DM's Beatles forums

Beatles forums => Albums => Microscopes => Topic started by: tkitna on March 25, 2011, 10:07:07 PM

Title: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 25, 2011, 10:07:07 PM
With The Beatles

I havent played this album in awhile and it was refreshing when I did. I usually don’t give this record too much thought, but its an interesting listen. I’ve come to the conclusion that its better than I’ve given it credit for.

1. It Wont Be Long - I’ve always liked this song. Nice little rocker. The first thing I’ll comment on is that I really like the competing ‘Yeah’s’ throughout. I like how they go back and forth with that. Paul and Georges backgrounds are good. I love the rhythm guitar sound. Paul handles the bass well as usual. George’s guitar playing is solid here. When you listen to him it almost seems as though he’s lagging at times, but he isn’t. Nice job. Cool ending to the song also.

2. All I’ve Got To Do - This song doesn’t do much for me. Johns voice is nice enough. I like Pauls higher voice in the backgrounds also. Actually the background vocals as a whole are nice. Not thrilled with the guitar sound, but it is what it is. Again, not a lot to say about this throwaway.

3. All My Loving - Here’s one of their more popular tunes that I’ve never been a huge fan of for some reason. I don’t know why, but I’m just not. Ringo’s shuffle and backbeat is great. The bass is cool too. Not crazy about the busy guitar for some reason. John and George do a nice job together. Good little guitar solo. Nothing great, but tasteful. Sounds like theres something being played in the background during the chorus. A shaker of some sort? I cant pick it out.

4. Don’t Bother Me - I like this song. Its been a guilty pleasure of mine for a long time. First thing I noticed was at the 0:03 mark. Sounds like one of them says bastard or something in the background. I don’t know. George’s double tracked voice doesn’t line up all the time. Ringo is solid in the song, but stops at the 0:38 mark for some reason. He should have filled that spot, but just does nothing for whatever reason. Oh well. The Congo beat (or whatever it is) needs to go. Annoying. Guitar solo is ok. Nothing special. I do like the sound of the guitar strums throughout. 1:55 mark sounds like Ringo rushes for some reason.

5. Little Child - Alright song, but nothing earth shattering. Struggling with that harmonica again. Piano is nice though. I dig Johns voice during the ‘I’m so sad and lonely’ part. 0:30 mark I have notes about a ‘Yeah’ in the backgound, but I cant remember what I was meaning. Was it added or was there an emphasis on it? I should relisten, but I’m lazy. 0:37 mark the backgrounds sound off. 0:54 theres a drum echo happening. The bass cooks. 1:12 terrible studio edit. 1:37 love Pauls ‘Oh Yeah’.

6. Till There Was You - Always liked this one. Guitar is great. Tone and playing. Bongo’s add and are welcomed here. Pauls voice is made for this type of song. Georges solo is awesome. Applause. I like the ending too. Great song in my opinion.

7. Please Mr. Postman - Another song I’ve always dismissed, but they do a pretty decent job with it. I like George and Pauls ‘OOH’s’ in the background. Johns voice is convincing. Ringo does a great job of filling space with the open hi hat noise. Guitars are solid. 2:19 Paul throws an ‘OOH’ in there that’s bad. Should have skipped that one. Too high and weird sounding.

8. Roll Over Beethoven - Two things I’d like to say before I start with this song. One- I wish Paul sang it. Two- I so much prefer the Live At Hollywood Bowl version that all others will fail miserably with me. Ok, moving on. Georges guitar sounds thin to me here. More distortion maybe? 0:17 speaking of studio effects, here the rest of the band comes in and its like a tidal wave. Nothing subtle here Mr. Martin. Love the 1:11 mark where Ringo comes in with the snare being played like the hi hats. Georges solo starts off great and he plays with passion and then at 1:42 he loses it. Oh George. Ringos bass drum giving the beat throughout is awesome.

9. Hold Me Tight - Another guilty pleasure of mine. Its nothing more than an average filler tune, but I dig it for some reason. I’m on the fence with the handclaps. Sometimes I think their too much and then others they feel like they need to be there. I don’t know. Love how Paul carries the chorus with his high ’Its You oo oo’. The walking guitar is nice. Backgrounds don’t sound tight throughout for some reason. 1:55 mark theres a real low ’OHH’ in the background. Neat. Love the slow down ending.

