor Rigby : He participated in the sessions. But he did what? Like for Penny Lane he said he wrote the string arrangements.
But wrote like for Penny Lane ? ( transcribed the notes composed by the Beatles) or wrote (composed) with the Beatles. In this case it is a joint work.

For the song "Good Night", the Beatles said George Martin did string and trumpets arrangements, because it was a song for Ringo Starr ( a nursery song).
For this song, George Martin was alone. (confirmed by the Beatles)
But can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin *alone* for the string arrangements ?


----------



## Petwhac

AC/DC said:


> She's Leaving Home : Beatles ( George Martin has done nothing for this song: he hasn't participated in the sessions)
> 
> I am the Walrus, Eleanor Rigby : He participated in the sessions. But he did what? Like for Penny Lane he said he wrote the string arrangements.
> But wrote like for Penny Lane ? ( transcribed the notes composed by the Beatles) or wrote (composed) with the Beatles. In this case it is a joint work.
> 
> For the song "Good Night", the Beatles said George Martin did string and trumpets arrangements, because it was a song for Ringo Starr ( a nursery song).
> For this song, George Martin was alone. (confirmed by the Beatles)
> But can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin *alone* for the string arrangements ?


I think you may be misinformed about certain things.
What is the source of your information? I would like to read the books too.


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> I think you may be misinformed about certain things.
> What is the source of your information? I would like to read the books too.


If you like to read the book, it's the proof you do not know the truth. 

I have already given the name of the book in one of my previous post : 


AC/DC said:


> Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, had a greater influence than George Martin.
> Martin was only a classical pianist. (not a composer, not a singer).
> 
> The Beatles arranged their own songs. They had already written songs before being contracted with EMI. In reality, they used George Martin on some songs because he knew solfege. Not them. (they were autodidact)
> For example Paul McCartney wasn't competent for play piccolo trumpet , so he composed the piccolo trumpet solo with his mouth. (lol)...and George Martin has transcribed the notes sung by Paul McCartney on a partition.
> But George Martin said to Paul McCartney there was a note impossible to reach.
> But Paul McCartney said to David Mason, the player of piccolo trumpet : " I want this note"....And David Mason has managed to play that note!
> * (Book of Geoff Emerick : "Here, There and Everywhere" ).*..confirmed by David Mason


http://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Recording-Beatles/dp/1592401791

Another thing : When you asked me questions, I answered.
But when I ask you questions, you do not answer
In my previous post I asked you :



AC/DC said:


> For the song "Good Night", the Beatles said George Martin did string and trumpets arrangements, because it was a song for Ringo Starr ( a nursery song).
> For this song, George Martin was alone. (confirmed by the Beatles)
> * But can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin alone for the string arrangements ?*


You have not answered. So, i repeat my question:
Can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin alone for the string arrangements ?


----------



## Petwhac

AC/DC said:


> If you like to read the book, it's the proof you do not know the truth.
> 
> I have already given the name of the book in one of my previous post :
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Recording-Beatles/dp/1592401791
> 
> Another thing : When you asked me questions, I answered.
> But when I ask you questions, you do not answer
> In my previous post I asked you :
> 
> You have not answered. So, i repeat my question:
> Can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin alone for the string arrangements ?


I will try to read the book, thank you.

I was not present at any Beatles recording sessions and do not have personal knowledge of George Martin or Geoff Emerick.

Therefore, how would I _know_ which arrangements were scored by whom.

I am using only my ears and I believe that the voicing and part writing for the strings
in some of tracks I've mentioned as well as say in 'Yesterday' hand the stamp of a 'classically trained' arranger. This doesn't mean that The Beatles didn't have input or approval/dissaproval.

Presumably all your information comes from books you have read. And where the information conflicts you will choose who to believe.

Since the Beatles didn't read music did one of them dictate the cello, violin, viola parts and their voicing to someone to score and give to the musicians?

And by the way there is no need to take such a hostile tone as it is not a life and death issue. I presume you, like me, are a great lover of the Beatles' work- whoever did what and to whom.


