I'm very pleased to present this video guest post by Lee Pat of One Minute Song
Do you remember when you started out on the piano or guitar and you only knew one chord shape? How embarrassing it was to jump all over the place just to play C – G – C?
Well, you probably learned fast enough that C major is still C major whether you play c-e-g, e-g-c or g-c-e.
You probably also realized how useful these different shapes can be for bass lines and melodies, even if you didn't care what they might be called (root position, first inversion, second inversion) or how they might be written (C, C/E (C over E) and C/G (C over G)).
Let It Be offers a nice example of the usefulness of inversions.
Before each new verse, we hear the short f---e-d-c motif, which is then extended (Ticket 9 - recycle musical cells) and repeated just before the guitar solo.
Let's imagine for a minute that Paul came up with that short motif first and then decided to harmonise it. (Matt here probably knows better if that's the case). [Matt: I don't! Sorry!]
What were his choices?
F - C G | C … F - Am G | C … F - C Dm | C … , etc.
In each of these cases, the note in the motif, whether you think about it as a melody (highest note), bass line (lowest note) or something in between (middle voice?), is a chord tone in the corresponding chord...
Of course, who says you can't have a non-chord tone (or a non-scale tone) in the melody or in the bass? That's how you get chord extensions, bass pedals and the like, but that's another story.
What if Paul had simply played
F / / / | C …
with f---e-d | c … in the melody?
The first chord is clearly Fmaj, the second Fmaj7, but the third?
Is it F6, Dm7/F, or something else? And, if you like how it sounds, does it matter?
Lee Pat is the guitarist and singer for Let Bygones and One Night Band. He recently founded oneminutesong.com to make wannabe rockstars, past their prime, who want to hear better music on the radio (himself included), actually sit down and write it. So he is currently writing ... a book on music theory for songwriters. Write to him at leepat@oneminutesong.com
There are many excellent websites and books around but I'm fortunate to have a few real live people I can call on for advice when I hit a bump in the road as well. I'm honoured to have Nicholas Tozier from Song Written as a blogging buddy and one of my 'Beatles Brain Trust'. He's made stellar contributions to BSA in the past (here and here) and his reply to my questions about Hey Jude's rhyme scheme was so interesting I got his permission to post it here.
Hey Matt
I’d never looked at Hey Jude on the page, but you’re right; looking down the line ends is less than half the story with this rhyme scheme. There are lots of surprises in this one.
I think the simplest way to explain it is:
End-rhyme is the default in most lyrics, but verse one of Hey Jude uses chain rhyme and internal rhyme – meaning the rhymes resolve and turn around more quickly. It’s analogous to when a melody touches on the tonic for a sense of resolution, then immediately moves off the tonic.
What’s actually happening is a little more nuanced than that, but that’s most of the story.
Hey Jude, don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember, to let her under your skin Then you'll begin to make it better
Let’s reduce it to a wireframe of syllables (x), with rhyme and refrain positions labeled:
x x x x x A
x x A x x x x BR
x B x x B x x x x C
x x x x C x x BR
Whatever’s going on here, we sure can’t call it end rhyme. The rhymes tend to open at the end of one line, then resolve at the beginning of the next line. Lines one, two, and the beginning of three are straight-up chain rhyme.
Then, in the middle of line three Paul adds a plot twist with another internal “B” rhyme, surprising our ears. This sets the new rhyme-point as the middle of the line. “C” sets up as expected at the end of line three, and then “C” resolves toward the middle of the verse’s last line, like line three did.
Still, I think the best way to get a feel for the truth of Verse One’s sonic mysteries is just staring at the diagram.
Thanks again for sharing this. I had a blast trying to deconstruct it.
—Tozier
P.S. Kinda intriguing that the refrain “make it better” has a different melody each time, so we actually don’t hear it as an obvious refrain so much. Its repetition is downplayed by the melody. That might be significant to the verse’s overall lyrical feel, because the refrain is the only end rhyme, and since the melody changes, the end of the quatrain sounds less resolved, more unsettled, building our anticipation for the next section.
Song Written is one of the best songwriting sites out there. Check it out.
Here's a guest review by BSA forum member Andy Getch. Enjoy.
While My Guitar Gently Weeps - The Music of George Harrison by Simon Leng (first published in the UK in 2003), review based on the Hal Leonard U.S. edition 2006.
Written after George's passing, this book chronologically follows George's musical story, but this is NOT a biography. I recommend it for a musician/fan of George Harrison, interested in his role in The Beatles and the evolution of his solo career.