10. You Really Got Ahold On Me - Here’s one I never liked. Terrible choice for a cover in my opinion. John and George sound good together. 1:17 mark John’s ’Hold On Me’ is awesome. 1:24 the backgrounds and lead vocals arent together. Like their drawn out or something. Guitars and bass plod along. Not much to say about them. 2:23 mark one of them sings ’Baby’ with some extra effort. Its nice, but I’m not sure who did it. Paul maybe? The ending is nice with the guitar and Ringo together. This song just drags though and maybe that’s why I like the ending so much.

11. I Wanna Be Your Man - first off, Ringo smokes on this tune (drumming wise). I’ve noticed the shaker in the background for some reason. It adds and I like it. 1:02 is another obvious studio layer. Its not bad, its just there. I like the guitar solo. No its not technical picking, but just playing chords fits this song like a glove. 1:14 mark John (I think) says something in the background. Couldn’t make it out. 1:30 Paul gives a neat ’OHH’ in the background. Fun ending and I actually like the organ here.

12. Devil In Her Heart - Not one of my favorites. Studio effect is pretty bad when the backgrounds come in. Background vocals are passable. Bass line is cool. Not much else to say except that the song is extremely boring and I was glad when it ended.

13. Not A Second Time - Another throwaway, but I like it for some odd reason. Johns voice is nice. The guitar is ok. The elevator music piano solo makes me throw up in my mouth a little, but what can you do? Nothing says filler more than this tune.

14. Money (That’s What I Want) - Everybody has done a cover of this and the Beatles version isn’t my favorite by a long shot, but they do a decent job regardless.  Johns voice is great here. Paul and George sound fantastic together also. They sound so good that the backgrounds sound much bigger than just the two of them. Are they? Someone tell me. Love the piano. Handclaps are needed here. Nice addition for filling space. Love how Ringo shuts the hats along with the beat. Something as little as that adds so much. Good song.    
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 25, 2011, 11:15:07 PM
I love "All I've Got To Do" and "Not A Second Time", both with great John's vocals. I was never a fan of "Till There Was You", but it was the launching pad for next great ballads by Paul ("And I Love Her", "Yesterday", "Michelle", etc.)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: glass onion on March 26, 2011, 06:26:32 PM
dare i say it.....i have never really cared a lot for 'with the beatles'.obviously there are highlights on the album...'it won't be long' is good,'all my loving',also a softish spot for 'little child'.the ringo fill in 'not a second time',which is the same fill as in 'i want to hold your hand' but back to front,i like that.some other little bits,but not a lot.i never listen to this album-it's got to be 5 years since i heard it,just not for me.the beatles started getting interesting for me at 'rubber soul'.i like the early stuff-it's o.k but it has never really knocked me out like it does other people.nothing wrong with the songs or the playing,though. ;sorry
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 26, 2011, 08:30:18 PM
for me it's:
side A (wont be long thru please mr postman)
side B (roll over btvn thru money)

.......back in the days of albums . .
it was great to be able to choose to put on side one or side two,,, and listen to 20 minutes of a group, not 40
and i think when 'with the beatles' came out, these 2 side albums were presented like a live show song list....
i.e.
big opener / new songs highlighted among covers / big closer
intermission (flip record as needed)
side two opener / fast song / slow song / cover / big finale encore
or whatever
but i'm realizing that all those 'with the beatles songs' on a CD in a row like that are a mess  ha2ha :o
but as two record sides (like originally intended) -> my attention span is highly entertained
-------------------------------------------------


anyway, 'with the beatles' to me is great music
great marriage between the cover art and the mood of the record !
the beatles knock back coversongs like someone dominating every week of american idol
the best house band in the world shows that they've been practicing/playing their asses off for a very long time!
-
best moments: all john's voice
and
till there was you : george (the rough cut/weird one you wouldn't want your daughter to date) plays a guitar solo that shuts every doubting old person the f up . . (creepy crawly brainless yea yea shaggy teenage gimick household pests not withstanding)
and shows guitar work by elvis or ricky nelson need not apply

---
-
and as usual, i usualy agree with anywhere from 54 to 67 percent of what tkitna says about the individual songs  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 26, 2011, 09:08:19 PM
I dont think WTB stands up nowadays as anything major (in terms of great albums) especially when stacked up against Rubber Soul or Revolver for example, but what WTB does represent was a moving on from Please Please Me, the whole thing to me seems to be recorded with much more care and the original songs were a bit classier, (All My Loving for one) its amazing that in those days it was considered kind of 'cheating to put singles on the albums, so no British singles on here..

