Showing posts with label Helter Skelter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Helter Skelter. Show all posts

Friday, 28 April 2017

10:56 Helter Skelter (pt.2): Eleanor Rigby On A Bridge From Nowhere


Lennon Or McCartney?

We saw last time that the initial inspiration for this track was a review of I Can See For Miles by The Who. But in terms of influence this track arguably reveals Paul biggest influence – John Winston Lennon. Some of the most recognisable Lennon-isms are vertical melodies (check out the monotonal opening melody – one note reused for 2 bars) and minimal, almost mantra-like, lyrics.

Helter Skelter has just 61 unique words.


Most remarkable is the two word chorus. Though John embraced such brevity in Girl, All You Need Is Love and others it's almost unprecedented for Paul. There's not much between Love Me Do (three word title; thirteen word refrain*) or Get Back (a two word title; seven word chorus) that even comes close.

Paul's flirt with minimalism extends to the music too. We don't get all seven notes (Ticket 40) or all three diatonic major chords (Ticket 7) - the V chord is absent, which is unusual for a blues influenced song**.

 

Eleanor Rigby, Sits On The Ride In The Fair...

Starting the song with the most interesting section (harmonically speaking) is a smart move (Ticket 61). Paul plays the same kind of progression employed in the bridge of Eleanor Rigby, a chromatic line descending from the b7th (Ticket 31). But whereas Eleanor's string quartet is musically rich, here Paul distills the idea down to the top 2 strings of the electric guitar. The line (D - Db - C - B) has no fifth or third to harmonise with***. So, though you could look at it as a brother to Eleanor Rigby

Eleanor Rigby: Em7 Em6 C/E Em
Helter Skelter:  Em7 Em6 C/E G

those harmonies are only implied. Helter Skelter could just as easily be

E7 E6 C/E G.

The other instruments don't help because NO ONE is adding the 3rd or the 5th to the first two chords.

It's also interesting to ask what this opening section actually is. Do we have an introductory jazz-style verse (Ticket 53) or is it a bridge? Perhaps it's some kind of secondary 'sub-chorus' – functioning like a chorus but less catchy? Each answer is plausible.

Lyrically it does introduce the 'subject', or more accurately the main image, like a verse. But the section is repeated verbatim later. Now, it's not unheard of for arrangers to move a 'jazz verse' to the middle of a song, but it's rare to have it in both positions in the same recording.

Musically it functions well enough as a bridge, the harmonic complexity contrasting nice with the gonzo blues riffing of the rest of the song. But it's almost unheard of to start a song with the bridge as the very purpose of a bridge is to give the listener a break from the material they've already heard. Starting a song with a bridge is like starting a play with the intermission.

The section zeroes in on the lyrical theme like a chorus but doesn't 'feel' catchy like a chorus should and is certainly 'out-chorused' by the strong riffing in the real chorus.

If it's hard to make a judgement call on the finished product at least the earlier Anthology 3 version**** gives us a clue as to how Paul got there. At this stage the 'real' chorus appears almost as an ad-libbed afterthought and it's pretty clear that the opening section is supposed to be the chorus. At some point McCartney obviously decided the ad-libbed bridge was more hooky than the chorus and switched roles but the 'old chorus' retained it's place at the top of the song.

I think this is fascinating for two reasons. Completing the song through jamming seems to have enabled Paul to switch off his inner critic and create a chorus that is simpler than a more focused writing session might have produced. And secondly the unusual position of the 'bridge' at the start of the song survives as a vestigial part of an earlier version.


The Verse Cut Is The Deepest

This is probably the only song I've encountered that has Lennon Edits (Ticket 37) and Lennon Extensions (Ticket 52) in the same section. Verses 2 and 3 are 7 bars long. Both of them slam straight into the chorus where you might expect a second bar of the E chord.

Verse 1 adds in an extra bar of E, but earlier in the progression, delaying the change to G major (0:29), which none of the others do. The genesis of this idea is, again, uncovered by the Anthology 3 version where the change to G is sloppy and unclear and the band are obviously following McCartney's lead. At some point the changes got nailed down as they often did with Lennon's songs (see Happiness Is A Warm Gun).


