# A Beatles song



## KenOC

I'm not strong on theory (to put it mildly) but thought folks here might find this amusing: Wiki's analysis of George Harrison's _Taxman _from the Beatles album _Revolver_.

"The song is in the key of D major and in 4/4 time… The chords stress the flat VII scale degree (C-natural in the key of D major) and frequently involve a major/minor I chord (D/Dm) in the harmony, which consequently evokes either Mixolydian or Dorian modes. There is one flat-III (F chord) near the end, but unusually no V (A) chord. The song is also notable musically for its use of both a 5th-string voicing of the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to embellish the tonic D7 chord at the end of each two-line verse (at 0.12 and 0.19secs), and a 6th-string form to create a complementary 'jarring dissonance' with the lyrics in the subdominant (IV) G chord (to a G7♯9) at 1.29."


----------



## mikeh375

Funny. I doubt they cared at all about this Ken, which is the best attitude to have for a composer imv regardless of the genre...if it sounds good, go with it. Their's was a natural, gifted talent and I reckon if they knew a lot more theory, their music would have lost some of its efficacy. I've had talks (and beer) with a few composers who had no formal training and where asking my opinion as to whether they should learn more and I always advised that they only learn as much as they feel they need or in some cases, none at all, because they where doing very well regardless.
Best Harrison song for me is either I Me, Me Mine or Something.


----------



## flamencosketches

:lol: Hilarious. A great song, of course, but subjecting the vast majority of Rock music to such analysis is not going to yield you much as far as useful findings.


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> I'm not strong on theory (to put it mildly) but thought folks here might find this amusing: Wiki's analysis of George Harrison's _Taxman _from the Beatles album _Revolver_.
> 
> "The song is in the key of D major and in 4/4 time… The chords stress the flat VII scale degree (C-natural in the key of D major) and frequently involve a major/minor I chord (D/Dm) in the harmony, which consequently evokes either Mixolydian or Dorian modes. There is one flat-III (F chord) near the end, but unusually no V (A) chord. The song is also notable musically for its use of both a 5th-string voicing of the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to embellish the tonic D7 chord at the end of each two-line verse (at 0.12 and 0.19secs), and a 6th-string form to create a complementary 'jarring dissonance' with the lyrics in the subdominant (IV) G chord (to a G7♯9) at 1.29."


As flamencosketches wrote: "Hilarious".

Yet another attempt to try to elevate rock music to the same level as art music. Such analyses are ridiculous. I can take even the simplest rock song (not that Taxman, with its three chords, is complicated at all) and apply the same process to it and dazzle the theory-ignorant masses.

Here is George answering Cavett's question about whether he wished if he had studied composition (go to the 9'18" mark):






And at 9'34" George says, speaking of his music: "It's not really, sort of, music, you know"

George knew the difference....


----------



## Hiawatha

KenOC said:


> I'm not strong on theory (to put it mildly) but thought folks here might find this amusing: Wiki's analysis of George Harrison's _Taxman _from the Beatles album _Revolver_.
> 
> "The song is in the key of D major and in 4/4 time… The chords stress the flat VII scale degree (C-natural in the key of D major) and frequently involve a major/minor I chord (D/Dm) in the harmony, which consequently evokes either Mixolydian or Dorian modes. There is one flat-III (F chord) near the end, but unusually no V (A) chord. The song is also notable musically for its use of both a 5th-string voicing of the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to embellish the tonic D7 chord at the end of each two-line verse (at 0.12 and 0.19secs), and a 6th-string form to create a complementary 'jarring dissonance' with the lyrics in the subdominant (IV) G chord (to a G7♯9) at 1.29."


So how exactly in technical terms does this differ from Start by The Jam?


----------



## Hiawatha




----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Haydn70 said:


> As flamencosketches wrote: "Hilarious".
> 
> Yet another attempt to try to elevate rock music to the same level as art music. Such analyses are ridiculous. I can take even the simplest rock song (not that Taxman, with its three chords, is complicated at all) and apply the same process to it and dazzle the theory-ignorant masses.
> 
> Here is George answering Cavett's question about whether he wished if he had studied composition (go to the 9'18" mark):
> And at 9'34" George says, speaking of his music: "It's not really, sort of, music, you know"
> 
> George knew the difference....


Fascinating reply!

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how "Supper's Ready" compares with classical masterpieces!