I will mention the cover art though, what a brilliant photograph that is, copied many many times of course, a BIG step up from the previous album.

Speaking of singles, I always though It Wont Be Long would have been a No 1! and Im amazed it wasnt released in the UK, a truly great pop song IMO, its one of those 'John' belter outers like Hard Days Night and Help, John seemed very very good at writing these kind of songs, songs with loads of energy that kind of smacked you in the face, the Yeah..Yeah..yeahs in the song played very well on the whole Beatles thing like She Loves You, overall though what a great song to open an album with and what a great vocal performance John gave on it, so strong (going back to the George thread this is the kind of song he could never have sung because he didnt have THAT power)

PS Im going to finish this post in another post as when I type more than the actual size of the post window my screen gets annoyingly very jumpy, dont know if this is a problem with the site or just me ?
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 26, 2011, 09:41:53 PM
Quote
2. All I’ve Got To Do - This song doesn’t do much for me. Johns voice is nice enough. I like Pauls higher voice in the backgrounds also. Actually the background vocals as a whole are nice. Not thrilled with the guitar sound, but it is what it is. Again, not a lot to say about this throwaway.

We disagree MASSIVELY on this one tkitna  ;D..........I absolutely love this song, IMO it is the best song written so far (if were talking serious songwriting and not teeny boppergetahitatallcostsdom) in the Beatles canon, I actually think this is a magnificent song which is performed beautifully by the band, the opening line sung by John is sublime and sets up the song wonderfully, its like someone talking to you in a conversation, telling you something....'whenever I--------- want you around yeah.....' very personal and it just sucks you in, then comes the brilliant next line... 'all I gotta do (melisma)' sung with Paul harmonizing, the vocal counterpoint sung by them starts off as parallel thirds (normal harmony) , but then changes over to parallel fourth when Paul holds the same note E (when they sing Do-o-o-o-oooooo) as John starts to descend, I love that they do that.
We then move on to the ........is call you on the phone etc......section resolves the query John laid out in the first line beautifully, he tells us all he has to do to get his girl around (maybe about Cynthia, always at his beck & call?), so by the end of the 1st verse we have 3 completely different sections ! = masterful songwriting.
I could ramble on about it much more but IMO a monumentaly great song showing enormous talent......and I LOVE the hummed outro, like saying....thats the end of this conversation, Im bored  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 26, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
Just to add to my last post on All I Gotta Do, to be fair to John he does state to Cynthia ? in the last section (before he hums the final verse) that he will always be there for her and all she has to do is 'you just gotta call on me'

That line is interesting in itself BTW, English people never say 'you just gotta call on me' as its gramatically incorrect, they would say 'you just have to call on me' the way John says it is more American English form so maybe all his listening to American music was having an effect on his lyrics at this point, I wouldve liked to have asked him if he was aware of that  ;D

Anyway, the song lasts a mere 2 minutes and 3 seconds, nowhere near enough !
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 26, 2011, 11:27:23 PM

We disagree MASSIVELY on this one tkitna  ;D..........I absolutely love this song,

Yeah, we disagree massively. First thing I need to say is that lyrics mean absolutly nothing to me. Seriously, I could care less. I'm a drummer and when I listen to music, the lyrics are the last thing I hear or care about. Thats probably why i'm not a huge John solo fan. I could care less what he has to say. Secondly, Nimord, you seem to have a higher understanding than I do with the actual technical. music aspect of songs. I cant relate with key changes and chord stuff. The notes mean nothing to me. I'm only a drummer. I think this is why we see differntly on a lot of the songs. Theres nothing wrong with that though. I think it makes for good conversation. I might not like a song but you do, but now I understand why. Its kind of like my friend that  loves 'There's A Place'. He's a guitar player and singer. The song does nothing for me. Anyways, when I hear this song, it sounds to me like the lads were under the fire and came up with a song in 10 minutes and there you have it. Its probably me.

All this being said, I like your input as it takes me to a different level of how people listen to songs and music. Thats what i'm looking for. 
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 26, 2011, 11:31:13 PM
PS Im going to finish this post in another post as when I type more than the actual size of the post window my screen gets annoyingly very jumpy, dont know if this is a problem with the site or just me ?