Coming Down Fast

The chorus has a classic Beatles instrumental hook (Ticket 3) that works on several levels. Over an A chord they play a descending A mixolydian mode scale run, then when the chord switches to E they play a descending E mixolydian scale. Simple, right? Yes and no.

First, the Mixolydian mode (Ticket 51) is a interesting choice, fresher and less obvious than the pentatonic scale and descending to the root from the b7th (G F# E D C# B A) is less obvious than starting from the octave (A G F# E D C# B A).

But why go down at all? Why not up? Or up and down?

Because you go down on a Helter Skelter. And you go round and round as you go down. This is brilliantly represented by constantly switching between A and E. And why use 16th notes? Because Paul warned us he was “coming down fast” and the riff represents that literally.

Was this use of madrigalism deliberate? I doubt it. But a good songwriter will always search for what 'feels' right and it always feels right when the music supports the lyrics.


*You could argue (quite successfully) that Love Me Do has an AABA structure and that section is the verse, but as they repeat the same lyrics for every verse it functions somewhat like a primitive chorus.

**Get Back pulls the same trick

*** A similarly minimalist approach to the descending b7th chromatic line can be found in the horn part of Over You by Aaron Neville (0:05).

****Take 2, recorded 18 July. 



Thanks to Ciro Urso on the BSA Forum for help with research.
Join the mailing list to get the free, exclusive, Beatles Songwriting Academy podcast!

Friday, 21 April 2017

10:55 Helter Skelter (pt.1) The Recording


The Who had made some track [I Can See For Miles] that was the loudest, the most raucous rock 'n roll, the dirtiest thing they'd ever done. It made me think, 'Right. Got to do it.' I like that kind of geeking up. And we decided to do the loudest, nastiest, sweatiest rock number we could

Paul McCartney: Musician Magazine 1985

We tried everything we could to dirty it up

Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now

Helter Skelter is a great little song that doesn't quite live up to it's premise as a recording and is arguably twice as long as it needs to be.

WHITE (NOISE) ALBUM

I've never listened to it properly, it was just a noise

John Lennon: Rolling Stone, 1970

Competition with Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan and most of all each other, often brought out the best in The Beatles but The Who was a band too far. Ian MacDonald calls the track “clumsy”, “ridiculous” and “a drunken mess” with “McCartney shrieking weedily against a massively tape-echoed backdrop of out-of-tune thrashing." Although Paul had been screaming like Little Richard since he was a small boy here he doesn't seem to have the vocal chops to pull it off and more worryingly, neither do the production team. Chris Thomas, filling in for the holidaying George Martin, and engineer Ken Scott, replacing Geoff Emerick (who quit two months earlier) provide a palate dominated by clanky bass (played by Lennon), weak drums, drowned by cymbals and a second guitar that is just fizzy, white noise.

The track is often lauded as a proto-heavy metal track and given a free pass sonically - 'overlook the crappy sound like you'd excuse your granddad's poor hygiene' but, like your grandpa, that just won't wash. By Sept 1968 Hendrix had already released Are You Experienced and Axis: Bold as Love and was just about to drop Electric Ladyland, so in the nasty sweaty stakes, the Beatles were playing catchup. Listen to Jimmy Page's production of Whole Lotta Love recorded just 8 months later. Cleaner and heavier. In fact it is a truth universally acknowledge that less distortion, not more, is the way to make tracks (especially guitar) sound heavier.

McCartney's hysterical delivery, all maniacal giggling (0:15) and excess saliva (“shee you again” 0:11, 1:45), reeks of overcompensating and the backing vocals are counterproductive – the 'oohs and aahs' - more 'soft perm' than hard rock - actually lighten the track. But the lead guitar is where the Beatles are lacking heft. John, Paul and George have their shining moments elsewhere but none were able match the sheer bombast that Page, Clapton, and Beck could produce.