The Good
There is something here about nearly (do I dare say every?) recorded published track here, even obscure B-sides and side projects. Musicians and instruments are listed for each song and summarized with a fair bit of information, with comments on the story, arrangements, etc. typically included. This is a musician's book about a musician. It generally keeps that focus, providing quotes from other musicians and detail in musical terms.
The Not So Good
The "unappreciated Beatle" refrain gets old after awhile. Only the first 40 or so pages of the 330 pages in the book are devoted specifically to George in the Beatles years. The same amount of ink is devoted to the late 60's solo project Wonderwall Music and All Things Must Pass. References and comparisons to Beatle days are sprinkled through the rest of the book. There is a fair bit of ink devoted to George's spiritual journey and how it influenced his music. That may put some people off.
Here's a special guest post by Tim Sheinman from Justthepostman.com. Enjoy!
In my own songwriting blog I often look at roles and social dynamics in rock bands. This is a lot of fun, because both I and the musicians I talk with get to explore an unfamiliar area together, plus I hear lots of great gossip.
Though every band is unique, certain behaviors and role combinations of groups do fall into understandable patterns. It is my belief that the Beatles were able to produce high-quality music because together they formed a versatile team, able to fill in each other’s gaps.
I will attempt to explore a broad and fairly generalized understanding of the Beatles, with a view to you using these to explore relationships in your own musical life.
Team Roles
One of the most common and widely accepted models of team makeup is Meredith Belbin’s 9 Roles. Although this is drawn from the world of management, it has also been applied in research to musical groups. I have replicated it below so take a look and see if you can identify yourself or some other musicians in your band from it.
In a group, it is likely that people will occupy more than one of these roles. Though it is not necessary for all roles to be filled, good teams often do cover many of them, spread across a range of people. Although I do not suggest that this is particularly rigorous, I think that one can see how the Beatles effectively covered many of the 9 roles in their music-making. I suggest the following, although I am very ready to be corrected.
John Lennon - Plant and Shaper - Wildly imaginative, willful, pre-occupied
Paul McCartney - Coordinator and Completer Finisher, Implementer, Specialist - A versatile, technical musician who could refine ideas, present his own and finesse things in the studio
George Harrison - Specialist, Teamworker - Sober, mild and skilled at his instrument. Highly imaginative, but often sidelined by the personalities of Lennon and McCartney.
Ringo Starr - Resource Investigator, Teamworker - Garrulous, extrovert, witty and social. Good at diffusing tension in the group.
George Martin - Specialist, Coordinator, Monitor Evaluator, Completer Finisher - Crucial to the Beatles, specialist in the studio, especially with classical elements, a strong man-manager and fine strategist who often sorted out problems left by the band in the studio (e.g. Strawberry Fields)
Thus, one can see that the band that covers a wide range of areas, resulting in a balanced, consistent and high-quality product sustained over many years. How does this apply to your own group?
Role Conflict
When someone occupies a role that they do not enjoy, or would like to change, something called ‘role conflict’ can occur. This can be problematic for bands. Indeed for the longest time, The Beatles managed to maintain success levels by finding places within the band for everyone that they were happy with. When external situations threatened to cause overt conflict, these were well managed, e.g. Stopping live gigs and going into the studio full-time.
Eventually though a need to move on and take up different roles did partly help derail the band. An obvious example is George Harrison’s growing independence from the group and his move into a primary songwriting role, rather than just contributing a few songs an album. Can you think of a time in your group when someone has very much wanted to change the role and this led to the becoming being unsettled? Was this acknowledged and if so, how was resolution attempted?
Leadership
The state of leadership in the Beatles is difficult to determine, considering how joined up the group was. One is tempted to highlight Paul or John as leaders, being the vocalists, writers and most outspoken members. Certainly leadership in groups is often afforded to leader singers and writers. This relates to the western tradition of the lead melodic voice being in charge, while the writer leading stems from more recent ideas of authenticity in originals bands.
However, it has often been suggested that in groups there are two types of leadership, Task-based and Socio-emotional. The rationale for this is that teams work better together when they get on well. A leader that is largely focused on work may not be able to take care of the feelings of the group members. Thus there will often be someone else who is looked to as the social core of the group. This person helps keeps everyone happy and resolves conflict.
Thus we can now perhaps view John and Paul as task-leaders, with Ringo as the Socio-emotional leader of the group. Certainly Ringo appeared to be the most consistently diplomatic and positive member of the group.
Often socio-emotional leaders are not the most skilled or technical members, as they are more dedicated towards the emotional qualities of the team. For this reason they can often be considered ‘mascots’ or makeweights, hence John’s “4th best drummer in the Beatles” jibe. However, they are crucial to the group continuing without dissolving into conflict and if they are laid off for technical reasons, the results can be devastating.
