DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Songs => Song Of The Week Series => Topic started by: Hello Goodbye on February 21, 2015, 01:06:51 AM
-
If I Fell
(http://errr-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/unnamed-5-1024x635.jpg)
Between 15 January and 4 February 1964, The Beatles were staying at the George V Hotel in Paris during their marathon concert series at the Olympia Theatre. They needed some original songs for their upcoming movie so they had an upright piano brought to their room...
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6cm37d5bs1qan19ko1_1280.jpg)
That was my first attempt at a ballad proper. That was the precursor to In My Life...it shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads - silly love songs - way back then.
John Lennon 1980 Playboy Magazine Interview.
On 27 February 1964, The Beatles entered EMI Studio Two for their third day of recording for their first motion picture A Hard Day's Night. The morning session brought Paul's And I Love Her to completion as well as starting and completing John's Tell Me Why. The afternoon session ran from 2:30 to 5:30 Fifteen takes of If I Fell were recorded with The Beatles on their usual instruments and singing simultaneously. In order to get the proper feel, John and Paul insisted on doing the intricate harmonies singing into the same microphone.
Take 15 ended up being the final take even though it contained a flaw at the end of the second bridge. Paul's voice cracked on the word "vain" to the point that this extremely high note actually cut off. It was fixed by double-tracking another vocal part as an overdub for that part of the song. John also double-tracked his vocals throughout the entire song, which gives their two-part harmony a rich and full sound.
The Beatles - If I Fell - A Hard Day's Night [Stereo Remastered] - 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szh-TEGjQE0#ws)
The Beatles included the song quite prominently in their live shows throughout the latter half of 1964...
The Beatles If I Fell Live at the Indiana State Fair 3 September 1964 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeuSdfFeEyc#)
John Lennon - Lead Vocals, Rhythm Guitar (1962 Gibson J160E)
Paul McCartney - Harmony Vocals, Bass Guitar (1963 Hofner 500/1)
George Harrison - Lead Guitar (1963 Rickenbacker 360-12 Fire-glo)
Ringo Starr - Drums (1963 Ludwig Downbeat Black Oyster Pearl)
-
This one is only alright for me. Its not bad and the harmonies are simply fantastic, but it just has never been a favorite to my ears. That's not saying I dislike it though.
-
Great song from a stunning L.P. but wouldn't get in my own Beatles' Top 40.
All the better, though, for Paul's mistake at the end.....a million years, mercifully, from the dead hand of 'Auto-Tune'.
It was non-45 L.P. tracks like 'All My Loving' and 'And I Love Her' and 'If I Fell' that hinted at a longer career than might have originally been expected (not least by themselves!) for The Beatles.
Clearly, even as early as '64, the group's catalogue 'bats a long way down'.
The 'Beatles Monthly' Poll of 1983 have it in the exalted position of 17 with 552 votes, polling 20 more (really?!!!) than 'Here Comes The Sun' at 18.
-
One of many little gems from the Beatles catalog.
It was non-45 L.P. tracks like 'All My Loving' and 'And I Love Her' and 'If I Fell' that hinted at a longer career than might have originally been expected (not least by themselves!) for The Beatles.
Actually "If I Fell" was released as a single in UK in December 1964 (with "Tell Me Why" as the B-side), but it was made only for export purposes; so it is not considered as an official single.
(http://www.jpgr.co.uk/dp562_a.jpg)
(http://www.jpgr.co.uk/dp562_b.jpg)
http://www.jpgr.co.uk/dp562.html (http://www.jpgr.co.uk/dp562.html)
"If I Fell" was also the B-side of the US single "And I Love Her". "If I Fell" peaked at #53, a decent position for a B-side.
-
I enjoy this one, the harmonizing as always is great
-
A unique tune. Very different for its time, as so many Beatles songs were. Outstanding harmonies, of course. One of the better love ballads.
:)
-
I love this song, one of my top Beatle favorites. It's so simple and beautiful. The harmonies are so exquisite they make my heart soar.
-
Wonderful harmonies, especially when going into the middle eight. It took me weeks to figure that out and I consider myself to be talented with a good ear for harmonies. :)
-
Great ballad! I always liked it!
-
It's a beautiful love ballad. It appears twice in A Hard Day's Night...
The Beatles - If I fell (from the movie A hard day's night) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot_AqGfTjjg#)
A Hard Day's Night - Tell Me Why / If I Fell / I Should Have Known Better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-H7Ug8KNVk#)
-
I love this song, one of my top Beatle favorites. It's so simple and beautiful. The harmonies are so exquisite they make my heart soar.