----------



## Petwhac

AC/DC said:


> If you like to read the book, it's the proof you do not know the truth.
> 
> I have already given the name of the book in one of my previous post :
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Recording-Beatles/dp/1592401791
> 
> Another thing : When you asked me questions, I answered.
> But when I ask you questions, you do not answer
> In my previous post I asked you :
> 
> You have not answered. So, i repeat my question:
> Can you quote another Beatles' song with George Martin alone for the string arrangements ?


I searched for the book and here is one-typical review....

I rest my case.

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars Read with a big pinch of salt!!, 22 Jan 2008
By Gadget Man (Surrey, England) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles (Paperback)
It is difficult to take much of this book seriously. I say this because Ken Scott was an engineer at Abbey Road at the time and he believes much of this book is fabricated and has many (i.e. over 100 'errors'. He actually says "Since copies of his book leaked out, there has been a movement from fans and EMI employees past and present; all are shocked at what Geoff is purported to say in this book, as SO much of it is untrue. There are long lists of factual errors being compiled around the world to be released when this book is published. (The last list I saw was well over 100 errors, and climbing as more people read the book)."

He adds "I cannot bring this missive to an end without mentioning the book's relentless tirade against George Harrison. As a second engineer I was on more Beatles sessions than Geoff and saw none of the problems talked about constantly, and as an engineer, the same. Sadly, George is not in a position to defend himself today. I think I know what his reaction would have been anyway... Mine is utter disgust. 
This book is NOT accurate, it is not "the truth" and does not deserve to be supported. It is very damaging to the good reputations of such people as George Harrison, George Martin, John Lennon, Chris Thomas, Ringo Starr, Phil McDonald and the list goes on. The only one who is rarely mentioned negatively is Paul McCartney, the only one to have employed Geoff after the Beatles."

So enjoy this book if you are a fan of the Beatles but remember it is seriously flawed!


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> I will try to read the book, thank you.
> 
> I was not present at any Beatles recording sessions and do not have personal knowledge of George Martin or Geoff Emerick.
> 
> Therefore, how would I _know_ which arrangements were scored by whom.
> 
> I am using only my ears and I believe that the voicing and part writing for the strings
> in some of tracks I've mentioned as well as say in 'Yesterday' hand the stamp of a 'classically trained' arranger. This doesn't mean that The Beatles didn't have input or approval/dissaproval.
> 
> Presumably all your information comes from books you have read. And where the information conflicts you will choose who to believe.
> 
> Since the Beatles didn't read music did one of them dictate the cello, violin, viola parts and their voicing to someone to score and give to the musicians?
> 
> And by the way there is no need to take such a hostile tone as it is not a life and death issue. I presume you, like me, are a great lover of the Beatles' work- whoever did what and to whom.


Thank you for your reply. 
I asked a Beatles fan who wrote the string arrangement for the song "Yesterday".
He said George Martin. Then I asked: "Was he alone?" and he replied "no, with McCartney".

So if I do not ask "was he alone," I have thought that George Martin was alone.
( I'm sure you understand what I mean)

The problem is the word "write". This word can have several meanings.
My opinion?



Petwhac said:


> Therefore, how would I _know_ which arrangements were scored by whom.


For strings arrangements on all Beatles' songs i think it was collaborative work (except "Good Night")
and for the strings on the song "Yesterday", there were also four musicians, and perhaps they had ideas (why not).


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> I searched for the book and here is one-typical review....
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
> 2.0 out of 5 stars Read with a big pinch of salt!!, 22 Jan 2008
> By *Gadget Man* (Surrey, England) - See all my reviews
> This review is from: Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles (Paperback)
> It is difficult to take much of this book seriously. I say this because Ken Scott was an engineer at Abbey Road at the time and he believes much of this book is fabricated and has many (i.e. over 100 'errors'. He actually says "Since copies of his book leaked out, there has been a movement from fans and EMI employees past and present; all are shocked at what Geoff is purported to say in this book, as SO much of it is untrue. There are long lists of factual errors being compiled around the world to be released when this book is published. (The last list I saw was well over 100 errors, and climbing as more people read the book)."
> 
> He adds "I cannot bring this missive to an end without mentioning the book's relentless tirade against George Harrison. As a second engineer I was on more Beatles sessions than Geoff and saw none of the problems talked about constantly, and as an engineer, the same. Sadly, George is not in a position to defend himself today. I think I know what his reaction would have been anyway... Mine is utter disgust.
> This book is NOT accurate, it is not "the truth" and does not deserve to be supported. It is very damaging to the good reputations of such people as George Harrison, George Martin, John Lennon, Chris Thomas, Ringo Starr, Phil McDonald and the list goes on. The only one who is rarely mentioned negatively is Paul McCartney, the only one to have employed Geoff after the Beatles."
> 
> So enjoy this book if you are a fan of the Beatles but remember it is seriously flawed!