I can think of a band I knew at school that sacked their nice, keen rhythm guitarist, because he was not as good as the aloof lead guitarist. The band broke up shortly afterwards, unable to get on.
There may be someone in your group who takes care of feelings more than others. Perhaps this person is you.
Reflections
Thus I have introduced a few ideas about band team makeup in the context of the Beatles. For yourself, I would suggest that covering a wide range of roles, without people getting on top of each other is a great start for any band. However, settled roles do take time to work towards so do not be worried if they do not arrive immediately.
‘Role conflict’ can be a good thing, as it can create impetus for change within the band. It should not be suppressed, but rather diplomatically worked through with the view of reaching compromises. Eventually people may want to move on beyond the range of the group, but this is true of all relationships.
Leadership can take more forms than just focusing on tasks. While someone may need to drive the group, musicians feelings should not be underrated, so always look to treasure and support the person who prizes their mates feelings over artistic progress, even if they are not as good.
Have you used any of the Beatles approved songwriting tricks on this site to create your own songs? Send me an email and I'll feature your song here. David Benitez did.
Hello Matt.
This is David Benitez from The Black Heartthrobs from Los Angeles. We're big fans of the 4 dudes and your website.
We go into the bridge by minoring the 5 and we exit the bridge back to the verse by making the 5 major again.
Here's the chords (in the key of C#)
Bridge
G#m A#7 D#m F#7 G#m A#7 B F# G#major
I also sing the minor third (a B) in the minor V chord so you really hear the shift. IMHO, minoring the V (G#m) wakes up the listener. I don't think it's used that often, or at least not nearly as the minor 4 (which in this key would be F#m). It refreshes the song and makes going back to the verse more satisfying cos it felt like the song actually went somewhere.
David uses the m5 to transpose into the new key of D#m (T45) but in true Beatles fashion they use the borrowed V7 (A#7) to get to D#m (i) and then throw in F#7 which also doesn't 'belong.' It's clever stuff and shows that the band have really absorbed the Beatles techniques and made em their own.
David Benitez is vocalist/guitarist with The Black Heartthrobs, a three-piece garage rock band from Culver City, California that craft catchy songs a la Pavement and The Nerves. Find them on Facebook and Bandcamp.
I'd highly recommend their album Saturn Mexico (featuring Fool For You)
Welcome to another post where a real life working musician like you, explains how they're using Beatles inspired knowhow like the Tickets To Write to create their own songs. Next up is Phillip Alexander from Cincinnati band Plastic Inevitables.
First things first, I am a huge fan of Beatles Songwriting Academy. I've been reading it diligently for a while now, and I'm honored to be asked to write a guest post. Matt, thanks for doing BSA and especially for showing me The Summer Of Love (by George Martin) and Songwriting Secrets Of The Beatles. The latter (in addition to this blog!) has helped me immensely with songwriting, and made me appreciate the Beatles more than I thought possible, seeing that I already was in love with them.
Currently, as well as recording a new album, Plastic Inevitables are working on a YouTube project called “Short Song” - writing and recording a track less than two minutes long every month during 2012.
Naturally, every Short Song we write has to use ticket 2 (put your song on a diet) to the Nth degree. There's usually only room for one verse, two if we're lucky. Although that's partly due to our tendency to make them have more of a progressive structure than some of our other songs.
In our latest Short Song, Jekyll, we created an intro AND outro using different existing parts of the middle of the song (ticket 4). I also made sure that my vocal line never began on the first beat (ticket 39). In the end section, though it does lie on beat 1 of a measure, it doesn't come in until the second measure. Lastly, I wanted to see how much we could do with just two chords, so about 2/3 of the song is alternating between C and Am (ticket 25), though the average listener may not notice. This contrasts with the end, that uses a much more exotic chord progression and doesn't hit the tonic until the last chord.
Jekyll was partially inspired by From Me To You, although it doesn't have much in common with it besides the C to Am move. All of our Short Songs take some inspiration from the early Beatles catalogue as a whole, seeing as most of their early hits were right around the 2 minute mark. They had a way of packing everything you could possibly need in a pop song into 2 or 3 minutes. We try to be more experimental when writing Short Songs than if we were trying to write a single, but nevertheless those early Beatles hits had the perfect amount of innovation to be unfamiliar, but still go to #1 on the charts.
Phillip is lead vocalist and guitarist in Plastic Inevitables, who “sound like the White Stripes and the Beatles had a baby”. They're about to record a new album, tentatively titled Loon, which will be out by the end of the year. You can get their previous albums on Bandcamp, check out the Short Songs project on Youtube, or find them on Facebook or Twitter
Interested in contributing a guest post for Beatles Songwriting Academy? Been using the Tickets To Write to create your own songs? Drop me a line and let me know!
