10:27 Piggies (pt. 3) – Recycling On The Farm

Let's finish up our discussion of Piggies.

The highlight of the song for me is the way Harrison and Producer/Arrangers Chris Thomas and George Martin recycle and develop themes both large and small. Ticket 4 is in full effect -the intro, outro and solo are all fashioned from the verse melody - and the bridge, constructed from a three note melodic cell, is a primer in Ticket 9.

The intro is little more than the first 5 notes of the verse. The solo is largely the verse melody inverted and 'pedal-pointed' – the verse melody

C Db Eb C, Bb C Db Bb etc

becomes the solo pattern

Eb Db C Eb, Db C Bb Db

Things get really clever in the Coda. First, they restate the intro idea (1:42) before converting the major key tune into the minor (1:44). Then they restates the first bar of the melody exactly in the new minor key (1:47). But there's more clever stuff to come.

The melody finishes with a five note ascending harmonic minor scale (Ab Bb Cb D Eb) over a Bb to Eb chord progression (1:50). Though the Bb is 'out of key' it fits right in under the D note and having 'borrowed' Bb major throughout as the V of V ( Bb is the 5th of Eb which is the 5th of Ab major – the original key) it feels normal. But ending this way gives the impression we've changed key just in time for the final chord. Are we now in Eb major?

No. It's a false ending (Ticket 47) and the icing on the cake is yet another cadence (Eb, Ebmaj7, Eb6, Bb), this time IV – I in the final key of Bb (1:55).

So in the last few bars we changed key three times from Ab major to Ab minor to Eb major to Bb major! And none of it felt forced or disorientating. Genius.

Micro Recycling (Ticket 9)

In the bridge Harrison creates the opening melodic material from 3 notes, each a tone apart (Db Eb F)

F Eb Db F (in their sties with)

While the chords move up a tone, from Bbm to C7, the cell moves down a semitone

E D E C (all their backing). He extends the idea further in the second half

F Eb Db F – in their eyes there's
E D E C - something lacking
F Eb Db F – what they need's a

with the final line becoming an inversion of the initial cell (F Eb Db F becoming Eb F G Eb)

Eb F G Eb – damn good whacking

Pork Scratchings

There's plenty of other things to love here, both 'ticketed' and not

Though the melody is mostly comprised of chord tones the chromatic run up to III7 (0:45) is cheeky as is the fact that it leads to a ii rather than the more common vi or VI.

There's a nice contrast between the sections (Ticket 5) in the way the hooky harpsichord parts (Ticket 3) are kept for 'special occasions' and the bridge's effected vocals and stabbing keyboard chords. Madrigalism (Ticket 49) rears it's piggie head with grunting instruments (and sfx) throughout.

There's contrary motion (Ticket 12) at the end of the harpsichord solo (1:19) and with a 2:04 running time there's definitely no fat on this hog (Ticket 2).

There's an AABA 'no chorus' structure (Ticket 26) and we don't blow all three major chords early (Ticket 7) as you don't hear the IV till the bridge (0:51).

Lyrically good points abound (though verse 1 seem to contradict itself - surely things are getting better if clean clothes are provided?). We have parallel lyrics (Ticket 24) -

have you seen the little/bigger piggies and in their eyes/sties

internal rhymes -

lives/wives with knives

and there is strongly unified lyrical imagery (Ticket 54) because the song isn't really about pigs – remember?

I'll try to fit in one more Beatles song before the new year and a special video. But if I don't see you before then – HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS!

10:26 Piggies (pt. 2) - Doing It For The Kids

We noted last time that Piggies is an Orwellian flavoured faux-baroque song. And yet the (small) kids love it. BSA reader Justice speaks for many when she writes “I always loved the sound of this song. It's also one of the first Beatles tunes I remember hearing as a kid - back then, I sat wondering who on earth would seriously write a song about 'piggies'. Then of course came the day, several years later, when I listened to it again, and the social commentary 'lightbulb' finally came on. I had to chuckle at myself”. What makes such a dark song so child friendly?