> By Gadget Man (Surrey, England) - See all my reviews


*Gadget Man??? *
But who is this guy???
I spoke with fans of the Beatles, and they think this book is simply fabulous.
Besides the site where you took your quote -Amazon- Gadget Man represents only himself. A view among others.
147 people gave 5 stars for this book = 94%
9 people gave 1 stars for this book = 6%

Look another view:



> By Greg Klinkel "Greg" (Boulder, CO USA) - See all my reviews
> 
> READ THIS BOOK if you want to understand more about the music and the studio recordings of The Beatles. You will feel like you were there in the studio during the most important sessions of their careers. It will change the way you look at The Beatles, both as individuals and as the greatest popular music phenomenon of all time.
> 
> This is a book that describes events in the studio. It is not a memoir outside of that environment, but it gives interesting insight into the personalities of the four musicians who came into that studio, wrote the music, developed the arrangements, created the sounds, captured the performances, enhanced the sounds, and otherwise contributed in one way or another to the magic of those recordings. You will learn more about who and what drove the group, how they interacted, and what contributions others such as the author and George Martin may (or may not) have made to those recordings.
> 
> The Beatles were driven to do things that had never been done before; they were always pushing the envelope. They eventually turned to creating music that could be created no other way than in the studio, and they pushed the envelope there as well. The author was a key player in these recording sessions; he helped them to capture sounds that led to such masterpieces as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
> 
> Those of us who played their music, followed their careers, and listened intently to their recordings once they left touring behind and moved into the studio will want to read this book to get a glimpse of what it was like to have been there and witnessed their artistry in the studio.


----------



## Petwhac

So there are conflicting accounts!

What matters is the outcome was superb. The influences on the Beatles were many and varied. Lennon and McCartney were very gifted popular songwriters and Harrison too.
Their records would have sounded very different if they did not have George Martin, of this I am convinced. Better or worse? We'll never know.
Studio work is always collaborative and ideas grow and feed off each other. It is not always possible to trace back who thought of what.
The Beatles were 5.


----------



## AC/DC

Petwhac said:


> So there are conflicting accounts!
> 
> What matters is the outcome was superb. The influences on the Beatles were many and varied. Lennon and McCartney were very gifted popular songwriters and Harrison too.
> Their records would have sounded very different if they did not have George Martin, of this I am convinced. Better or worse? We'll never know.
> Studio work is always collaborative and ideas grow and feed off each other. It is not always possible to trace back who thought of what.
> The Beatles were 5.


 We can say everything and its opposite : For example.

Norman Smith was the engineer on all of the EMI studio recordings by The Beatles until 1965 when EMI promoted him from engineer to producer. In early 1967, he began working with a new group, Pink Floyd, producing their first, second, and fourth studio albums "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn", "A Saucerful of Secrets", and "Ummagumma". 
So, you can say that without Norman Smith these 3 albums will be different today. So, Pink Floyd were 6. (and not 5)
You can also say that these 3 albums sound like Pink Floyd wanted.
I'm sure without Norman Smith these 3 albums would sound different today, but i'm sure with another producer than Norman Smith these 3 albums would'nt sound like a Bossa Nova music. (lol)
Norman Smith has obviously had an influence on these three albums, he made proposals, but the final decision belonged by the group.
And Pink Floyd was debutant in 1967. They had no power of the Beatles.

I have not counted but approximately 90% of Beatles songs there are no strings. As we have seen above, all alone George Martin has composed string arrangements for only one song: "Good Night".