Welcome to another post where I ask 'real-life' songwriters just like you to spill the beans on how Beatles inspired songwriting ideas like the Tickets To Write have helped them create new songs. Say hola! to alt hitman...
I write demo songs in the wee hours of the east village night, after the sirens go to sleep and before the birds start wailing. I've always written from the hip and just misunderstand music theory. One reason I love the Tickets To Write is that they break it down in a slew of dares. I started with piano in my tweens, and picked up the guitar when I left for university. I think I'm on a futile mission to write the best White Album rejects I can.
You And You
For my song You and You I availed myself of the major to minor (Ticket 8). I isolated this switch by dropping the lyrics here, and gave it time to happen over two measures (G to Gm7). I've used this ticket before, occasionally changing the root of the chord. Lyrically, I used parallel lyrics (ticket 24). I aim for that moment when the chord structure and the lyrics begin to intertwine. The middle change in this song is not a real chorus, more of a burning bridge (ticket 26). Finally of course I always make use of ticket 21. It keeps me honest.
Inspiration
I was thinking of George Harrison circa 1970 when I wrote this one. I'd like to add some Harrisonesque guitar phrasing when I get the courage. The lyrics are circular but paradoxically open-ended. Recently I worked the D aug into several songs (eg What Is Up Girl?)...and I don't mind borrowing the augmented feel from Oh Darling! for the open!
alt hitman is pronounced like Walt Whitman, minus the W's. He grew up in El Salvador and New Orleans which is where he gained the ability to deep fry 7th and 9ths. By day he's a freelance artist or Sunday painter in the East Village and you can find his music at http://alt-hitman.bandcamp.com.
At this time of year the mullioned halls of Beatles Songwriting Academy become deserted as the students all go home for the summer, the professors head off to the nearest pub for research and the rest of the support staff put on the Stones and kick back. Even the school nurse is doing a European tour with Rammstein. So as soon as I heard that songwriting blogger Nicholas Tozier was in town I grabbed my Rickenbacker frying pan and invited him over for a traditional English meal and a chat about I Want You (She's So Heavy).
Matt: You want that last onion bhaji, Tozier?
Tozier: No, thanks man. I'm full!
One of the first times I talked to you, you said I Want You (She's So Heavy) was one of your favourite Beatles tunes. But what does a poetic, literary guy like you see in a song with just 13 words and hardly any description?
I’d call it more dramatic than literary. Just a few words sung like they’re meant. And to be honest, I think I enjoy the oppressive, ominous atmosphere more than anything else about this song.
That ominous atmosphere is really coming from the bridge section right?
Yeahhh. ROOOOOAARRRRRRR. Sounds like some kind of vortex opened up in the studio and started sucking all the Beatles and their instruments into it. It’s fantastic.
Did you know the album sides were originally reversed? Meaning this song (and that ending) would have been their final statement as a band.
I had no idea. That’s spooky.
It leaves you with a whole different parting message than
And in the end The love you take Is equal to the love you make
Mm, tell me about it. Ending with “I Want You” would make it more of a “Don’t get sucked into Cthulhu’s gaping maw” kind of moral I guess.
So beginning with the ending - I can see where you’re coming from, but for me that section is too long for anyone who isn’t stoned -
Ha! I have no idea why (I’m not stoned, I swear) but I like that portion a lot, actually. Maybe it’s the metalhead in me coming out after all these years. I’d argue that the song’s structure does drag, but for me I’d say the drag’s more in the middle.
Yeah. We have the verse section repeated in two keys (Am and Dm) and they do the whole thing four times. They could have cut the Dm section in a verse or two (definitely in the instrumental verse). After all the Am and Dm verse sections both end on the same chord progression [G to Am].
Totally agreed there. At that point the repetition isn’t really necessary. The statement’s already been made. Kind of like when somebody makes a really wonderful point orally, but then drags the speech out for five more minutes just rehashing that in less interesting ways.
Have you seen the Across The Universe film - it’s like Mamma Mia but with Beatles songs?
No I haven’t! Is this song in it?
Yeah it’s the best video I've seen where the visuals mean something completely different to the original meaning of the song. Let me show you.
[We head for the matron's room and find her PS3 console next to the statue of the Virgin Mary, underneath the framed Ringo Starr 8x10. Matt cues up the video on Youtube while Tozier admires the religious iconography].
Tozier: I think this Ringo signature is fake...
Matt: Here we go...
Tozier: Hmm, that was interesting.
Matt: Interesting in a bad way?
No, not at all. The social context of the song is interesting and I can see why they choose this very moody, grinding song to accompany that scene. Out of the whole film’s context it’s hard for me to pass any judgment on, but the visuals were very interesting and surreal and terrifying, which is entirely appropriate given that they’re talking about a sucking wound that the U.S. tried to stop by shovelling bodies into it.