Well put Kathy! I've always loved this song too. I still remember how exciting it was to see it performed the first time I watched "A Hard Day's Night".
The falsetto rendering in this demo makes the song sound like something John might have learned from his mother:
http://youtu.be/1y42Q9vG50A (http://youtu.be/1y42Q9vG50A)
Thanks for continuing this thread Barry. It's a valuable one.
-
Wonderful harmonies, especially when going into the middle eight. It took me weeks to figure that out and I consider myself to be talented with a good ear for harmonies. :)
When John and Paul shared a microphone, you knew they meant business...
(http://media.clickblog.it/l/lei/leica-camera-ag-a-photokina-2014/th/paul-mccartney-john-lennon-performing-a-t-the-beatles-last-concert-at-candlestick-park-in-san-francisco-california-august-29-1966-jim-marshall-photography-llc.jpeg)
This fellow shows you what they did...
How to Sing If I Fell Vocal Cover Harmony Lesson Tutorial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoKjXx0zcXU#ws)
-
A unique tune. Very different for its time, as so many Beatles songs were. Outstanding harmonies, of course. One of the better love ballads.
:)
I like it...a bit twee..but very nice. Not sure how "unique" or "different for its time" it is? Its a standard format..very well done of course...but hardly groundbreaking. Ballads with tight harmonies weren't new.
-
I don't think the harmonizing was so unique, but rather the song's overall structure. I can't think of anything else quite like it. Probably just my lack of knowledge, but that's what I was referring to.
:)
-
I don't think the harmonizing was so unique, but rather the song's overall structure. I can't think of anything else quite like it. Probably just my lack of knowledge, but that's what I was referring to.
:)
Maybe the intro, which has a different sung melody than the rest of the song, is a special characteristic of the track (even though this was not something new even for the Beatles; see "Do You Want To Know A Secret", for example). It's also difficult to divide the main melody in different sections.
-
Yea. I would be interested in hearing some examples of songs of that time that were similar in structure.
Enlighten me.
:)
-
The much later "Alone Again Or" by Love, from 1967, is another example of continuous melody without defined sections. Then there's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" by Dylan, from 1965. I'd have to think harder to find an earlier example.
-
Of course we could also find some blues records with monotonous melodies. I think of "I Wish You Would", recorded by the Yardbirds in 1964, and originally released by Billy Boy Arnold in 1955. But "If I Fell" is a pop ballad, and in the world of pop ballads its structure may be innovative.
-
That's what I was thinking.
Great minds...
;)
-
Even from such an overtly romantic album as "A Hard Day's Night", this beauty wears its heart on its sleeve. I take Kevin's point about it not really breaking new ground - you might regard it as a fairly transparent nod to The Everly Brothers - but the vulnerability is a bold move from 23 year old tough guy Lennon, whose songwriting prowess was gathering both momentum and maturity at this stage, and on this track the lyrical trepidation is palpable. He'd done the occasional soft-bellied ballad before ("Ask Me Why", "This Boy") but this one was deeper and much more emotionally plugged in.
Those harmonies - wow! I'm still impressed at the confident way John smoothly shifts his vocal register between keys with such ease. Paul's high harmony poured on top is just beautiful - even his vocal "crack" is touching.
God they can turn me into a soppy old git when they're on top of their game! ;)
-
The mystery deepens.
I know I must seem kooky, but I keep waiting for someone to point out which songs of the day this one is similar to. Oh, I get the Everly Brothers style harmony thing - who wouldn't?
No, I'm basically pointing out that I can't think of anything too similar melodically, rhythmically, etc. No big deal, I guess. Just a bit baffling to me.
Well, and I'm no musicologist. But I'll keep searching, hoping to satisfy my curiosity.
:)
-
The mystery deepens.
I know I must seem kooky, but I keep waiting for someone to point out which songs of the day this one is similar to. Oh, I get the Everly Brothers style harmony thing - who wouldn't?
No, I'm basically pointing out that I can't think of anything too similar melodically, rhythmically, etc. No big deal, I guess. Just a bit baffling to me.
Well, and I'm no musicologist. But I'll keep searching, hoping to satisfy my curiosity.
:)
There is a chapter in the back of Ian McDonalds Revolution In The Head, which shows what music and events were actual during the time The Beatles recorded and released their songs. I'll have a look.