You can see : "Producer George Martin" on Beatles' album like "White album", simply because he worked for E.M.I.
But in reality, he wasn't the producer of this album.
But in reality, he wasn't the producer of the Beatles, simply because from the beginning the Beatles were their own producer. 
George Martin was rigid, conservative, totally incompetent for pop music, and he was just a producer among many others.
In the beginning of their career, he wanted the Beatles recorded a song for their first single : "How Do You Do It?" composed by Mitch Murray.

*But the Beatles refused*

Like wrote Steve Anderson - a competent man who has worked with engineers and producers - in his article entitled : *The Beatles Changed Everything*



> Prior to the Beatles artists recorded with whom record labels dictated. EMI matched The Beatles with George Martin, which would have seemed completely insane, considering that the classically trained Martin's prior work was largely with comedy recorded acts, in other words, someone working a non-emotionally connected day gig. He largely hated pop music, and only agreed to work with the lads because...wait for it...IT WAS HIS JOB! He had no choice! "Right, George, we think these boys might have something unique, see if you can polish it up a bit." "Uh, righto, then, boss."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-anderson/the-beatles-changed-every_b_11738.html

Like The Pink Floyd with Norman Smith, George Martin has made proposals, but the final decision belonged by the fab four.


----------



## Wolfgang

AC/DC said:


> *Gadget Man??? *
> But who is this guy???
> I spoke with fans of the Beatles, and they think this book is simply fabulous.
> Besides the site where you took your quote -Amazon- Gadget Man represents only himself. A view among others.
> 147 people gave 5 stars for this book = 94%
> 9 people gave 1 stars for this book = 6%


Firstly, and with the greatest of respect, whether or not a particular person finds a book to be 'simply fabulous', has absolutely zero relevance to whether or not said book is reality. Likewise, there is no such thing as a 'Mothman' simply because John Keel had a manuscript published about it.

Secondly, amongst many other things, The Beatles have been a source of income for a great deal of people; and it is not beyond human greed to resort to parading invention as reflection of truth. The fact remains that we must retain sceptical eyes when viewing such texts as you have mentioned, because life has taught us to do so.

All this having been said, the recordings of The Beatles can be analysed without regard to which person made/composed which sound at which second. After such analysis, we may come to a conclusion about such a recording; and it is in this spirit that this thread was apparently started.


----------



## Landon

Of course the Beatles were influenced by classical music. Their highly melodic and harmonic twists to their music makes it obvious. If you listen to "Lucy in the Sky in the Diamonds" Paul organ part is definitely classically influenced and what makes it odd is George Harrison use of drones from Indian music. So they were really on that song using two genres of music to make the song sound psychedelic. Nothing really like this was heard in the rock world. 

Of course it's only one of many things they were influenced by they had inherit musicality about them. 

The Beatles songwriting like everyone else they did not compose in a vacuum. They were well versed in pop, country, R&B, assorted styles in rock and roll, European Folk and Skiffle. During their brief life span went way beyond their roots to add classical, Indian, Motown, Funk, Stax sound, bolero, ska, reggae, vaudeville, cabaret, musical hall, modern aleatory, musique concrete, atonality, electronic music, avant garde, jazz, baroque and the extended dissonant sonorities George Harrison would explore on "I Want to Tell You"and "Only a Northern Song". Most of these areas that I mention Elvis either didn't know or didn't even touch upon. The Beatles freely added jazz harmonies, unusual time signatures and employed varying styles of vocal harmonies to their music. They composed long songs, short songs to songs with many parts.


----------



## Andrew B.

Regarding George Martin, I've heard interviews with Paul McCartney where he gives credit to George Martin. George Martin seemed to understand pop music. Like speeding songs up, beginning a song with the refrain to grab attention. He also wrote some of the extra parts, such as harpsichord and trumpet. 

He wasn't always right in his choices. But he did contribute as a producer should -- at least in the first albums.


----------



## Collin237

I once heard a clip of a classical piece as a background of a television show (I think it was a documentary about the discovery of the Edmund Fitzgerald), with a melody like the tune of the words "I'd love to turn you on". Does anyone know what piece this is?