The film is worth checking out. I wondered how they did such a good job of making a logical sensible piece out of such disparate songs when other shows (We Will Rock You) are embarrassing and tacky. I think it’s 'cos A, there are a lot of characters in the Beatles songs and B, the lyrical meanings are deliberately vague.
Yeah, I can see why you’d say that. An ambiguous refrain is useful for more than just verse development, I guess.
[We head to the drawing room for brandy, cigars and a game of billiards. Tozier pots the final ball off two cushions in spectacular fashion]
Matt: Darn you and all your fancy Down Easter ways!! Anyway, getting back to I Want You. I can hear the seeds of where the music scene was heading in this song. There are hints of Alice Cooper, early Led Zeppelin - the rock dinosaurs were coming!
Tozier: Totally agree with you there. This is blues, getting more and more nasty, more distorted.
I think Jimmy Page, would have done a better job as a producer/arranger on this song than the Beatles did. As you said, once the Beatles have stated their themes they just repeat - he would have built and added more parts...
I would hope so. Is it true that the Beatles mixed this as a group?! That seems insane.
Well by this time Lennon, McCartney and Harrison were involved in mixing, but not all at once. Have you seen those old consoles? There weren't enough controls to have one each!
[Chokes back his brandy] Oh to be a fly on the wall... No, I hadn’t seen those. I think your comment on being stoned earlier hit the nail. This song sounds stoned.
If you want to get a feel for what equipment the Beatles had at their disposal just watch any old Frankenstein film.
The creature walks!!!
Yeah but just REAAAAAAALLLLLLLYYY SLLLLOOOOWWWWLY!
[Laughs] Indeed! More of a shuffle.
Speaking of which - did you notice Ringo goes into swingtime on the final bridge fade out. The man was a genius. Sorry. Is.
I hadn’t noticed that! But now that I think back, you’re right. I was just thinking before we started talking that rhythms are really responsible for what momentum this song has.
It does sound a bit patchwork, but I hadn’t ascribed it to the tempo. Some of the transitions are certainly awkward, but I think the tempo’s only an accomplice in that. Not so sure about the heavily swinging bridge section that always makes me think of elevator music.
Are you calling the Dm ascending thing the bridge or the stop start E7b9 thing? Oh! The solo!
The solo.
Yeah, right. It’s Santana or Peter Green-era Fleetwood Mac at their snooziest.
That’s a good way of putting it. It’s like Santana’s still a little sedated from his flight in or something.
[Laughs]. Put me in George Martin's seat and the solo (or at least half of it) would be my first edit for sure. Can I not persuade you to trim the ‘fade out' a little though? I mean the song is 7:47 - guess how much of that is the final section.
Probably about half an hour of that is the end, yeah.
Close. 3:10. On one riff! I mean the famous Hey Jude fade is only slightly longer [3:59]. The only fills are Ringo (very good) and Paul (very bad). I’d use the word dribbly to describe his fills.
That’s probably what the lead sheet said: “Slowly; with dribbles” The more I examine the song, the more its holes are apparent, for sure. Don’t ask me why, but I stand by the outro riff. There’s something about a sinister groove that I like.
I can get on board with that – it IS a brilliant riff. And if you were going to play one riff over and over again I’d want it to be that. Why is it so great?
For one thing, as you said, Ringo is doing his best to keep it all rhythmically exciting. And really if this wasn’t done at high volume with distortion, it’d lose a lot of its power. And if they’d played that riff in a higher register, it’d be a disaster.
For me the power comes from having a chord progression [Dm, Dm/F, E7b9, Bb7, A aug] that's basically minor, but nearly every chord has an F at the top - giving you a b9 on the E7 and a #5 on A which turns it into A aug.
Yeah, there are a lot of different dissonant relationships to that note keeping everything tense. It all “resolves,” but uneasily. Which makes us want to hear another repetition. Or in my case, 4,000 repetitions please.
[Laughs] Listen, I'm gonna have to feed the guard dogs in the theology department in a minute. Thanks so much for dropping by. I'm gonna turn our chat into a blog post. What's one thing (a concept, progression or arrangement idea) you'd say songwriters could take away from this song for themselves?
I think a good general concept is to just go ahead and be downright freakish rather than be boring. This song has weak moments, but something still comes across for me. Sometimes when you go into relatively uncharted territory like this song did, you’ll have a certain risk of failure--but if they’d tried to reign this in and keep it safe, it wouldn’t be the fascinating flawed lumbering monster that it is, and nobody would remember it.
What about you?