Yeah, its horrible and I dont know why it happens. I do my reviews on WORD and copy and paste because of it. It sucks.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 26, 2011, 11:52:24 PM
tkitna's take on all ive got to do was what i most disagreed with in his post as well
going as as far to call it a throwaway
for me, it's too masterfully executed and musically clever to be in that catagory - vocally, melodically instrumentally .. and lyrically clever as the narrator morphs from abusive user into valliant knight over the backdrop of a swooping chord change
-
the opening guitar that sounds like it has a bit too much echo and is a bit to high in the mix is what makes AIGTD sound like the classic soul record it's mimicing
the harmony shift on doooooo melisma where one note stays the same and the other decends -> interestingly changing the interval ->
isn't that move almost directly from a smokey robinson song ? and didn't george even say this song was john 'doing' smokey robinson
-
that's what fails about the song to me and ultimately leaves me empty after i hear it-> too derivative of smokey robinson and the miricles in the slow part of the song (almost to the point of parodying american soul) . . and to the point of making the song's plaintive theme seem ingenuous
when john belts the 'up' rock part of the song......... the contrast between the soul verses and rock middle break is too strong -> drawing attention to the mimicry even more (in my opinion)

on a whole though... the song is a skillful display of singing, playing and songwriting and it does not offend
-
(would the beatles delve that deep into soul again until... got to get you into my life??  ha2ha)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 27, 2011, 12:01:32 AM
5. Little Child
it doesn't get any better than this.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 27, 2011, 01:55:24 AM
All I've Got to Do..........I absolutely love this song, IMO it is the best song written so far (if were talking serious songwriting and not teeny boppergetahitatallcostsdom) in the Beatles canon, I actually think this is a magnificent song which is performed beautifully by the band...

for me, it's too masterfully executed and musically clever to be in that catagory - vocally, melodically instrumentally ...

All I've Got To Do and You Really Got A Hold On Me are two of my favorite songs on this album.  I liked early soul music when this album came out and it was obvious that John was following up on Baby It's You on Please Please Me.  All I've Got To Do is written and performed well and rightfully takes its place in this music genre.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 27, 2011, 02:43:00 AM
Yeah, we disagree massively. First thing I need to say is that lyrics mean absolutly nothing to me.


All this being said, I like your input as it takes me to a different level of how people listen to songs and music. Thats what i'm looking for.

lyrics (and how they are sung) to me are a vital ingredient in any song..

Thanks tkitna Im glad you like my posts, talking and analyzing the songs is my main reason for being on this excellent forum as I love to talk about music, besides being a musician and guitar teacher I took a degree in music appreciation a number of years ago and it was probably the best thing Ive ever done (2nd to marrying my wife 24.7 years ago)  ;D

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Mr Mustard on March 27, 2011, 02:59:06 AM
Although With The Beatles recreates the template used so successfully on Please Please Me (open and close your album with a feisty rocker, include some slow ballads, chuck in a quick number for Ringo and feature George on lead vocal a couple of times, with a light sprinkling of R&B covers in between) it nevertheless represents a confident stride forwards from its buoyant but wet-behind-the-ears predecessor in my opinion. I agree with nimrod; it's a less rushed, more considered and thoughtful offering. There was no need to hang the album onto a brace of hit singles as before. This album was bold enough to stand on its own - even the trendsetting sleeve marked a willingness to break new ground. The first four tracks are superb:

It Won't Be Long is John Lennon at his high-octane, sledgehammer best. Paul & George do well keeping up with the alternate yeah / yeah vocals....a "hook" the lads made their trademark in '63. Blistering opener to the album.

All I've Got To Do this is superb, mellow brilliance. John's slow burn vocal control is remarkable, complemented by nice harmony from Paul. Mature and confident songwriting. Love this track.

Just when it looks as though alpha male Lennon has the proceedings in an unchallengeable, vice like grip... up pops Paul McCartney with the album's catchiest and most commercial song-that-should-have-been-a-single...

All My Loving deserves its status as one of the - if not THE - highlights from With The Beatles. It is so irresistibly accessible and infectious and I personally love those super-speed guitar triplets from John. I ought to make it clear that I am not a musician (on early Beatle records especially, the vocals are what matters above all else to me), but as the saying goes about art - I might not know much but I know what I like; and for me, George's guitar solo is excellent. A piece of class from all four Beatles from start to finish.