----------



## Jacob Singer

Collin237 said:


> I once heard a clip of a classical piece as a background of a television show (I think it was a documentary about the discovery of the Edmund Fitzgerald), with a melody like the tune of the words "I'd love to turn you on". Does anyone know what piece this is?


It's A Day in the Life off of the Sgt. Pepper album.


----------



## Collin237

The clip I'm referring to did not have words. It sounded like a string ensemble. Does the Sgt. Pepper album have an instrumental version of A Day in the Life? I am referring to specifically replacing the words "I'd love to turn you on" with instruments of the same melody.


----------



## Jacob Singer

I have no idea, unless it was just someone's instrumental version of the song.


----------



## paulc

At the risk of being added to the 'You think you know better than The Beatles, what have YOU done that's better than them?' crowd, lol...

I think they are overrated.

Sgt. Pepper's is a GREAT album, especially considering the time it was released. Their finest, I think. Revolver, The White Album and Abbey Road have some good songs, but also filler.

I can't hear the classical influence!? The odd chord? A song featuring strings? There is more to classical than that, no matter what George Martin/The Fab Four contributed. TBH, I'm a little tired of pop/rock bands employing an orchestrator/arranger in order to give their album 'artistic' cred.

In no way does what I have said detract from what they achieved in their chosen genre. They were a good and influential group.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Classical Influence ... Well, Maybe not so directly but they had George Martin on their side, who called sometimes the fifth Beatle. A conductor, composer and producer. It would have been a great chance for the four fab to improve their style and using some classical elements which he suggested during the recording sessions. Just look at the instrumentation of some :

form Help 
Yesterday (MacCartney) : with a string quartet arranged by George Martin 

from Rubber soul 
In my life (Lennon) : A Baroque style melody in the middle, played by George Martin on piano, though transformed in duration for final recording

from Revolver 
Eleanor Rigby (McCartney) : A chamber string ensenble , co-composed and arranged with George Martin
For no one (McCartney) : Horn solo in the middle 

from Sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band 
She's leving home (Co-written by Lennon and McCartney) : One of their best works, a ballade full of sorrow, with string ensemble plus harp solo (Martin was not the arranger this time). The song was compared to Schubert's lieder by some critics at that time. 

from Magical mystery tour 
The fool on the hill (McCartney): with flute and recorder, both played by McCartney himself 
Penny Lane (McCartney): with piccolo trumpet passages written by George Martin in the middle 
All you need is love (Lennon): Begins with the Marseillaise , national anthem of France ... and at the end of the song, as you hear vocal parts repeating " Love is all you need" there is a mess , combination of different sounds, and from far a way you hear two-part Invention in F major by Bach played by two trumpets .

from the White Album 
Piggies (Harrison): A delightful combination of baroque Harpsichord with the popular music, later used by other pop and rock musicicans. 
Good Night (Lennon): The beautiful and calm atmosphere with Ringo singing the solo vocal part with a soft and elegant orchestral background, arranged by George Martin. 

from Let it be (The only album which George Martin did not produce) 
Across the universe (Lennon): chorus and string orchestra in the background produced by Phil Spector 
The long and winding road (McCartney): chorus and string orchestra in the background added by Phil Spector, althogh it was followed by McCartney's anger as he pointed that Spector's addition to his song, was infact without any permission from him.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

Lennon was actually inspired by the first movement of Moonlight Sonata when he was composing the song "Because" from the album Abbey Road (according to himself), and in the side B of the album which features a non-stoping set of "attacca" short songs and riffs, is a unique experience in the history of popular music which can never be found anywhere else even by later and more avant-garde groups like Pink Floyd. 

There are also some modal elements in many of their songs, for example Mixolydian in Norwegian wood (Lennon) or Dorian in Eleanor Rigby (McCartney) but there is no obvious evidence that the Beatles have listened so carefully to the music of Debussy and Ravel ! Once Lennon asked about the using of Aeolian Cadences in his compositions so frequently, he simply answered that he didn't finally understand "what the hell is this Aeolian Cadence !?" 