Jk


----------



## Room2201974

"The song is also notable musically for its use of both a 5th-string voicing of the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to embellish the tonic D7 chord at the end of each two-line verse (at 0.12 and 0.19secs), and a 6th-string form to create a complementary ‘jarring dissonance’ with the lyrics in the subdominant (IV) G chord (to a G7♯9) at 1.29.”

All rights kids, break out your git fiddles and start practicing "5th-string voicing" and "6th-string forms."

I usually work those in right after scales and arpeggios.


----------



## Larkenfield

The description of chords in Taxman is an awkward compilation of three different people who are footnoted in the wiki article and not by Harrison himself, though it’s substantially correct.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> "The song is in the key of D major and in 4/4 time… The chords stress the flat VII scale degree (C-natural in the key of D major) and frequently involve a major/minor I chord (D/Dm) in the harmony, which consequently evokes either Mixolydian or Dorian modes. There is one flat-III (F chord) near the end, but unusually no V (A) chord. The song is also notable musically for its use of both a 5th-string voicing of the dominant seventh sharp ninth chord to embellish the tonic D7 chord at the end of each two-line verse (at 0.12 and 0.19secs), and a 6th-string form to create a complementary 'jarring dissonance' with the lyrics in the subdominant (IV) G chord (to a G7♯9) at 1.29."


Yes? And? Is this supposed to mean something of significance?


----------



## KenOC

As I said, posted for amusement. I take it you are not amused.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> As I said, posted for amusement. I take it you are not amused.


Don't get me wrong, Ken. My question is directed at the wiki analysis, not your posting of it.


----------



## haydnguy

More Reflections on the subject


----------



## tdc

haydnguy said:


> More Reflections on the subject


Some interesting thoughts, thanks for posting it, but that said I think it over states The Beatles achievements. I can't agree with the idea that no composers of classical music would have continued to compose tonally without The Beatles. Sure, The Beatles probably had some influence across genres, but the same can be said for many classical composers. The Beatles do have some brilliant songs, but they don't ever develop into larger structures, so regardless of their innovations and influence I don't see them as comparable to composers like Beethoven or Wagner as this film suggests.

I do see some of their songs as fairly sophisticated, perhaps even comparably sophisticated to some of the songs of classical composers but it requires more than composing songs to be considered among the best composers of the 20th century in my opinion. For me their music just doesn't have the depth to stand up to the best classical music, because it is too repetitive and simple in structure. I don't even think it should be compared directly to classical though because it is too different, and has different goals.

Were The Beatles great composers of pop music? Definitely. Great composers of classical music? No. (Nor were they trying to be). I don't think these boundaries can be erased so easily as the film seems to suggest.


----------



## elgar's ghost

The wiki article reminds me of a feature called _Dr. Rock Dissects the Hits_ which used to be in _Mojo_ magazine.


----------



## EdwardBast

What's funny to me isn't harmonically analyzing a Beatles tune, it's doing it with the wrong vocabulary. Those 7b9 chords are standard in blues and blues based rock. The writers should have just said that and given a couple of examples.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> :lol: Hilarious. A great song, of course, but subjecting the vast majority of Rock music to such analysis is not going to yield you much as far as useful findings.





Haydn70 said:


> As flamencosketches wrote: "Hilarious".
> 
> Yet another attempt to try to elevate rock music to the same level as art music. Such analyses are ridiculous. I can take even the simplest rock song (not that Taxman, with its three chords, is complicated at all) and apply the same process to it and dazzle the theory-ignorant masses.
> 
> George says, speaking of his music: "It's not really, sort of, music, you know"...George knew the difference....


Do you agree with this, Flamenco? Is this what you meant to say? I would have expected for you to respond by now, since somewhere I got the impression that you were involved with rock music, and also like Bartok (who did ethnomusical work on folk songs).

I'm not sure what is being trashed here, the specific analysis or the analysis of rock, pop, and folk music, or rock music in general. I guess it's just an unfocussed free-for-all. There are contradictory posts which both praise The Beatles and trash them.

If we invalidate_ all _analysis of music outside the "high art" realm as ridiculous, we are also invalidating Bartok's work in this area, as well as Allan Forte's use of "Over the Rainbow" in his Yale theory classes.

What about George Martin, the "fifth Beatle?" He was conservatory-trained, and in musical terms has great respect for The Beatles' music.

The thread was ill-defined, attracted too many uninformed posts, and is generally a mess.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> As I said, posted for amusement. I take it you are not amused.