-
Thank you.
:)
-
This is a lovely song. Gorgeous melody and harmony.
In terms of it's departure from songs of the day, I don't think there's anything too radical in itself. The beginning "recitative" wasn't uncommon in songwriting circles (and they'd used it in Do You Want to Know a Secret) but it wasn't common in pop songs of the era. Probably the chord changes and melody are more complex than was standard for pop songs of the day (again more akin to a Porter than a Holly). It's a very sophisticated piece, beautifully structured, which they made sound deceptively simple. Another great Beatle hallmark.
-
This is a lovely song. Gorgeous melody and harmony.
Probably the chord changes and melody are more complex than was standard for pop songs of the day
Sorry but that statement baffles me. What do you mean by "probably?" Or should it read "hopefully."
Don't we need to look at the chord changes of other pop songs of the day, agree on some measure of complexity and then make some comparisons? Or at least google it. Maybe it is more complex, I don't know.....but probably? Bad science my friend, bad science.
I mean this to be more light hearted than it sounds and no disrespect to anyone, but as Beatle fans we do tend to credit The Beatles with inventing the wheel.
-
I'm with you. This is nothing to lose sleep over, and I don't mean to be argumentative. I simply can't think of anything very similar to this song on the scene prior to its release. People cite the intro or harmonies, but that's not stuff that is so unique to me. I say simplistically, it's the song itself.
Any offerings? Yes? No? Maybe so?
:)
-
I'm with you. This is nothing to lose sleep over, and I don't mean to be argumentative.
Mate - I really enjoy these discussions. It's nice when this place is more than a Beatles love-in. There's no where else I can do this. I tried discussing the tradition of the songs aababa structure and Everlesk harmonies, not to mention the commonplaceness of its teen-bait lyrics with the wife, but as always when I mentioned The Beatles her eyes glazed over and she left the room. Apparently I'm a "pretentious tosser."
As if.
You know for years I immersed myself in Beatleworld, read nothing but Beatle books etc. One day I thought "how could one band be responsible for so much innovation, change etc" It seemed so improbable, and certainly without any precedent I'm aware of.
Either, I thought, there was something incredibly unique about The Beatles, never repeated, or they were The Million Chimpanzees At Typewriters And One Writes Shakespeare kind of thing. ( I veered towards the first)
Then one day I was reading about The early Stones, and how they didn't put singles on albums because "this was a long standing convention in the British recording industry?"
What! For years I was telling people that The Beatles were so good, so unique, that they didn't need to put singles on albums, or lift album tracks for singles. But everyone was doing it - it's there to see for anyone to check. It's just that I never had. I just convinced myself it was a unique Beatle thing.
So my belief that they invented the musical world began to erode. Now I think that we're one of many chipping away at the coal face. Certainly they were better at it than most, and their fame meant they got more attention and also meant that they had more freedom in the studio to do what they want.
-
Thank you.
:)
I couldn't find much to be honest. In the UK charts it's all Merseybeat songs, even in the previous months before recording the song. Pollack notes that the intro is unusual for The Beatles in this period and that is reminiscent of Gershwin and Porter. That's about it to be honest. So I couldn't find anything about where John got his inspiration from or a song in the same period that is a bit like If I Fell.
-
I couldn't find much to be honest. In the UK charts it's all Merseybeat songs, even in the previous months before recording the song. Pollack notes that the intro is unusual for The Beatles in this period and that is reminiscent of Gershwin and Porter. That's about it to be honest. So I couldn't find anything about where John got his inspiration from or a song in the same period that is a bit like If I Fell.
The songs structure is intro/aababa. A quick google shows this as a common derivative of the standard aaba ballad form.
It doesn't even seem that unique for a Beatles song. Paul's And I Love Her, with which this was paired in the Us, goes aaba/instrumental/aba. Not worlds away.
-
Yea. Thanks, folks.
No, I don't put them on pedestals or believe they invented everything. This is one simple instance of not being aware of anything being very much like it before, in my experience. So I was fishing for some comparisons. "intro/aababa" notwithstanding, the song doesn't sound to me like anything I've heard prior to it. I plead ignorance.
Whatever. Nice song. As you were.
;)
-
This one seems to be a hit or miss with my friends that like the beatles. I personally love it but i tend to be more of a romantic when it comes to picking my favorite beatle songs. This has meant so much to be when it comes to forming relationships lyricaly it means a lot to me. Harmony wise though not my ultimate favorite but i do really love this song.