Don't Bother Me of course marks George's début as a composer - and he nails it with his sardonic vocal and downbeat lyrics. Following on directly from the effervescent All My Loving, Harrison's offering provides perfect shadow to McCartney's light - almost like the album cover itself put to music.

Here is where the album loses momentum for me.

Little Child is an out and out filler in my opinion - and worse, an uncharacteristically forgettable one. Twee in a Love, Love Me Do type of way, with none of the maturity that the previous tracks exhibited. Shame, but there was worse to come...

Till There Was You marks the album's low point for me. If anyone can salvage mushy sentimentalism into musical credibility, then it's Paul - yet even he fails to rescue this embarrassingly mawkish piece of schmaltz. Possibly the worst cover version The Beatles ever attempted. It has an old fashioned, flowery theatricality completely at odds with the tracks surrounding it. I'm sure many love it...for me it comes close to spoiling side one of the LP... Sorry!
The guitars are nice but the whole thing sounds so jarringly dated on what had been shaping up as a very modern (for its time) pop album.

Please Mr Postman lifts the spirits to some extent, and the tried and tested formula of John on lead vocals with Paul & George providing enthusiastic backup never fails. But I am always conscious that it's another cover, and I am always disappointed that the promise of those opening four fab tracks by the fab four should have run out of steam by the close of side one.

Still, on to side two (for those of you reading this in vinyl) and it's another helping of George with Roll Over Beethoven. This might have carried more clout had Paul (or better yet, John) taken the lead - I think it was traditionally a Lennon number in the Hamburg and Cavern days. Still, Harrison copes adequately and the track chugs along with sufficient merriment to keep things rolling.

Hold Me Tight for me succeeds where Little Child failed. There are similarities - both bubble along energetically more in hope than anything else - and Paul's offering, like Little Child, is another prime example of "filler" - yet somehow this track has enough momentum to pull through. I like it, but I know some who don't and there are those who openly cringe at Paul's occasionally flat, out of tune vocal. A guilty pleasure for me, and once again employing the echoed one/two-word backing vocal ploy.

You Really Got A Hold On Me does not, alas, exert any hold over me. Redeemed in part by John's stupendous vocal prowess, it was in my opinion a poor choice of cover and oh how it drags! I'm in complete agreement with tkitna here.

I Wanna Be Your Man a lively affair given to Ringo and handled with admirable kick-ass gusto. Refreshing and guaranteed to get my feet tapping and put a smile on my face.

Devil In Her Heart another cover from George. I can't really put my finger on why this works so well, but it does for me. Once again it's probably because the vocal interplay is so much to the fore. In fact I can't readily think of another example of The Beatles "arguing" throughout a song as they do here. I love the various ways that Harrison delivers the "no, no..." rebuttals to John & Paul.

Not A Second Time- well, if penultimate track There's A Place was a forgotten gem from their first album (and for me it was) then Not A Second Time fills that role here. I LOVE this track. Like Don't Bother Me, it resides in the shadows and has a dark and bitter quality delivered with sinister relish by John. None of your I-love-you, you-love-me twee nonsense here... Lennon is wounded and out for revenge. Once again the songwriting shows an impressive maturity in style. This was the famous "aeolian cadence" track raved about by the Times music critic... I wouldn't know about that; for me, the power of the lyrics and the stern piano combine to give this track real attitude. Terrific.

And just as There's A Place presaged rocking finale Twist And Shout, Not A Second Time leads us to..

Money - a real corker on which to finish. As with Twist And Shout, only John could do this one justice, and sure enough he carries off the callous lyrics with ballsy venom. A superb climax to the record.  Follow up albums are notoriously difficult. For me this album confirmed that the Beatles were no flash-in-the-pan one hit wonders, but a real force to be reckoned with.  
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 27, 2011, 03:07:33 AM
Quote
All My Loving deserves its status as one of the - if not THE - highlights from With The Beatles. It is so irresistibly accessible and infectious and I personally love those super-speed guitar triplets from John. I ought to make it clear that I am not a musician (on early Beatle records especially, the vocals are what matters above all else to me), but as the saying goes about art - I might not know much but I know what I like; and for me, George's guitar solo is excellent. A piece of class from all four Beatles from start to finish.

