10:49 Hey Jude (pt.3) Rhyme Scheme Slight Return - Nicholas Tozier Guest Post

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.

I don’t think a linear list of rhymes does justice to this verse.

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.

Related Posts

• Nick Tozier on How To Notate A Rhyme Scheme
• Matt and Nick discuss I Want You (She's So Heavy) – one of BSA's most popular posts
• What I Learned About Songwriting From A Crazy Guy In Liverpool (a guest post I did on Nick's site)
• Tozier Reviews 'Two Virgins'

Links

SIGN UP! Join the BSA mailing list for free and exclusive content right here!

70+ Songwriting Tips From The Beatles
The BeAtletudes
About Beatles Songwriting Academy
Let's Build An Airport EP

12:44 I Want You (She's So Heavy) - with Nicholas Tozier

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.

Does the fact that the tempo fluctuates bother you? The song is a composite of 3 different takes.

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 Academy and blogs about his own songwriting journey at www.MattBlick.com.

Nicholas Tozier On Limitations

In Blessed are the Limited I said that a key to the Beatles productivity was that they had far less options than even your average independant musician circa 2011. Songwriter/blogger Nicholas Tozier agrees -

Constraints lead to creativity. Restrictions often lead to ideas—they force us to stretch, to grow, to improvise, to tap new resources and to work around the limitations. I think as much about new, interesting constraints as I do about new song ideas. I love throwing a wrench in my own gears, defying my usual creative habits. A new kind of process leads to a new kind of song.

Listen to Nicholas Tozier: How the Haiku can Improve Your Songwriting or read the transcription.

Guest Post: Getting Naked With John & Yoko

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 blog The 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.

Other guest posts: What worship songwriters can learn from the Beatles (Mark Altrogge)

Learning In Liverpool

This summer my family and I visited Liverpool, home of Steven Gerrard & Jamie Carragher, the Lambanana & of course The Beatles.

It’s an amazing city, with a civic sense of humour and one that really knows how to capitalise on it’s heritage. If you didn’t know where the Beatles came from you’d soon realise just from walking around.

HMV record store

Why did the penguin cross the road? - How should I know!

From time to time I’ll try to post a few pics and recommend things to do in Liverpool.

You won’t be surprised to know I learned a lot about the fab four while I was there. But I also got an insight into the power of songwriting from a very unusual source. You can read my guest post, what I learned about songwriting from a crazy guy in Liverpool over at Nicholas Tozier’s very wonderful blog.

Where Next?

OK. Finished Please Please Me.
Finished With The Beatles.
Where do we go next - A Hard Day’s Night?

Wrong!

I’ve been reading an excellent book called The Creative Habit by choreographer Twyla Tharp and she's inspired me to listen ‘archaeologically’, starting at the last work and going backwards.

“But you’ve already started” I hear you cry!

I know. Dumb isn’t it?

But if anything characterises Beatles Songwriting Academy it’s laying the tracks while the train is already moving. Or, as independent singer/songwriter Nick Tozier would say, laying the tracks after the train has already crashed. (Speaking of Nick, he just sent some much needed link love my way. Thanks bro’).

As this is a Beatles site maybe one day, like the Fabs, I’ll completely rewrite my history and airbrush out all the false starts and mistakes but for now Let It Be-style 'warts and all' is how we roll, but like Lennon’s first guitar – I’m guaranteed not to split.