-----------

Lennon and McCartney discoverd the electronic sound effects during the studio sessions by the time recording the album Revolver.McCartney often listened to the avant-garde elcetronic music during the time of recording Sgt. Pepper'slonely hearts club band.He admired composers like Stockhausen at some of his compositions such as "Gesang der Jünglinge", and there was also a permission for using his photo on the album cover. The most significant examples of using electronic effects could be heard in some of Lennon's compositions: the psychedelic drug infected song "Tomorrow never knows", the melancholic tape effects in combination with drums at the end of "Strawberry fields forever", wild running waves at the end of "Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite!" and of course the middle and closing sections of "A Day in life" when remixed echo sounds present a huge and terrefic crescendo. But finally one could say there is not so kind of abstract and complicated materials in Beatles' music as we can find in avant-garde post-modernists' works like Stockhausen.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

During the 90s Ex-Beatle Paul McCartney composed some classical music, in addition to his long time career as a pop and rock songwriter and singer. The most famous is an oratorio for solists, chorus and orchestra called "Liverpool Oratorio", most of the work is co-written with Carl Davis. It was recorded by Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra conducting by Carl Davis, and released by EMI in 1991 :










"Standing Stone", with London Symphony Orchestra and Lawrence Foster as conductor, recorded and released in 1997. The work deeply refers to celtic origins and is based on four symphonic poem like movements called respectively "After heavy light years" , "He awoke startled", "Subtle colours merged soft contours" and "Strings pluck, horns blow, drums beat" and each movement is devided to smaller numbers which are played without pause in between :










"A Leaf" is originally a piano composition ,later arranged for flute quartet and included in an album called "Working Classical" recorded by London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Lawrence Foster and Andrea Quinn. There are also some recordings of his popular songs arranged in a more classical style. It is also released by EMI :










"A Garland for Linda" is a set of elegiac songs for his dead wife written by various British composers (including one by Vaughan Williams, the others are written by contemporary composers). Only one is composed by McCartney himself. Most of the songs are performed by a solist with a chorus a-cappella,but one number with a flute solo and one with a flute and a cello solo, recorded in All Saints Church London, and released in 2000 :










Ecce Cor Meum (Behold My heart) is another oratorio in five parts with a text both in english and latin. Recorded by the famous orchestra Academy of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, conducted by Gavin Greenaway, released in 2006 :


----------



## kv466

In terms of sheer composition, they can certainly be ranked high up there...among their many influences, classical was most defintely one of them...beyond the song you listed, just listed to Eleanor Rigby


----------



## AC/DC

Il_Penseroso said:


> Classical Influence ... Well, Maybe not so directly but they had George Martin on their side, who called sometimes the fifth Beatle. A conductor, composer and producer. It would have been a great chance for the four fab to improve their style and using some classical elements which he suggested during the recording sessions. Just look at the instrumentation of some :
> 
> form Help
> Yesterday (MacCartney) : with a string quartet arranged by George Martin
> 
> from Rubber soul
> In my life (Lennon) : A Baroque style melody in the middle, played by George Martin on piano, though transformed in duration for final recording
> 
> from Revolver
> Eleanor Rigby (McCartney) : A chamber string ensenble , co-composed and arranged with George Martin
> For no one (McCartney) : Horn solo in the middle
> 
> from Sgt. pepper's lonely hearts club band
> She's leving home (Co-written by Lennon and McCartney) : One of their best works, a ballade full of sorrow, with string ensemble plus harp solo (Martin was not the arranger this time). The song was compared to Schubert's lieder by some critics at that time.
> 
> from Magical mystery tour
> The fool on the hill (McCartney): with flute and recorder, both played by McCartney himself
> Penny Lane (McCartney): with piccolo trumpet passages written by George Martin in the middle
> All you need is love (Lennon): Begins with the Marseillaise , national anthem of France ... and at the end of the song, as you hear vocal parts repeating " Love is all you need" there is a mess , combination of different sounds, and from far a way you hear two-part Invention in F major by Bach played by two trumpets .
> 
> from the White Album
> Piggies (Harrison): A delightful combination of baroque Harpsichord with the popular music, later used by other pop and rock musicicans.
> Good Night (Lennon): The beautiful and calm atmosphere with Ringo singing the solo vocal part with a soft and elegant orchestral background, arranged by George Martin.
> 
> from Let it be (The only album which George Martin did not produce)
> Across the universe (Lennon): chorus and string orchestra in the background produced by Phil Spector
> The long and winding road (McCartney): chorus and string orchestra in the background added by Phil Spector, althogh it was followed by McCartney's anger as he pointed that Spector's addition to his song, was infact without any permission from him.