I agree...


one of the most perfect pop songs ever written imo, everything fits, and its very memorable , love Pauls walking bass line and Johns brilliant (difficult to play rhythm guitar part)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 27, 2011, 03:24:13 AM
despite not being a us or uk single . . all my lovin got raido play to the point that it was a single in canada and then snuck it's way onto the us billboard charts
=
it was the beatles opening song on ed sulivan
-
it's the only song on 'with the beatles' to make it onto the classic 'red' compilation double album
-
-
so calling 'all my lovin' the standout star of the album seems substantiated
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 27, 2011, 08:17:33 PM
Dare I say that I dont feel the Beatles do the soul, black, motown kind of stuff well. It just doesnt come across for me. Mr. Mustard stated he didnt like 'Till There Was You' (The End never liked that one either and With The Beatles was his favorite album. Hmm.), but that song does work. I realize its an old musical, showtune or whatever, but its clean, crisp and done right.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Bobber on March 27, 2011, 09:48:44 PM

4. Don’t Bother Me - I like this song. Its been a guilty pleasure of mine for a long time. First thing I noticed was at the 0:03 mark. Sounds like one of them says bastard or something in the background. I don’t know.

The Beatles Anomalies reports:
0:03
    Reported as George Harrison commenting about it being "too fast". Also reported as George saying "B-flat". I can't hear anything clearly, just a vocal "aa" sound.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 27, 2011, 11:30:20 PM
2. All I’ve Got To Do
if you don't understand what this song is about, then clearly you aren't human.  
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 28, 2011, 12:16:50 AM
Quote
Little Child is an out and out filler in my opinion - and worse, an uncharacteristically forgettable one. Twee in a Love, Love Me Do type of way, with none of the maturity that the previous tracks exhibited. Shame, but there was worse to come...


yes I agree, a throwaway track or whats called 'filler' nowadays

the remastered version has taken away all the muddiness caused by quite a few overdubs on the original

probably the most interesting thing about Little Child is that during the instrumental break the form of it changes to a straight on 12 bar blues, which is pretty clever.

Its only 1:45 long  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 28, 2011, 01:05:30 AM
Well then only The Beatles can make a filler track sound so good.  I liked Little Child when I first heard it in 1964.  It was the harmonica (or mouth organ if that be the case) that did it for me.  Later on when I took blues guitar lessons, I came to understand the instrumental break better and I liked this song that much more.  Thank you, nimrod, for refreshing my memory.

As far as "maturity" goes, The Beatles were scoring big with teenybopper girls with songs like this.  It had its desired effects.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 28, 2011, 01:15:55 AM
strange, but teenybopper 'throwaways' like little child or devil in her heart - took on a whole different vibe when they were in the beatles television cartoon and (to me) really came across strong
.. yellow submarine, all together now and maxwells silver hammer were basically children's songs . . along those lines (as hello goodbye just kinda said) -> nothing wrong with fun songs aimed to teenaged girls
-
-
kind of made me think the other day.... do female beatles fans 'outrank' male beatles fans, since much of the beatles music was aimed to a female audience . . . . .
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 28, 2011, 02:30:11 AM
strange, but teenybopper 'throwaways' like little child or devil in her heart - took on a whole different vibe when they were in the beatles television cartoon and (to me) really came across strong


Little Child is at 3:04...

THE BEATLES CARTOON Ep9a Little Child (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbUATGjb37U#)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: peterbell1 on March 28, 2011, 11:41:14 AM
All I've Got To Do and You Really Got A Hold On Me are two of my favorite songs on this album.  I liked early soul music when this album came out and it was obvious that John was following up on Baby It's You on Please Please Me.  All I've Got To Do is written and performed well and rightfully takes its place in this music genre.

Totally agree with this. I think they are both fantastic songs. Great soulful lead vocal performances on both of them. The backing is also done well - it's sort of like the band really wants to let rip but they are keeping themselves in check because that fits better with the feel of the songs.
On the whole, the cover songs are my favourites on WTB, but All I've Got To Do is one of the better originals.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 28, 2011, 04:42:26 PM
if you don't understand what this song is about, then clearly you aren't human.  

I had a reply to this comment that was much too harsh. I had to calm down and reconsider my post so I ended up deleting it.

Anyways, back to old Einstein here. I'm sure, 100% positive, i'll change my opinion of the that song if you'll only grace us with your explanation of what it means.  roll:)

Please quit being such a tool.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 28, 2011, 04:44:34 PM
4. Don’t Bother Me
from top to bottom, a very melodic tune, a complicated song.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 28, 2011, 04:48:45 PM
from top to bottom, a very melodic tune, a complicated song.