I think the big lesson is to keep pushing yourself to try new things. Lennon kept attempting mantra type songs with few words or one chord songs and they usually failed. You Know My Name Look Up The Number degenerated into a comedy number. But this was a success (up to a point) and I think when they went back to more familiar territory they were better writers for having done it. No experiment is a failure if it makes you a better writer.
That’s a great way of putting it.
[A series of blood chilling howls pierce the stillness] That's Luther and Calvin. Gotta go!
OK. I'll pull the gate shut on my way out!
Yeah, but walk, don't run!
Nicholas Tozier is an independent singer/songwriter from Maine, US. He's the author of the highly recommended eBook 31 Days To Better Songwriting and blogs about songwriting (The Halted Clock), supplies creative writing prompts (Bottled Ink), and appreciates good music (Good Aural).
Matt Blick is a songwriter/singer from Nottingham, UK. He's the Ringo Starr professor of applied chronology at Beatles Songwriting Academyand blogs about his own songwriting journey at www.MattBlick.com.
Welcome to the first post in a occasional series where I ask 'real-life' songwriters just like you to spill the beans on how Beatles inspired songwriting ideas like the Tickets To Write have helped them create new songs. First up to bat is nomadic songwriter Joel D Canfield
I've been writing about music for nearly a decade and a music lover for half a century. I started writing music seriously about seven years ago and this year (2011) I realized it was time to push myself out of the comfort zone of my favorite chord progressions.
Ever since I heard The Mamas and The Papas cover I Call Your Name back in the seventies (when it was already ten years old) I've always loved the vocal slide from the major 4th to the minor 4th ("I never weep at (A) ni - (Am) ight, I call your name".) Ticket 8 Part 2 felt familiar when I started reading the description and when I saw I Call Your Name in the examples I knew I wanted to give it a try.
It turns out I tried it twice. Both The Map and This Path use the 4 to 4m change in the verse. For some reason, though they're both songs about the nomadic life I share with my Best Beloved, This Path works better melodically over the change. It may be that I immersed myself in David Gray's melodic structures before I wrote these songs and This Path captured more of that feeling.
Other songwriters have commented on the challenge of sliding from the 4 to the minor 4 in This Path but I was surprised how simple and natural it felt. Wasting my youth with my ear glued to the radio came in handy after all.
Though he pays his bills as a business author, writing and business coach, and web developer, Joel D Canfield is first and foremost a philosopher who believes that finding why makes what and how become clear. Get to know him at FindingWhy.com or read more of his musical background at his musiblog KnowYourMusic.com
Have you used the Tickets to write in any of your songs? - Then drop me a line!
Paul McCartney: “Some people wanna fill the world with silly love songs. And what's wrong with that, I'd like to know?”
“Plenty”, says Jeff Charreaux in this guest post for Beatles Songwriting Academy. He's been digging around the iTunes charts with some interesting results....
The Beatles Aren't Loved for Their Love Songs
Here are the ten most purchased Beatles songs from iTunes in the U.S.
1. Here Comes the Sun
2. Come Together
3. Let it Be
4. In My Life
5. Blackbird
6. Something
7. With a Little Help from My Friends
8. Yesterday
9. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
10. Dear Prudence
Of the ten, only two are love songs. The most downloaded track in the UK, Hey Jude, didn't make the American top ten, but it isn't really a love song either.
K.A. Parker was a staff songwriter at Motown. She says that about 80-90% of the hit songs on the radio have always been love songs, of which there are seven distinct types. The other types are character songs like Mr. Bojangles, message songs like Imagine, songs about music like Listen to the Music, and mental picture songs that are more poetic than literal. She used to teach mainly singer/songwriters to write better lyrics. Now, she teaches the Eleven Types of lyric writing at the Academy of New Musical Theatre.
Here are K.A. Parker's Seven Love Song Types (roughly):
1. Lonely
2. Tell Her How You Feel
3. Expectation
4. Honeymoon
5. Honeymoon is Over
6. Regret and Loss
7. Looking Back, Healed
You might say the top iTunes downloads don't represent true Beatles fans who already own the CDs and didn't need them to be on iTunes to have their favourites on their iPods. Yet, the most popular love song, at number six on the list, was Something - Frank Sinatra's "favourite Lennon & McCartney song" and at number eight, the one that started off as "Scrambled Eggs." So, what's the takeaway for songwriters?
If you are a Beatlesque band, all your songs should not be love songs because that is not what people want to hear.
Jeff Charreaux is the principal songwriter in Ultraviolet Eye. Their new CD entitled WAKE UP & DREAM consists entirely of Coming of Age songs inspired by the oeuvre of Ethan Hawke.