Lyrically George selects a childish vocabulary - not pigs but piggies. There's a sense not only of the absurd – pigs wearing shirts and having wives! - and a sense of naughtiness – smacking bums (they need a damn good whacking) and these pigs eat bacon! - cannibalism may be a dark subject, but kids feel clever getting the joke.

Repetition plays a part, not just in the lyrics (“piggies” occurs 7 times in 3 verses) but in the melody too. The cell of

C Db Eb C (have you seen the)

is repeated a scale tone lower

Bb C Db C (little piggies)

then repeated a scale tone lower again with one extra note

Ab Bb C Ab Eb (crawling in the dirt)

And then the whole sequence is repeated with only the final note altered. This predictability renders the melody singsongish and nursery rhymey.

This blend of clear melodic patterns, simple vocabulary and a bit of 'naughtiness' is what has made the Beatles kid-friendly for decades. At their best, something like I Am The Walrus (which 10 yr old guitarists beg me to teach them) has a 2 note melody (I am he as you are he), jokes like “Boy, you been a naughty girl” and rudeness (you let your knicker down)*. Even the weak All Together Now has something risqué (can I take my friend to bed?) buried in the simple skipping song. The genius is that in every song there is something for the adults too. And the 5 yr old hooked on Yellow Submarine has every chance of growing into an adult mesmerised by Tomorrow Never Knows.

So here's a thought – try writing for kids**. Use repetition, clear melodic patterns, simple vocabulary and grammar with some ridiculous concepts or or words. And don't forget to add something naughty!

*And pigs again! (See how they smile like pigs in a sty).
** And in a beautiful twist of fate, this will be Ticket To Write 64!

10:25 Piggies (pt.1) The Once And Future George Martin

Chris Thomas and George Harrison - pork curry?

Piggies is a dark children's ditty, a social commentary about class difference, and a song that inspired the Manson murders.

George Harrison began working on the track in 1966 - the same time as Taxman. And it shares the same dour cynicism that seems to be in Harrison's DNA. The year after it was released Charles Manson took the song as an incitement to murder and his followers used “forks and knives” as murder weapons daubing "death to pigs" in victims' blood on the walls. Understandably for some people this has tarnished the song. Ian McDonald calls the track an “embarrassing blot on [Harrison's] discography” referring to “misanthropy” and “the song's uncharitable karma” (p.317-18).

Walter Everett points out the "Orwellian comparison of pigs to socially horrid though outwardly refined tyrants”. Which comes through in an unused verse -

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Playing piggy pranks
You can see them on their trotters
Down at the piggy banks
Paying piggy thanks
To thee pig brother

Pig Brother is watching you? The harpsichord was played by co-producer Chris Thomas, Ringo played tambourine and tiny bit of bass drum. Lennon's only contribution was editing a tape loop of pigs grunting.

Lennon grapples with analogue sampling

It was thought that Harrison provided all the vocals including the full-on bass vocal in the last verse but the 50th Anniversary edition reveals that John sang bass and Paul helped out with BVs. (What's up with all the bass vocals recently? Previous song Happiness Is A Warm Gun and next-but-one track I Will feature John and Paul, respectively, doing their best Barry White impression).

George Martin, contributes the wonderful string octet arrangement using the same personnel as Glass Onion (which was tracked at the same overdub session).

We're Not In Esher Any More

The most interesting thing about the genesis of this track is that difference between demo and final recording. Whereas Paul's I Will is a note for note recreation of the demo (apart from the odd flubbed lyrics) almost every aspect that makes so distinctive Piggies was added in the studio.

The song, as originally conceived, is a rustic, chirpy 'down on the farm' folk song complete with asthmatic whistling solo. The White album version is a faux-baroque song whose harpsichord and strings hint at 'Orwellian' grotesque characters. And that is all down to George Martin and the man he was grooming to be his successor - Chris Thomas.

But it started with an accident –

We were working in [studio] number two. I wandered into number one and found a harpsichord...we discussed wheeling the thing in...but Ken Scott said, 'No, we can't, it's there for another session!' So we moved our session into number one instead. George Harrison agreed that my harpsichord idea was a good one and suggested that I play it.