I will agree with EdwardBast's #16 that the analysis is laughable. Yes, KenOC posted this for amusement: his own amusement at the conflicting and contradictory nature of the reactions, which he probably predicted. 
That way he doesn't get trashed for any opinion he may have. Too bad he brought The Beatles into it, though. I would have thought he liked them.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> What's funny to me isn't harmonically analyzing a Beatles tune, it's doing it with the wrong vocabulary. Those 7b9 chords are standard in blues and blues based rock. The writers should have just said that and given a couple of examples.


It's also doing it without any accompanying insight. Even if the right vocabulary had been used, without some evaluation, it says nothing of any significance.


----------



## starthrower

Haydn70 said:


> As flamencosketches wrote: "Hilarious".
> 
> Yet another attempt to try to elevate rock music to the same level as art music. Such analyses are ridiculous. I can take even the simplest rock song (not that Taxman, with its three chords, is complicated at all) and apply the same process to it and dazzle the theory-ignorant masses.
> 
> Here is George answering Cavett's question about whether he wished if he had studied composition (go to the 9'18" mark):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at 9'34" George says, speaking of his music: "It's not really, sort of, music, you know"
> 
> George knew the difference....


It's your assumption that this analysis is for the purposes of elevatimg pop music to the level of art music. It is also your conceit to insinuate one type of music is beneath another. Sure, George Harrison didn't think in these terms while creating a pop rock tune, but it can be useful for students who desire to understand what's going on from a technical standpoint. Of course this is no guarantee that it will provide the tools to write a great pop tune. That requires an imagination. And some knowledge of Harmony and chord / scales relationships doesn't hurt if you want to make things more interesting. Steely Dan tunes are a good example.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> I will agree with EdwardBast's #16 that the analysis is laughable. Yes, KenOC posted this for amusement: his own amusement at the conflicting and contradictory nature of the reactions, which he probably predicted.
> That way he doesn't get trashed for any opinion he may have. Too bad he brought The Beatles into it, though. I would have thought he liked them.


No, my plans were far darker and more sinister than that. And they're working! :lol:


----------



## Haydn70

starthrower said:


> It's your assumption that this analysis is for the purposes of elevatimg pop music to the level of art music. *It is also your conceit to insinuate one type of music is beneath another.* Sure, George Harrison didn't think in these terms while creating a pop rock tune, but it can be useful for students who desire to understand what's going on from a technical standpoint. Of course this is no guarantee that it will provide the tools to write a great pop tune. That requires an imagination. And some knowledge of Harmony and chord / scales relationships doesn't hurt if you want to make things more interesting. Steely Dan tunes are a good example.


And it is your conceit that all types of music are on the same level. Standoff.

We will have to agree to disagree. Va bene?


----------



## starthrower

Haydn70 said:


> And it is your conceit that all types of music are on the same level. Standoff.
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree. Va bene?


I didn't say on the same level. They are just different. But I doubt anybody uses wiki to learn Beatles tunes, they learn them by ear, or cheat and read the guitar tab online or in magazines. Or watch somebody on YouTube who already figured it out.


----------



## Haydn70

starthrower said:


> I didn't say on the same level. They are just different. But I doubt anybody uses wiki to learn Beatles tunes, they learn them by ear, or cheat and read the guitar tab online or in magazines. Or watch somebody on YouTube who already figured it out.


Here is what you wrote:

"It is also your conceit to insinuate one type of music is *beneath *another."

The word "beneath" implies levels.

I am the first to agree that rock and classical are different. And rock is beneath classical. Va bene?


----------



## starthrower

Haydn70 said:


> Here is what you wrote:
> 
> "It is also your conceit to insinuate one type of music is *beneath *another."
> 
> The word "beneath" implies levels.
> 
> I am the first to agree that rock and classical are different. And rock is beneath classical. Va bene?


Levels of what? Some view pop as "beneath" art music in a condescending implication which is fine if it makes them feel better. But I think what the wiki article proves is the person who wrote the entry was trying to look sophisticated. Pop music fans don't care. They like their favorite bands and that's it.


----------



## Haydn70

starthrower said:


> Levels of what? *Some view pop as "beneath" art music in a condescending implication which is fine if it makes them feel better. *But I think what the wiki article proves is the person who wrote the entry was trying to look sophisticated. Pop music fans don't care. They like their favorite bands and that's it.


Just as having the opposite, politically correct, egalitarian view makes other feel better.


----------



## starthrower

Haydn70 said:


> Just as having the opposite, politically correct, egalitarian view makes other feel better.