Today I'm honoured to have a guest post from my blogging buddy Nicholas Tozier to share with you. Be sure to check out his blogThe Halted Clock. It's a great resource for all songwriters looking to stray a little off the well worn paths.
Disclaimer: It was really hard to find a family friendly image for this post!
Two Virgins is an album released by the Beatles' short-lived Apple experimental music record label. In its original form, this record didn't contain any conventional songs.
The cover art, which is more famous than the recording itself, shows John and Yoko standing together naked. The album is apparently intended as an expression of love.
I listened to the Rykodisc reissue. And though I listen to many composers and jazz artists who perform very dissonant and cerebral music, this recording didn't interest me.
Side 1
Keening, birdlike, whistling sounds. Wailings, ululations, siren-like noises, and outright screaming from John and Yoko.
There are a few moments where the recording drifts into something that resembles more straightforward music, like Hawaaian slide guitar. This lulls you into thinking you know what's coming next. Instead, you're jarred with something dramatically strange at the anticipated moment. It sounds like John Lennon dropped his guitar. Or something went horribly wrong with a giant zipper.
Yoko's improvised vocalizing is largely animalistic here, occasionally lapsing into nonverbal singing. I admire her willingness to sound completely ridiculous while experimenting with her own vocal folds. I can hear Yoko consciously involving her nasal passages, then adding some very wobbly vibrato, then going deeper into her own threat to add guttural croaking into the mix. Hooray.
SIDE 1 cuts off abruptly.
Side 2
We start off with some interesting textures: low-end hum, light hiss, and distant-sounding organ. Enter Yoko humming and nonverbally singing.
Then we hear something like a high keening sound while a tugboat blats. Hmm.
I'd like to interject the comment that at times this sounds like it might have been the soundtrack to a vintage horror film. The album sounds like a primitive work of madness.
Around 2:00, Yoko transforms into some kind of croaking bird. Then massive fields of low-end hum pan from speaker to speaker for a bit.
4:00: This is where I start laughing like a hyena until about 5:40. You'll have to hear it for yourself.. It sounds like trumpets jabbing an archaeopteryx repeatedly in the rear. Terrific.
Bonus Track from Rykodisc
Some commercial songwriters claim that if you walk away singing the hook of a song, that song is a success.
Remember Love is useful for challenging that notion.
This song is extremely catchy because it's so simple and repetitive... but the lyric doesn't develop. The song offers nothing musically adventurous or lyrically insightful.
Nice sentiment, though. Pleasant enough fingerpicking patterns from John, but nothing really exceptional here.
If you'd like some nonthreatening sound textures and one vague, warm-and-fuzzy line about love repeated again and again, though, Rykodisc has answered your letters with this reissue.
Conclusion
I'm unlikely to listen again, and I don't recommend the album. There are far more interesting works of experimental music out there--Derek Bailey, John Zorn, and Kronos Quartet come immediately to mind.
With that said, though, I can at least appreciate the spirit in which Two Virgins was recorded. It's a homemade piece of experimental music by two people in love--and given the expectations of John Lennon's fans, recording and releasing this album was a gutsy (or pretentious) move.
"Sunless" and "Cheerless" have a subtle echo in line 4, and "Work their work" in line 5 has a chiming effect.
Many contemporary Christian songwriters don't rhyme much. Rhyming can make a song stronger and more memorable. It takes more work, but it makes for stronger and longer-lasting songs.
Hooked
The Beatles' melodies are probably their greatest strength. They are easily remembered (called a melodic "hook") - you hear them a couple times and next thing you know you're walking down the street humming them.
Their melodies are creative yet singable. Sometimes you can develop creative musical hooks by employing "repetition and variation," in other words, repeating a musical phrase, then repeating it again with slight variation.
The Beatles did this a lot. In the verse of Nowhere Man, the 3 phrases, "nowhere man," "nowhere land," and "nowhere plans" all repeat a similar descending 3-note pattern (repetition) yet each phrase is lower melodically than the preceding one - (variation). Genius.
In the chorus of my song Forever Grateful I repeat the phrase "I'm forever grateful" 3 times - each time melodically the same, but the melody of the words that follow each phrase ("to you," "for the cross", "to you") are slightly varied. I think about repetition and variation a lot when I'm working on melodies.
We who write worship songs should work hard at coming up with creative, fresh melodies that are both memorable and - this is challenging - congregational.
Matt:In what ways (both positive and negative) has contemporary Christian music been influenced by the Beatles?
Mark: Positively the Beatles and others have deepened contemporary worship musically. Our worship songs today are much more interesting musically than This Is The Day.