Lol, what is so complicated about it?
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 28, 2011, 05:53:41 PM
8. Roll Over Beethoven
a beautiful song, a real rocker, excellent rendition you can feel the energy.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 28, 2011, 11:09:33 PM
Lol, what is so complicated about it?

nothing much as far as I can see tkitna, I beleive George said of the song "It was a fairly crappy song. I forgot all about it completely once it was on the album."
He considered it an exercise in whether he could write a song, later saying, "at least it showed me that all I needed to do was keep on writing, and then maybe eventually I would write something good."
Structurally I cant see anything complicated in the song its basically in the key of E minor (with Pentatonic and modal inflections) which gives it its dark (almost dreary) feel, harmonically there is nothing to much going on but one thing in Georges favour is that he didnt make his first song a 3 chord 12 bar blues thing which wouldve been easier for him.
I agree with George though, not a very good song, about as good as Little Child or Run For Your Life IMO
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 29, 2011, 12:17:02 AM
nothing much as far as I can see tkitna,

Yeah, I know. I was trying to get an honest response from 7 of 13, but of course you cant. He thinks its complicated because his boy toy Harrison wrote it. Even George said it was a crappy song.  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 29, 2011, 12:59:02 AM
actually it is a little complicated - though seemingly simple
-
in that, through verse, chorus and break,  it dances back and forth between the 1/4/5 chords in the dominant key of Gmajor and the 1/4/5 chords in the relative minor key of Eminor
...
to me that gives it alot of tension and resolution and happy/sad emotional shifts
-
but i kind of assumed that George had just learned, lifted and altered this family of chords from one of the many songs the beatles learned and covered in their early days . .

also when george starts singing, the song isn't on the root chord as many (most?) (simple?) songs do... it just throws you into the melody a little disoriented adding to the frenetic vibe -
...
for you music heads - the verse's chord progression is:   Bminor... A.... G... Eminor
so mentally as george plays it, the Eminor is phrased like an afterthought to the dominant G . . kind of a fake out when you thought he had landed on the 1 chord (G major)
and therefore.... is the Bminor the minor 3 chord in the key of Gmajor...... or the 5 chord in the key of Eminor
total fake out, lol
george's sensibility is dark and naturally askew (in my opinion) . .  which i like
 ha2ha

...
maybe more in the rhythm than the chords, but this song always reminds me of the shiek of araby
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 29, 2011, 01:36:45 AM
Having re-listened to this album 3 times now Im convinced that All My Loving is the strongest song on it, its just a great song and 10/10 for his bass line, what a great bass player he is, to say he was kinda forced onto bass makes it all the more incredible imo.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 02:31:51 AM
10. You Really Got Ahold On Me John and George sound good together. 1:17 mark John’s ’Hold On Me’ is awesome.


I agree, John and George sound good together.  And John's "hold on me" at 1:17 was awesome.  I feel it was a fine cover effort on The Beatles' part.

Smokey Robinson and The Miracles sounded like this on Shindig! in late 1964...

Smokey Robinson & The Miracles - You Really Got A Hold On Me (Shindig 1964) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAif8TAuw14#)

Yes, when Smokey sings...
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 29, 2011, 02:49:01 AM
Yes HG Ive seen that vid before and for me it only emphasises that whaite guys should not attempt songs like that, John did a credible cover but a big fail, compared to the great smokey robinson.
Surely J & P couldve knocked off another song, why not put I'll be on my way on instead ?
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 29, 2011, 02:58:44 AM
Yeah, i've mentioned that earlier in the thread. When the Beatles try to cover those soul tunes, they end up just sounding like the Beatles covering a song (if that makes sense). I dont think they ever do the black/soul songs justice.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 02:59:48 AM
Till There Was You marks the album's low point for me. If anyone can salvage mushy sentimentalism into musical credibility, then it's Paul - yet even he fails to rescue this embarrassingly mawkish piece of schmaltz. Possibly the worst cover version The Beatles ever attempted. It has an old fashioned, flowery theatricality completely at odds with the tracks surrounding it. I'm sure many love it...for me it comes close to spoiling side one of the LP... Sorry!
The guitars are nice but the whole thing sounds so jarringly dated on what had been shaping up as a very modern (for its time) pop album.