I suppose, but I don't really think about it too much. I enjoy the Beatles or whoever when I'm listening to them, and the same for classical. Bartok said the only difference between himself and the folk musicians was a conservatory education. He had the knowledge to develop a basic musical idea into something on a symphonic scale and the folk musician didn't due to his/her lack of an education.


----------



## EdwardBast

starthrower said:


> I didn't say on the same level. They are just different. But I doubt anybody uses wiki to learn Beatles tunes, they learn them by ear, or cheat and read the guitar tab online or in magazines. Or watch somebody on YouTube who already figured it out.


The whole Beatles' oeuvre is available in full score. I believe the guitar parts are in standard notation and tablature.


----------



## starthrower

The only song I ever learned was Blackbird, which is a nice one for fingerstyle guitar.


----------



## Haydn70

EdwardBast said:


> The whole Beatles' oeuvre is available in full score. I believe the guitar parts are in standard notation and tablature.


Correct. All parts, guitars, bass, drums, keyboards, vocals, misc. instruments, everything.

I was given the volume some years ago as a BD present. An impressive effort although there are two problems:

1. The pages are small so it is impossible to read a few feet away on a music stand.
2. There are mistakes. Some are forgivable (a wrong note here or there in a guitar solo) but others aren't such as wrong chords. No excuse for that.

All in all, though, well worth having if you are Beatles fan, especially one who is a musician who wants to play their stuff live "like the record".


----------



## Phil loves classical

Haydn70 said:


> Here is what you wrote:
> 
> "It is also your conceit to insinuate one type of music is *beneath *another."
> 
> The word "beneath" implies levels.
> 
> I am the first to agree that rock and classical are different. And *rock is beneath classical*. Va bene?


I agree on paper. And no matter how they intellectualize by arranging pop tunes on string quartets, etc. as on the radio it can't match. But as a form of expressionistic art, it can be a real juggernaut, and its impact can be immense.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree on paper. And no matter how they intellectualize by arranging pop tunes on string quartets, etc. as on the radio it can't match. But as a form of expressionistic art, it can be a real juggernaut, and its impact can be immense.


Of course pop music has the relative advantage of reaching way, way more people than does "classical." Further, far more people find it relevant to their lives today. Can the same be said for Boulez or Babbitt?

Lots of people like the classics of bygone generations, but that age has passed. There's almost none of it being written any more, outside of film scores.


----------



## millionrainbows

I Want You (She's So Heavy) from WIK

It begins in 6/8 time, with an arpeggio guitar theme in D minor, progressing through E7(♭9) and B♭7 before cadencing on an A augmented chord. In this chord sequence, the F note is a drone. The bass and lead guitar ascend and descend with a riff derived from the D minor scale. As the last chord fades, a verse begins in 4/4 time, based on the A and D blues scales, with Lennon singing "I want you / I want you so bad . . ." The two blues verses alternate, before the reappearance of the E7(♭9) chord, and McCartney playing a notably aggressive bass riff. This would function, throughout the song, as a transition to the main theme. The main theme repeats with Lennon singing "She's so heavy", with a long sustain on the last word. The second set of verses are rendered instrumentally with lead guitar. Another repeat of the "She's So Heavy" theme (this time featuring harmonies) is followed by Lennon singing a livelier repeat of the "I Want You" verse. During the next E7(♭9) transition, Lennon lets loose a primal scream of "Yeah", until his voice breaks. The song's coda consists of a three-minute repetition of the "She's So Heavy" theme, with the arpeggios double tracked, intensifying with "white noise" fading in as the theme continues; this consists of multi-tracked guitars from Lennon and Harrison, Moog white-noise from Lennon, and drums and bass from Starr and McCartney respectively until an abrupt ending.
Amusing.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Of course pop music has the relative advantage of reaching way, way more people than does *"classical."* Further, far more people find it relevant to their lives today. Can the same be said for Boulez or Babbitt?


Does this mean you think Boulez and Babbitt are "high-art classical"? If not, you can't use them as examples.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> Does this mean you think Boulez and Babbitt are "high-art classical"? If not, you can't use them as examples.


Sorry, I don't know what "high-art classical" is. I'm quite sure you can enlighten me.


----------



## Ethereality

mikeh375 said:


> Funny. I doubt they cared at all about this Ken, which is the best attitude to have for a composer imv regardless of the genre...if it sounds good, go with it. Their's was a natural, gifted talent and I reckon if they knew a lot more theory, their music would have lost some of its efficacy.


Totally depends on what you're writing.


----------



## mikeh375

Ethereality said:


> Totally depends on what you're writing.