Chris Thomas (in Beatles Complete Recording Session)

Other changes

• The key changed from G (standard tuning), to Ab (played in D and capoed at 6th fret) - the high capo, along with the light vocal, gives it an innocent childish sound.
• Countryside ambience (birds chirping), pig sound effects, grunting celli and bass, and fussy, staccato strings conjure up self important pigs.
• The rising chromatic run before the III7 chord that leads into the bridge and the similar chromatic vocal line on “eat their bacon” that sounds like a hysterical dalek.
• The jokey blues fill (0:56) that is a call back to the cello fill in Yesterday (1:25)
• The pedal point solo that becomes celli/harpsichord duet
• The minor cadence at 1:44 (the demo ends blandly and badly on a sloppy Ab Eb Ab)
• The key change final coda (Eb Ebmaj7 Eb6 Bb).

The Beatles built a bridge between pop and classical music and you can see it in microcosm in the blues riffs played on a harpsichord and the laid back “one more time” followed by the uber classical cadence (and grunting pigs!).

We'll explore some of these great arrangement twist next time.

Background: thanks to Beatles Bible!

10:7 Why Don't We Do It In The Road?

He liked it...he put a ring on it

there aren't many people who can claim to have written a pop song inspired by monkey sex but Paul McCartney is in that special minority. Having witnessed the simian version of doing the nasty in Rishikesh, Macca grabbed his guitar and penned this unforgettable track. Ringo, drafted in at the last minute, prevented it being a solo McCartney track but Lennon (who was next door adding the finishing touches to Glass Onion and Piggies with Harrison) was angry at not being invited. A good thing in my opinion, as at this stage John might have been tempted to make more of a 'statement' with it. As it is, it remained a bit of cheeky McCartney fluff, on a par with calling Her Maj “a pretty nice girl”.

Three Questions

I've realised most analysis on Beatles Songwriting Academy boils down to one of three questions. Why is this song so good? Occasionally, why is this song so bad? and rarest of all Why ISN'T this song bad?

Question 3 is the most relevant here.

Let's face it we have a straight 12 bar blues.The same verse repeated 3 times. A grand total of 3 chords and 14 words. It should be horrible, but it's not. Why?

First, it's hard to hate a song that lasts 1:41. A short running time will always cover a multitude of sins.

Second, there's a slight ambiguity to the lyrics. We all know what the 'it' is. Any songwriting 101 class would tell you to develop the concept in subsequent verses but the fact that Paul never spells it out sustains the mystery. Where would you go with it anyway? Why don't we do it in the shed? On the roof? In the bath?

Same But Different

But for me the prime cause of interest is the way Paul moves the phrasing of the main line. Generally vocalists will vary notes but not change the rhythm too much, other than to stretch the whole phrase out. But Paul does some odd but cool things to the main 8 beat (2 bar) phrase. Perhaps the simplest way to explain it is to look which words fall on the strong beats (the 1 and 3).

In the first three lines of every verse there's a rest on the first beat followed by the words don't, do and road falling on the third, first and third beats (give or take a few syncopated pushes).

(1) why don't we do it in the road

So we've pretty much got all the strongest words on the strongest beats (though you could argue 'it' is more important than 'do' in the phrase).

But at the end of the verse the whole phrase moves forward a beat, and now starts on the 1.

why don't we do it in the road

which gives a very off kilter feel.

On the very last line of the song the phrase is similar to the original one but squashed up and one beat shorter. The final chord lands on the one instead of the word 'road'.

(1) why don't we do it in the road (1)

This approach mimics the way a jazz instrumentalist might approach a solo, playing with the melody by displacing it. On a micro level you can hear it in some of the classic licks of Chuck Berry.

Grab some of your songs ideas, take a phrase and try moving it forwards or backwards a beat. It's a very arresting trick.

Other Stuff

There are other cool bits that make this an enjoyable track for me. Like the fake drum intro (McCartney is hitting his acoustic guitar) before the real drum fill comes in.