-
I personally love it but i tend to be more of a romantic when it comes to picking my favorite beatle songs.
I'm just the opposite: I love this song, too, but I definitely am not a romantic when it comes to favorite Beatles songs. While admiring their quality, I tend to shy away from the more romantic stuff. :)
-
Sorry but that statement baffles me. What do you mean by "probably?" Or should it read "hopefully."
Don't we need to look at the chord changes of other pop songs of the day, agree on some measure of complexity and then make some comparisons? Or at least google it. Maybe it is more complex, I don't know.....but probably? Bad science my friend, bad science.
I mean this to be more light hearted than it sounds and no disrespect to anyone, but as Beatle fans we do tend to credit The Beatles with inventing the wheel.
It was loose language on my part Kevin. I used probably as, while I hadn't personally done an analysis of If I Fell, it's harmonics and melody certainly sounds more involved to me than many songs of the era. Like a cross between a standard pop ballad and something from a Cole Porter musical.
I should also have said average pop song of the era. Clearly If I Fell would have companions in being more intricate . But I think these songs were more the exception than the rule compared to a lot of stuff at the same time. It's more an impression though than based on thorough study.
As to a formal "scientific" comparison of Beatle songs, it certainly can be done and that work has been done extensively. I can't find the reference but I did read a musicologist had found the Beatles averaged eight to nine chords per song as opposed to four to five for their contemporaries. Of course that's only comparing against pop/rock and roll artists. Obviously jazz and other types of music commonly used very complex forms. But after reading a lot about the Beatles songwriting and arranging I think that's what their point of difference mainly narrows done to; bringing in a wide variety of "professional" songwriting techniques from other genres into a pop-rock format. Even then they weren't the only ones doing it. Brian Wilson is an obvious example of a similar approach.
And as I said originally, I don't think there's anything radically new in this song. It's basically a very well written pop ballad. Which I love. Which is the most important measure anyway.
-
You know for years I immersed myself in Beatleworld, read nothing but Beatle books etc. One day I thought "how could one band be responsible for so much innovation, change etc" It seemed so improbable, and certainly without any precedent I'm aware of.
Either, I thought, there was something incredibly unique about The Beatles, never repeated, or they were The Million Chimpanzees At Typewriters And One Writes Shakespeare kind of thing. ( I veered towards the first)
Then one day I was reading about The early Stones, and how they didn't put singles on albums because "this was a long standing convention in the British recording industry?"
What! For years I was telling people that The Beatles were so good, so unique, that they didn't need to put singles on albums, or lift album tracks for singles. But everyone was doing it - it's there to see for anyone to check. It's just that I never had. I just convinced myself it was a unique Beatle thing.
So my belief that they invented the musical world began to erode. Now I think that we're one of many chipping away at the coal face. Certainly they were better at it than most, and their fame meant they got more attention and also meant that they had more freedom in the studio to do what they want.
This is well said Kevin. I, like you, was drunk on the Beatle Kool Aid for many years until reading about other bands and other music in the industry. Suddenly, I came to find out that the Beatles weren't the Thomas Edisons of everything that was music. I think half the stuff they credit for, they probably had no idea they were even doing. Take this song for instance, I realize it hasent been proven, but if it was indeed different or more advanced then other material of the age, do you think Lennon was conscious of it at the time he was writing it? I hardly think so.
Anyways, I love the Beatles and I believe they had some magic amongst themselves, but they don't hold a monopoly on modern music like a ton of people think.
-
Then one day I was reading about The early Stones, and how they didn't put singles on albums because "this was a long standing convention in the British recording industry?"
What! For years I was telling people that The Beatles were so good, so unique, that they didn't need to put singles on albums, or lift album tracks for singles. But everyone was doing it - it's there to see for anyone to check. It's just that I never had. I just convinced myself it was a unique Beatle thing.
That's interesting. I think most references play down the importance of albums prior to the mid 60s and give the impression it was just a way to repackage the popular singles. And the Beatles first two singles went on an album named after their number one hit. Which I thought was the more common practice.
It's possible there were different approaches and the Beatles just adopted primarily the no single on album one. As they were the most famous it became associated with them.
-
Take this song for instance, I realize it hasent been proven, but if it was indeed different or more advanced then other material of the age, do you think Lennon was conscious of it at the time he was writing it? I hardly think so.