LONG, LONG, LONG


The fact that the mono version fades out a minute earlier without detriment to the song (other than losing Ringo's “blisters on my fingers” line) reveals how bloated the stereo version is. We get 3 verses, 3 choruses, 2 bridges and a guitar solo all packed into 2:30. What more do we need? Well, apparently 2 full minutes of vamping on the tonic chord. This breaks down as follows

2:57 false ending
3:09 song restarts
3:36 fade out
3:45 fade in
4:10 fade out
4:20 fade in
4:30 track ends

False endings (Ticket 47) can be cool (check out We Were Born To Be Loved by King's X - 2:55 onwards - for a masterclass) but here it's overdone and undermined by the banal jamming of a band clearly having more fun than we are.

The track could have ended around 3:04 (where McCartney is speaking in a Yorkshire accent*, audible on the stereo version) but I suspect the reluctance to fade quickly comes from a desire to the showcase the 'avant garde a clue' playing of Lennon on Tenor Sax and roadie Mal Evans on trumpet. But, on an album featuring Revolution 9, the atonal jamming is surplus to requirements.

Next time we'll take a more positive look at the songwriting itself.

Thanks to Ciro Urso on the BSA Forum, The White Album Project and Beatles Bible for help with research.

*McCartney says “Hey! Come here son. I saw you do that you little bugger! Put yer bloody hands on here. Come on”


Join the mailing list to get the free, exclusive, Beatles Songwriting Academy podcast!

Monday, 21 October 2013

Soundhog Interview



The whole purpose of Beatles Songwriting Academy is to tap the genius of the Beatles by taking their songs apart and using what we learn to create something new. With that in mind, let me introduce to you Soundhog, a self-described 'Beatles-obsessive of 35+ years standing' who is the creator of the wonderful Whole Lotta Helter Skelter mashup.

Who are you and what do you do?

My real name is Ben Hayes, and I'm a resident of a fairly small town in north Wales. I've done many things over the years, at the moment I work in a garage as a 'proper job', but still like to think that I'll be able to do something more creatively rewarding and make some sort of living from it, one day. I suppose everyone thinks that, though... get real, eh?

How long have you been creating mashups?

I started making things from other people's music a long, long time ago - back to cutting up 1/4" tape when I was 10 years old - but I've been doing stuff in the form of Whole Lotta Helter Skelter for about 12 years now.

Do play any conventional musical instruments?

I'm certainly not a virtuoso on anything, but I can play a bit of guitar, drums, keyboards, triangle etc. Occasionally this can be heard in my Soundhog work, and I also do other projects when I can find the motivation like Loose Capacitor ('70s analogue synth based) and The Secret Agent Five (my take on twisted '60s guitar instrumentals). I wish I could play one thing really, really well, but I do my best under the circumstances.


The Led Zep/Beatles mashup was something of a viral hit, yet you seem a bit down on mashups generally – why is that?

When I started out with this sort of thing, around 2001, you could count the number of other people doing it on your fingers and toes, and probably have the odd digit to spare. It was genuinely an underground thing. We called it 'bastard pop', or just 'bootlegging'. You couldn't find it very easily, the music press dismissed it as worthless novelty and only one or two UK radio shows gave it a platform. Visiting the one tiny club night in London dedicated to it genuinely changed the way I thought about music.

It only really went 'overground' when Richard X's welding together of tracks by Adina Howard and Gary Numan was re-recorded by The Sugababes. Once it went to number one in the UK singles chart suddenly everyone and their tone deaf dog started downloading cracked music software and making dreadful combinations of dreadful pop/rap records. Over-hyped nonsense like the Grey Album started clouding the waters and 10 years on, there's nothing clever or new about it and frankly it's all quite tedious. But it happens to almost all forms/genres of music eventually, I suppose.

The Beatles have a reputation for keeping tight control over their catalogue, yet they 'sampled', quoted or just plain ripped off other people's music. Led Zeppelin were even worse. Does old music need to be 'recycled' in order to create new music? Where do you stand on the whole copyright/intellectual property issue?