Negatively (and I don't know if this is the Beatles' influence), much contemporary worship has feel-good music, yet lacks lyrically. For the Beatles, the lyrical content was usually secondary to the music. The lyrics in She Came in Through the Bathroom Window, Octopus's Garden and Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da are fun, but meaningless (at least to me).
For Christians, the lyrics are the most critical part of a song - we want to sing truth, for we are singing about eternal realities. God commands us to worship him in spirit and truth, not just sing feel good songs.
If you've enjoyed this interview why not subscribe by email or RSS and join me as I ransack Lennon & McCartney's back catalogue for songwriting ideas and Be-atletudes on a regular basis?
The Beatles have influenced thousands of songwriters across all kinds of genres. One such writer is Mark Altrogge.
As well as being the Pastor of Sovereign Grace Church of Indiana, PA, in the last 30 years Mark has written hundreds of songs, that are being sung in thousands of Churches. His song I Stand In Awe is still one of the 100 most played Church songs 26 years after it was written.
Today though I'm honoured to have him standing in as the first guest lecturer at The Beatles Songwriting Academy. In part one of a two part interview I asked Mark where he'd originally encountered the Beatles.
Meet The Beatles
Mark Altrogge: I first saw the Beatles for about 30 seconds on a show called The Jack Paar Show, then a couple months later in February 1964, I watched their debut on the Ed Sullivan Show. It was electrifying - like watching fireworks for the first time - I'd never seen or heard anything like them. As soon as I saw them, I wanted to be like them, performing to throngs of screaming girls who'd chase me down the street like they chased the Beatles in the movie "A Hard Day's Night."
Later my parents gave me a cheap record player, and my first album - Meet The Beatles (their first US album). I played it approximately 10,000 times. Soon I was taking guitar lessons and formed a band with 3 friends called "The Blades." My job in the band was to listen to a record, learn all the parts (guitar and bass) of a song and teach them to the other guys. That's how I learned about chords and song structure.
My Generation - Altrogge 1972
I continued playing in bands until Jesus apprehended me at age 24 when I encountered one of my first praise choruses - "This Is The Day":
This is the day, this is the day,
That the Lord has made, that the Lord has made.
We will rejoice, we will rejoice
And be glad in it, and be glad in it.
(Repeat 300 times in a row over a 3-chord polka rhythm).
God used the truth of that song to teach me much - he's sovereign over every day and everything - that's reason to rejoice and be glad! But it was hard to sing for 20 minutes at a time.
In A Gadda Da Vinci
I started writing obscure "Christian" performing songs, the meaning of which could only be decifered if you analyzed them with the Da Vinci code. Then one day God spoke to my heart to write a worship song. I thought I'd try to write praise songs with music I'd like - like the Beatles or Traffic. And I thought it would be easy. Little did I know how hard it would be...
Anyway, that's how I got started.
Matt:What could someone writing Praise & Worship songs learn from the Beatles that they couldn't learn just as well (if not better) from Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman or Mark Altrogge?
Mark: Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman are great songwriters who have tons to offer. They write creative lyrics with memorable, fresh melodies. There's much I have to learn from those guys. But what can we learn from the Beatles?
One of the Beatles' incredible strengths was the variety of styles they wrote in - from rock songs like Get Back to vaudeville-esque songs like When I'm 64, accoustic-folk sounding songs like You've Got to Hide Your Love Away to ballads likeShe's Leaving Home, and classically influenced songs like Eleanor Rigby.
Escaping Your Own Musical History
One of the hardest things about songwriting is to escape the style of music you grew up with - I'm regularly accused of copying the Beatles (hey, if you're going to steal, steal from the best). The Beatles pushed themselves creatively and branched out from their original style. They tried different instruments like the mellotron in Strawberry Fields, the sitar in Within You Without You, and the harpsichord in In My Life.
The Beatles' creativity suggests they listened to a variety of music (and it didn't hurt that they had a great producer, George Martin). Many Christian songwriters I know listen to very little music outside the Christian genre and thus limit themselves creatively. Songwriters should listen to all kinds of music. Listen to jazz, movie scores, Irish music, and Broadway musicals.
Keep listening to current secular (use discernment with the lyrics) and Christian music. However, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT listen to country music. HEY - JUST KIDDING! Put down that pitchfork, cowboy. Even the Beatles did some country-esque songs like, Act Naturally and Don't Pass Me By. Ringo sang the country tunes - what does that tell you?
The Beatles encourage us to push ourselves creatively. We often settle too quickly for our first draft of lyrics or for chords and rhythms we've used before. We can learn from the Beatles to be more creative.
(If you've enjoyed this interview why not subscribe by email or RSS and join me as I ransack Lennon & McCartney's back catalogue for songwriting ideas and Beatle-tudes on a regular basis?)