I'm sure he didn't too. I think they were just doing what they did well. Grabbing bits from all the hundreds of songs they knew and putting them into a new one.
-
If a fan of The Stones in the 60s (the ONLY time to be a fan of the Stones) bought every British 45, EP and LP on the day of release, apart from the two compilations, 'Big Hits.....' and 'Through The Past Darkly', they would have duplicated just two (that's 'two') songs, 'Little by Little' and 'Off The Hook'*.
That's just two songs repeated over 8 LPs, 3 EPs and 15 singles.
Compare that to the ludicrous duplication of their 60s catalogue today.
I think someone counted that when the avalanche of UK and US CDs were re-issued in 2002, you'd own 'Ruby Tuesday' seven times.....and you STILL wouldn't have the British versions of the first two LPs!
*The 'non-choir' b-side 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' is completely different to the LP version.
-
If a fan of The Stones in the 60s (the ONLY time to be a fan of the Stones) bought every British 45, EP and LP on the day of release, apart from the two compilations, 'Big Hits.....' and 'Through The Past Darkly', they would have duplicated just two (that's 'two') songs, 'Little by Little' and 'Off The Hook'*.
That's just two songs repeated over 8 LPs, 3 EPs and 15 singles.
Compare that to the ludicrous duplication of their 60s catalogue today.
I think someone counted that when the avalanche of UK and US CDs were re-issued in 2002, you'd own 'Ruby Tuesday' seven times.....and you STILL wouldn't have the British versions of the first two LPs!
*The 'non-choir' b-side 'You Can't Always Get What You Want' is completely different to the LP version.
I love the Stones, but I only need 8 albums by them: Out Of Our Heads (US), Aftermath (US), Between The Buttons (US), Their Satanic Majesties Request, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street. Anyway, in my selected collection they are only surpassed by the Beatles (14 albums), the Who (9) and Bob Dylan (9).
-
I value the UK versions of those LPs far more than their US equivalents, the US versions have fewer, and yet more overly familiar, songs (e.g. 'Ruby Tuesday', 'Let's Spend The Night Together', 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It, Black' etc. - they were all on 45 in the UK).
My point was really about the value given by groups in the 60s in the UK.
The Who are another example.
If we disregard the spoiling tactics by their previous label in the 1966 (it's a long story), I think that from The High Numbers' 45 in 1964 to 'Tommy' in 1969 only three songs are duplicated.....'My Generation', 'I Can See For Miles' and 'Pinball Wizard'.
-
I value the UK versions of those LPs far more than their US equivalents, the US versions have fewer, and yet more overly familiar, songs (e.g. 'Ruby Tuesday', 'Let's Spend The Night Together', 'Satisfaction', 'Paint It, Black' etc. - they were all on 45 in the UK).
That's exactly the reason why I prefer the US versions, because I want to have "Satisfaction", "Paint It Black" and "Ruby Tuesday". The other way to have those songs is getting a compilation, but I can't get no satisfaction with any released Rolling Stones collection.
-
Well, the original UK pressings gave everyone the best of both worlds, the hits on the 45s, 99% original material on the EPs and LPs.
One thing we probably can agree on is that in 2015 the Stones' 60s catalogue is in complete disarray; it's Brian Jones' birthday tomorrow n'all.
I'd go so far to say it's a disgrace and, until it's sorted, I'm in absolutely no danger of lining Jagger & Co's pocket ever again.
-
Well, the original UK pressings gave everyone the best of both worlds, the hits on the 45s, 99% original material on the EPs and LPs.
One thing we probably can agree on is that in 2015 the Stones' 60s catalogue is in complete disarray; it's Brian Jones' birthday tomorrow n'all.
I'd go so far to say it's a disgrace and, until it's sorted, I'm in absolutely no danger of lining Jagger & Co's pocket ever again.
Yes, the Stones' 60's catalogue has become a mess, but that's a big problem only if you are a completist, which I'm not. I think I have every Stones record I need; I'd say that I only miss "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women".
-
If I Fell
Henry Mancini - If I Fell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXa1SaYTXU#)
The Music of Lennon & McCartney 1965
-
That's interesting. I think most references play down the importance of albums prior to the mid 60s and give the impression it was just a way to repackage the popular singles. And the Beatles first two singles went on an album named after their number one hit. Which I thought was the more common practice.
It's possible there were different approaches and the Beatles just adopted primarily the no single on album one. As they were the most famous it became associated with them.