The biggest influence on music is the technology and tools available. It changed when new instruments were invented, when recording onto cylinder/shellac became possible, when multitrack tape machines appeared, when fuzz pedals and loud amplifiers showed up, then synthesizers, samplers, digital processing tools, etc. But you're still pretty much dealing with the same notes, scales and chords. There are very few musical forms around today which you can't trace back somehow to 50, 60, 70 years ago. I don't hear much today that I can't pick apart and identify where the various bits came from, or who they were influenced by.

As for copyright... erm... Obviously things like Whole Lotta Helter Skelter run roughshod over established copyright laws, however I've always been of the opinion that doing what I do doesn't actually harm the original works or their authors/performers at all, and it's not taking away a potential sale or whatever.  Nobody's going to stop buying The Beatles or Led Zeppelin II because they've downloaded my creation. I did get slapped with a nasty letter from the BPI (UK based record industry type thing) around 10 years ago, demanding that I removed certain stuff from my website but now if you're uploading your things to YouTube or Soundcloud you usually get knobbled before the file has finished uploading.

I'm surprised that Whole Lotta Helter Skelter' hasn't been wiped from the internet so far.  Perhaps some 'people who matter' actually liked it. Who knows? Jimmy Page's official website even featured the track on the front page a few months ago.  That was a big surprise.

In short, I believe in copyright, I think people's ideas and works in their original forms should be protected, and people should get what they're entitled to.  However, if other people can twist those works in other ways, with valid results, then they should at least be allowed to try.

Other than the two original tracks what were your sources? What was your actual process in terms of adjusting tempos, pitch shifting?

The sources were copies of the Helter Skelter and Whole Lotta Love multitracks - one came from a video game, the other from a bootleg CD. I didn't use anything else apart from a few bits of Beatles studio chat, as far as I can remember.

A lot of people probably assume I just slapped McCartney's vocal over some loops from the original Led Zeppelin record, but there was a hell of a lot more to it than that as you can see from the screengrab.



The thing was constructed on a PC using an old version of Ableton Live. Both original songs are in the same key, which helps massively as you don't end up with awkward sounding vocals through pitching up/down. Helter Skelter's a fair bit slower than Whole Lotta Love, so the Beatles audio parts were sped up to Zep tempo - as the latter track forms the backbone of the thing, it was important to keep time-stretching artifacts (i.e. horrible glitchy noises) to a minimum. Ableton allows one to do this fairly easily, but you've got to keep an eye on the details, which means a lot of manual work - because I was working with a lot of separate multitrack parts they all had to be carefully tweaked to keep them in sync with each other. Then there's stuff like having to EQ the bass parts from the two songs so they matched up as closely as possible sonically and replicating the panning of the guitar feedback noises in the middle section.

Are mashups brand new pieces of music?

Good question. I think it varies from track to track. The best examples, are the ones which sound like they could always have existed if the course of pop music had been different. If Jimmy Page had actually been in The Beatles, or the two groups had actually recorded together, rather than "this vocal" being put over "that music" by someone in his bedroom. Not really something 'new', therefore, but something from a history which didn't exist. (That all probably sounds very pretentious, sorry).

Is there anything conventional songwriters can learn from mashup artists?

A big part of it in the early days for me was mixing up styles, putting things together which normally wouldn't fit.  I do honestly think that what we did in the early 2000s has had a significant impact on pop music today in various ways, for better or worse. I'd just say, don't be afraid to get outside of the box.  Music's always been at it's most interesting, for me, when it goes blundering around trying out new things.


You can find Soundhog on Soundcloud or at his own website. You can download Whole Lotta Helter Skelter here and I'd highly recommend you also check out Ben's beautiful mashup of A Day In The Life and the Kid Loco Mix of Tracy by Mogwai. And if that's not enough Beatles related remixing for one day, take a look at my interview with the brain behind the Beastles DJ BC.



Join the mailing list to get the free, exclusive, Beatles Songwriting Academy podcast!