About "She's Leaving Home"
interesting what Sheila Bromberg said


----------



## theatomicvein

I haven't really read through the whole thread so forgive me if I'm repeating things that have already been said. But yes the beatles definitely had classical influence! The beatles in general were voracious, it seems like they could hardly listen to anything without learning from it. Earlier in this thread someone argued they couldn't have been clasically influenced because they weren't actually trained in music. Of course I've heard the legends before that George Harisson couldn't tell you what scale is but I'm not sure how true they are- I do not that regardless of whether or not this is true (although even if it is true it ignores the fact that their producer George Martin who had a lot of influence on them and previously worked for the classical music department of BBC helped them organize the string sections) they had an uncanny intuitive ability to understand what a song is doing even if they didn't have the theory to describe it, and either way there's really no doubt classical music inspired them. Consider among the many pieces of evidence that "All you need is love" actually contains a part of Bach's ""2-part Invention no. 8" or that "Because" was inspired by listening to a Beethoven sonata. In fact the Beatles are considered of one of the primary movers of the genre known as Baroque Pop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_pop


----------



## Schubussy

theatomicvein said:


> Earlier in this thread someone argued they couldn't have been clasically influenced because they weren't actually trained in music.


That's pretty silly. I know no music theory but if I tried to write something that sounded like a Beethoven sonata it would still be influenced by classical music, that's where the influence comes from. Even if my attempt would invariably be terrible.


----------



## FleshRobot

There is a video called "Inside Pop -- The Rock Revolution" on youtube in which Leonard Bernstein talks about the merits of pop music from the 60's if anybody is interested. He also talks about the classical influence in some Beatles songs.


----------



## Eviticus

Aramis said:


> I don't think so. They were musically uneducated, so even if they liked classical music there is no way that their songs could be seriously influenced by it. Presence of classical instruments doesn't equal classical music.


This simply isn't true. Uneducated in classical theory or even reading music to an extent; possibly. McCartney in particular was born in to a musical family and had lots of theory passed down and later was hugely influenced by George Martin's knowledge and expertise so much so he has recently composed a ballet. Evidence of the classical music influencing the beatles is evident in Eleanor Rigby (the first pop single/song with only a string quartet) Because (derived from Beethoven's opening of the moonlight sonata played backwards), the connecting of songs that end abbey road inspired by the connecting movements of Beethoven's 3rd and 4th movements in his 5th symphony, All you need is love (tempo inspired by waltz 3/4 signatures) etc. Both Lennon and McCartney were fond of things like swan lake and early Disney which may have had an influence on songs such as Good Night. Other songs that have an influence are 'A day in the life'.


----------



## TomDickson

In black and white, yes the Beatles are inspired by classical music or inspired by artists that are inspired by classical music. The clearest example is that there music is tuned to equal temperament, which is classical.
However, this is a very broad statement and I believe the intention of this question is actually “How influenced are the Beatles by classical music?” This is subjective, hence why we have 13 pages of arguments that I failed to read in their entirety.
To add some clarity to this question by adding parameters, how about “Comparing the Beatles to other popular music artists (defined by the musical intent of appealing to the public) from a composition analytical perspective (aka not musicianship or understanding music theory), how often to classical idioms appear in their music?”
To which I believe, along with the Beach Boys, ABBA, Evanescence, Bjork, Muse, Pink Floyd and The Doors are significantly more present than most popular music artists. How many pop songs can you name that use neapolitan chords, borrowed chords, extended harmony, church modal systems, parallel modulations, metric tempo changes, independent counter vocal melodies….and the list goes on.
Most importantly though, is what others have mentioned of the 5th member of the Beatles, George Martin. I agree that he may have changed their sound from pan tonality (which songs by popular artist tend to be) to tonal music through classical voice leading and classical chord resolution. This being said he was part of the compositional process for the Beatles and thus I believe can be included in the influence question.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

It was George Martin simple


----------