It surprised me. From what I can see the shadows, cliff,billy fury and lonnie donegan all released single free albums. Even the tornadoes, with a uk single the first to to top the us charts, omitted it from their only album.
So in fact bunging two singles on their debut actually makes The Beatles look a little remiss. Naughty Beatles!
-
I'm far from a completist, myself.
'Come On' to 'Let It Bleed' and all things in-between.
Everything else I leave, in Ed Reardon's words, to the '12-year olds'.
-
It surprised me. From what I can see the shadows, cliff,billy fury and lonnie donegan all released single free album. Even the tornadoes, with a uk single the first to toothy us charts, omitted it from their only album.
So in fact bunging two singles on their debut actually makes The Beatles look a little remiss. Naughty Beatles!
I had a look and found similar. Although in 1962 Acker Bilk, Frank Ifield and Joe Brown also did the other thing of releasing an album of the same name as their hit single. So it looks like both approaches were pretty common. Maybe it depended on the type of artist and expectation of whether they'd sell albums in any number influenced it.
I took a slightly more cynical approach to the Beatles "generosity" of not including main singles on albums anyway. I thought it was a good way to maximise single sales. The record company just had to be confident you could sell albums without the singles. Once they new you could it made sense not to cannibalise single sales by letting some people in the market wait for the album.
-
The only Beatles UK single actually lifted from an LP was right at the f**-end of the decade, 'Something'/'Come Together', on the instruction of a man who knew exactly which way the wind was blowing, Allen Klein (see also Peter Grant.....these guys were MADE for the 1970s).
The Beatles themselves had, by that time, rightly and honourably jumped ship.
The first Stones' A-side (along with its B-side!) to appear on an LP was, whaddya know, the first one after the 60s!
By the end of the 1970s, two 45s were routinely taken from LPs, then three in the dire 1980s.....etc. etc.
Value for money out the window, pack all the consumers into vast stadia, sell 'em T-Shirts and baseball caps.
Hyde Park, Woodstock and Altamont had all pointed the way in 1969.
It's only a hop, skip and a jump to the farce of 'Thriller' by the....erm.....'King of Pop', again in the dire 1980s, when the plundering of singles over a full two years off said LP all but killed the pop single, the pop chart, and made shows such as 'Top of the Pops' almost completely redundant.
Thank the Lord, The Beatles were around when they were as, if The White Album had been released in 1982, they'd have released seven singles off it.....and the need to produce new music like 'Get Back', 'Ballad of John & Yoko' and 'Abbey Road' would have been unnecessary, and would probably have never existed.
-
Why was that three-letter F-word, slang in the UK for a cigarette, deleted?!!!!
So long as you know it was that one, and not the other one!
-
Hyde Park, Woodstock and Altamont had all pointed the way in 1969.
Or Shea stadium. Those bloody Beatles again, ruining things again. :)
-
If I Fell
Henry Mancini - If I Fell ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPXa1SaYTXU#[/url])
The Music of Lennon & McCartney 1965
My, what a unique ...eh...um...nifty tune. I can't thing else quite like it.
:P
-
Thank the Lord, The Beatles were around when they were as, if The White Album had been released in 1982, they'd have released seven singles off it.....and the need to produce new music like 'Get Back', 'Ballad of John & Yoko' and 'Abbey Road' would have been unnecessary, and would probably have never existed.
You're falling into that trap again.
Assuming that the market which evolved after The Beatles era would have prevailed anyway, had they stayed together....
Rather than them remaining market leaders whose quality control would have steered the industry away from such an unimaginitive, lazy practise ;)
-
Rather than them remaining market leaders whose quality control would have steered the industry away from such an unimaginitive, lazy practise ;)
I think the Beatles were a product of the 1960's more than the 1960's a product of the Beatles. So I don't believe in your theory.
-
...but as Beatle fans we do tend to credit The Beatles with inventing the wheel.
Kevin, you have just obliterated all knowledge I have ever held sacred and crushed my world!!! You mean The Beatles DIDN'T invent the wheel?! O.M.G! ;D
-
Anyways, I love the Beatles and I believe they had some magic amongst themselves, but they don't hold a monopoly on modern music like a ton of people think.
Um, sir, I beg to differ with you:
-
I think the story and the magic of the Beatles grow the more I read how they became what they became. That they were a product of what went before and what was going on around them. That there were enormous chunks of luck that got them to where they were. But luck they had the attributes to take advantage of. I don't now needed to think they were some super musical geniuses who sprang into being to change music. The real story is much more interesting in my opinion.