It does indeed. I've witnessed genuine concern by some, especially those using CP in popular music, that theory (rather, the learning of), can create tension in their creative process and stymie their natural inclinations, which may not always be for the better.

Sometimes, the best personal results come unhindered and sometimes that free, unhindered spirit becomes innovative and influential, like the Fab4.


----------



## haydnguy

tdc said:


> Some interesting thoughts, thanks for posting it, but that said I think it over states The Beatles achievements. I can't agree with the idea that no composers of classical music would have continued to compose tonally without The Beatles. Sure, The Beatles probably had some influence across genres, but the same can be said for many classical composers. The Beatles do have some brilliant songs, but they don't ever develop into larger structures, so regardless of their innovations and influence I don't see them as comparable to composers like Beethoven or Wagner as this film suggests.
> 
> I do see some of their songs as fairly sophisticated, perhaps even comparably sophisticated to some of the songs of classical composers but it requires more than composing songs to be considered among the best composers of the 20th century in my opinion. For me their music just doesn't have the depth to stand up to the best classical music, because it is too repetitive and simple in structure. I don't even think it should be compared directly to classical though because it is too different, and has different goals.
> 
> Were The Beatles great composers of pop music? Definitely. Great composers of classical music? No. (Nor were they trying to be). I don't think these boundaries can be erased so easily as the film seems to suggest.


Having grown up with popular music (including the Beatles) I have thought a lot about the differences (on the surface) between classical and popular music. One difference is that popular music does not normally focus on the person who wrote the music. The focus is on the performer. With the Beatles, the Lennon/McCartney team was front and center.

I think George Martin had a lot more input into the development of their music than is normally discussed. A 19 year old from Liverpool with no musical training could not possibly of come up with the level of sophistication in those songs. When you look back on the pop/rock era, the Beatles might be the gold standard. Will they be another Beethoven? Maybe not. They may be to popular music what Glen Miller was to big band.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> Sorry, I don't know what "high-art classical" is. I'm quite sure you can enlighten me.


It's not my term. This post #4 established the idea of "high-art classical" early on:



Haydn70 said:


> Yet another attempt to try to *elevate* rock music to the same level as *art music.* Such analyses are ridiculous. I can take even the simplest rock song (not that Taxman, with its three chords, is complicated at all) and apply the same process to it and dazzle the theory-ignorant masses.


----------



## millionrainbows

haydnguy said:


> I think George Martin had a lot more input into the development of their music than is normally discussed. A 19 year old from Liverpool with no musical training could not possibly of come up with the level of sophistication in those songs.


I think this takes George Martin's influence too far, and becomes another way of invalidating The Beatles' talents and songwriting ability. They only needed him for string & orchestral arrangements, not song ideas.


----------



## Room2201974

haydnguy said:


> I think George Martin had a lot more input into the development of their music than is normally discussed. A 19 year old from Liverpool with no musical training could not possibly of come up with the level of sophistication in those songs.


So George Martin as fifth Beatle and most important Beatle? I don't buy it. His WAR Factor is ahead of Ringo but clearly behind the other three.

At 16 years of age Paul had already put in the Malcolm Gladwell 10,000 hour rule knowing, playing and singing the Great American Songbook along with English and American musical theatre. The 16 year old would write _When I'm 64 _ as proof of his understanding of the genre. He and George would take busses all over Liverpool because they heard someone knew a new guitar chord that they didn't. He's listening to Little Richard, and meets John. A couple of 10,000 hour segments in Liverpool and Hamburg later......all under his belt at 19.

It's a type of musical training that apparently has it's merits.:guitar:


----------



## EdwardBast

George Martin had some skills as a composer. Here's one of his performed by Van der Graaf Generator:


----------



## mikeh375

Edward, did you know he also composed a lovely and humorous score for Yellow Submarine?....






and...on a personal note, he got me in trouble with my wife on her 40th birthday. With some friends, we'd booked a seat at a posh restaurant in London and were seated next to his table. Let's just say my attention wasn't always on the missus.... I also recorded at Air Studios a few times (his studio complex) and the greatest thrill was seeing the autographed ms of his string 4 tet arrangement to 'Yesterday' hanging on the wall.


----------



## millionrainbows

George Martin played the piano solo at the bridge. He couldn't play it at the required pace because he wasn't an adept pianist, so they recorded it at a slower tempo and then increased the speed, which upped the pitch and resulted in a sound more like a harpsichord than a normal piano.﻿


----------