The way the 'band' stops for the opening phrase of every verse AND the very last phrase (ticket 30)

The primal 'four to the floor' feel of the bass and piano suits the 'animal' subject. And the funky bass fills on v3? Take a bow Paul.

I would never have expected to get two posts out of this slender tune, but I think the very fact this song exists has something really important to teach us about the working life of a songwriter. More on that next time.

Blessed Are The Prolific (pt. 1)

In a way this goes right to the heart of why Lennon & McCartney were such great songwriters. All other Be-atletudes lead to this. Being a singletasker, having a co-writer and limiting your options all allow you to be prolific and that is the one thing that will turn a good songwriter into a great one.

Here’s a favourite illustration

A ceramics teacher divided his class into two groups. One group would be graded solely on quantity of work – fifty pounds of pottery would be an “A”, forty would be a “B”, and so on. The other group would be graded on quality. Students in that group had to produce only one pot – but it had better be good.

Amazingly, all the highest quality pots were turned out by the quantity group. It seems that while the quantity group kept churning out pots, they were continually learning from their disasters and growing as artists. The quality group sat around theorising about perfection and worrying about it – but they never actually got any better.

Apparently – at least when it comes to pottery- trying and failing, learning from failure, and trying again works a lot better than waiting for perfection. No pot, no matter how misshapen, is really a failure. Each is just another step on the road to an “A”. It is a road littered with imperfect pots. But there is no other road.

John Ortberg: If You Want to Walk on Water, You've Got to Get Out of the Boat (p.148) The story he quotes is from 
David Bayles & Ted Orland: Art & Fear (p.29)
 

 

 200 Songs

Why were Lennon & McCartney so good?

Between 1962 and 1970 Lennon & McCartney wrote close to 200 songs. Almost all were recorded and released. The majority were top 10 hits as singles or album tracks. Whereas most writers today would throw away a song that wasn’t good enough for their next album or didn’t fit stylistically, the boys always had a reason to finish that song. And because of their insane recording schedule they always had to come up with more songs.

Here, There & Everywhere

The norm for today’s artists seems to be that they are either writing OR recording OR touring. Letting the studio or the road disrupt the habit of writing is a problem somewhat unique to SONGwriters.

For example, on the rare occasions that a novelist does go on a promo tour he doesn’t spend 200 nights a year for 2 years reading people his most recent book.

What could be more damaging to fresh creativity than regurgitating your previous efforts night after night without attempting anything new? Yet this is everyday life for many successful recording artists.

Road Songs

 

For a band with a schedule as insane as the Beatles had from 62-66 writing on tour was a necessary evil. From Me To You was written on a tour bus, All My Loving backstage, She Loves You in a hotel room. Can’t Buy Me Love was not only written on tour but recorded in a studio in Paris while they played a residency there!

It's All Too Much

Of course the band stopped touring in ’66 but The Beatles didn’t regard recording as a legitimate reason to take a break from songwriting either (which makes sense as they were always recording). And I’m not referring to the way many successful bands enter the studio with unfinished songs (though they were guilty of that too). I mean continuing to write new songs even as they were laying down songs they’d just finished.

Assistant producer Chris Thomas remembers Harrison playing Something to him on the harpsichord while they were recording Piggies for the White Album. McCartney gave Lennon a preview of MMT’s The Fool On The Hill while writing With A Little Help From My Friends for Sgt Pepper.

When the time came for shooting a video for the Lady Madonna single, instead of miming to the song the band decided to record a completely new song, Hey Bulldog, and let the crew film them doing that instead.

You would think that recording 32 songs for the White Album would have exhausted the supply but by the time it was mixed they already had Polythene Pam, The Long And Winding Road, Let It Be, Something & Maxwell’s Silver Hammer lined up ready to go.

Slow Down

 

With such a workload did they ever just relax and take a holiday?

McCartney wrote most of the lyrics to Yesterday while on holiday in Portugal with Jane Asher (having written the bridge while filming Help!). When the Beatles went off to find the meaning of life in India, Lennon, Harrison & McCartney wrote 23 songs in couple of month.

So I guess the answer is no.

Read Blessed Are The Prolific part two