And all the fêted artists of all eras; Mozart, Puccini, Shakespeare, had stories much more interesting than that they were simply gifted geniuses.
-
I think the story and the magic of the Beatles grow the more I read how they became what they became. That they were a product of what went before and what was going on around them. That there were enormous chunks of luck that got them to where they were. But luck they had the attributes to take advantage of. I don't now needed to think they were some super musical geniuses who sprang into being to change music. The real story is much more interesting in my opinion.
And all the fêted artists of all eras; Mozart, Puccini, Shakespeare, had stories much more interesting than that they were simply gifted geniuses.
Very well put Moog! I don't just love The Beatles for their music but also for their sociological impact and how they fit into history.
-
Haven't fallen into any trap, Mr. Mustard.
'Abbey Road' was released on 26th September, 1969 - Something/Come Together was released as a 45 on 31st October, 1969.....The Beatles, within their own era, had ALREADY succumbed to this 'lazy, unimaginative practice'.
If, however, I do fall into a trap I'll be the first to tell you!
-
A brace of tracks forming just one single (not several) at a time when The Beatles were already losing interest and bailing out of their own group identity. The Sixties HAD to end; The Beatles didn't have to end with them.
They bent and flowed with the times I grant you, but to believe that, had they stayed together, they wouldn't have remained a major cog shaping (not inventing) the wheel of the music industry IS to succumb to the trap of assuming those hideous 70s/80s would have been no different to how we now remember them. I firmly believe a music scene containing an extant Beatles would have evolved somewhat differently to the way it did. But we'll never truly know. They would have absorbed some emerging styles but initiated and steered others.... don't imagine them with eye-liner, shoulder pads and back-combed mullets - they always had more taste.
Not having a pop at anyone by the way... I respect all views.
-
If the Record Industry of the time wanted four or five 45s off an album, I don't see how The Beatles would have changed it or, judging by the marketing of McCartney's albums over the years, even if they would have wanted to change it.
I can think of no major (i.e. shifted product worldwide) post-60s artist who put out distinct 45s and LPs.
I don't think The Beatles had any more taste in the 60s than any of their rivals. They were all from the same stock.
-
"What if" is a hard and dangerous - but fun - game to play.
As The Stones managed to stay relevant until the mid seventies I guess The Beatles could have done the same.
But there's no escaping the fact that they broke up when they did because they could no longer function as a working unit. So for them to continue in our fantasy seventies universe would require either a personel change or a change in the groups dynamics.
Let's say they managed to continue in a working relationship. Rock has many stories of artists barely on speaking terms making great music - you could even argue that it helps, not hinders, a bands creativity.
If you take the best songs from contempory solo albums, get The beatles to record them and Mr Martin to produce them and you get for a few years at least a brace of perfectly acceptable albums.
But I would guess that their days as movers and shakers were probably over, though I know the medley on Abbey Road is often cited as evidence of a possible career in the prog rock field, and maybe so.
Maybe Paul would have come up with something (again) that coulkd have breathed new life into them. Maybe.
-
Can't disagree with any of that, Kevin.
My point was that, if you wanted fresh product every two or three months from a group (surely the template for the most vibrant/changing/competitive era), your optimum time is the one that The Beatles so fortuitously inhabited.
-
deleted a stupid post
-
deleted a stupid post
Omigosh, I thought I was the only one who had ever done that! :)
-
Ive tried to understand where klang is coming from when he talks about the song being somehow original structure wise but I cant see it myself, for me its a very good Beatles song, well sung that showed L & M were truly excellent song-smiths..............one thing that lets it down for me is the lyrics 'If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be true' is a tad corny (you rhyming with true has been slightly over-used).
As far as melody goes I always thought John was 'inspired' by Nat King Cole's 'When I Fall In Love' from 1956.
I would always rate Nat's song as higher quality than Johns though, both lyrically and melodically and it has become a well deserved standard.
I do love the song though, and the way they recorded it.
As far as the Beatles 'inventing' not putting singles on albums, from memory, this was never really attributed to them in the 60's, it was always described as a 'British' (money concious) thing, thats why other British bands like The Stones also didnt do it. Ive no idea when or why it was attributed to The Beatles.
-
Well, you know, I'm not vehement about it. I just can't think of any other song that's very much like it. I'm possibly just overlooking something. I'll give the Cole cut a listen. Maybe that's my missing link. But if it's the one I'm thinking of, I couldn't see much similarity.
Off to the stacks!
roll:)
-
Hmm...Well, here it is...
http://youtu.be/GfAb0gNPy6s (http://youtu.be/GfAb0gNPy6s)
Not really hitting the spot for me, but I suppose the two songs must be sharing a few notes here and there, being as how they're both within the range of human audibility.
I really don't mean to be difficult. I just don't connect those two very much. I certainly welcome any helpful suggestions in my quest to confirm that "If I Fell" is not unique. So far I'm failing miserably.
:-\
-
The distinction between 45s and LPs was almost a standard thing in the UK in the 60s.
The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Them, Dusty etc. all regularly released stand-alone A-sides as well as, let us not forget, stand-alone B-sides.
Might as well mention it again.....if you bought every Stones' 45 and LP from 'Come On' in June 1963 to Let It Bleed in December 1969, you repeated just two songs, 'Little by Little' and 'Off the Hook'. The wheels only came off when they left Decca.
-
It probably does sound unusual as it was done using that four square beat that modern rock used. I've always thought it sounds like a Doo wop type of song with the recitative at the beginning to give it a more 30s musical sound. But while a Doo wop would have employed a more swing type beat the Beatles were using a solid four/four pattern. So it does sound different I think. As usual the Beatles were adapting different forms for the new era.
I notice Pollacks page also credits the bridges as a bit unusual in the way they grow as an extension from the verse. I'm not sure it's a lot different from a double bridge type song but if you do think it has unique qualities you're in good company.
It's a wonderfully constructive song. I really like it.
-
I always felt :"If I Fell" should have been a single.
It was a U.S. single, and now I hear it was a rare U.K. import single. Anyone else aware of that? :o
-
It was a U.S. single, and now I hear it was a rare U.K. import single. Anyone else aware of that? :o
Parlophone DP 562 Meant for export...
(http://thebeatles-collection.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DP-562-1.jpg) (http://thebeatles-collection.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DP-562-2.jpg)
-
Came across this the other day very enjoyable to listen to but where is Ringo ?
https://youtu.be/I2gQIeTc8Ak (https://youtu.be/I2gQIeTc8Ak)
-
Came across this the other day very enjoyable to listen to but where is Ringo ?
[url]https://youtu.be/I2gQIeTc8Ak[/url] ([url]https://youtu.be/I2gQIeTc8Ak[/url])
Maybe his microphone went dead.
It's from Blackpool Night Out - 19 July 1964...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSJ8858mDmI# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSJ8858mDmI#)
-
That’s nice. Haven’t heard that. On first listen on iPad I can’t hear Paul’s bass either. It’s like an unplugged version
-
If you listen on headphone's you can hear the bass playing plainly and also you can hear very quiet snare drum ....think Barry is right Ringo's Mike wasn't working well.
-
If you listen on headphone's you can hear the bass playing plainly and also you can hear very quiet snare drum ....think Barry is right Ringo's Mike wasn't working well.
Ah so you can. My first listen just used the iPad speaker which is a bit tinny.
Regardless it’s a nice version.
-
Ringo's drumming was more pronounced at The Hollywood Bowl...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihh4-uzFGsM# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihh4-uzFGsM#)
and at The Indiana State Fair...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeuSdfFeEyc# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeuSdfFeEyc#)
-
What a great song, one of my favorites. This version, with its simplicity, gives me chills. I can't hear Ringo, either, but I listened to it on my desktop.
-
Came across this the other day very enjoyable to listen to but where is Ringo ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OikFB8IGA# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8OikFB8IGA#)
-
Ive been trying to sing Johns harmony for years but never mastered it :-[
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_80s6S_7Vw# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_80s6S_7Vw#)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoKjXx0zcXU# (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoKjXx0zcXU#)
-
I hate that guys accent Baz ha2ha ha2ha
He doesnt actually teach you anything, except that he can sing it
-
He might not like your accent, Kev. ;D
Paul had the easier vocal. I too tried to harmonize with Paul for years but never got John's vocal right until I watched that video. He goes into a bit of detail with notes and variations but you get the idea how John sang his harmony vocal.
-
He might not like your accent, Kev. ;D
Paul had the easier vocal. I too tried to harmonize with Paul for years but never got John's vocal right until I watched that video. He goes into a bit of detail with notes and variations but you get the idea how John sang his harmony vocal.
He would probably hate my accent ;D