Well, I guess I'm one of the many who love it.  I liked Barbara Cook's original 1957 Broadway Till There Was You...

Barbara Cook sings The Music Man (vaimusic.com) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vggMCiJfs#noexternalembed)

(http://s11.acephotos.org/images/orig/a/b/abtgejaapv2bjeab.jpg)


And Shirley Jones sang it well in the 1962 film...

The Music Man Shirley Jones "Till There Was You" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLDsLeVxOaU#)

OK, I agree it was a bit mushy, but Paul's lilting rendition was fine indeed...

The Beatles Till There Was You (Live At The Royal Variety Performance) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUUUJLaSNOs#ws)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on March 29, 2011, 03:13:55 AM
'Till There Was You' is easily one of my favorites on the whole album. It might be my favorite actually.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 03:34:53 AM
I can understand The Beatles doing Till There Was You in a live set.  And even putting it on this album.  It breaks things up a bit.

I mentioned previously that I took blues guitar lessons from Ian Buchanan in the early 1970s (the same Ian Buchanan who taught Jorma Kaukonen blues at Antioch College a decade before).  Ian would always do a solo Bach Invention 4 in D minor on his Gibson L5 CES right in the middle of his set.  The rest of the band took a break.  What an effect that had!
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 03:56:35 AM
Yes HG Ive seen that vid before and for me it only emphasises that whaite guys should not attempt songs like that, John did a credible cover but a big fail, compared to the great smokey robinson.

It's not easy trying to sound like Smokey.


Surely J & P couldve knocked off another song, why not put I'll be on my way on instead ?

Instead of instead, make it in addition...

I'll Be On My Way - Beatles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTZRe11svE#noexternalembed)

...sounding a bit like Buddy Holly and The Crickets there.  Nice!!!
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 04:27:51 AM
'Till There Was You' is easily one of my favorites on the whole album. It might be my favorite actually.


It's obviously one of my favorites too, tkitna.  As you originally said, "Guitar is great. Tone and playing."  George made his Country Gentleman sound so sweet.  I feel he took Chet Atkins' 1960 version to a new level...

http://mp3skull.com/mp3/chet_atkins_till_there_was_you.html (http://mp3skull.com/mp3/chet_atkins_till_there_was_you.html)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 29, 2011, 04:42:36 AM
It's not easy trying to sound like Smokey.


so why bother ?????

Im sure the mood j & P were in they couldve written an original to fill the gap

Till There Was You is a cutsie song, I never understood they turned down 'How Do You Do It' because it wasnt Beatles enough so what is Beatles (Cavern/Reeperbahn rock band in leathers) about TTWY ?
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 29, 2011, 05:10:26 AM
I never understood they turned down 'How Do You Do It' because it wasnt Beatles enough so what is Beatles (Cavern/Reeperbahn rock band in leathers) about TTWY ?

Aye, there's the rub!  They were going commercial, produced and managed.  That was their destiny.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 29, 2011, 10:10:19 AM
i'd read that they used to play that one from early and they had learned it to impress people - i think paul called it their parlour piece in an interview
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 29, 2011, 01:35:31 PM
i'd read that they used to play that one from early and they had learned it to impress people - i think paul called it their parlour piece in an interview
-
nyfan you idiot - the song paul called their parlour piece was a classical song that ended up as the guitar part for blackbird !
 ;sorry ha2ha
-
but anyway,
the beatles always had a versitile repertoire even from hamburg and before.... they seemingly had love for all genres.....  paul was basically raised on jazz standards, showtunes etc . .
-
and even for those who find it not 'rock' enough . . . it definitely served the purpose of quelling naysayers and showing their musical talent ! don't forget, besides george's solo -> john is playing that progression with all those jazz chords with great competence and musicality
(and of course paul's vocal is formidable, SPOT ON and a hit with the females)
-
truthfully, i think they included it on the album because they used to get a big response to it playing live
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 30, 2011, 09:17:06 AM
Quote
it definitely served the purpose of quelling naysayers and showing their musical talent ! don't forget

thats very true nyfan
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 30, 2011, 04:38:55 PM
so why bother ?????

Im sure the mood j & P were in they couldve written an original to fill the gap

Till There Was You is a cutsie song, I never understood they turned down 'How Do You Do It' because it wasnt Beatles enough so what is Beatles (Cavern/Reeperbahn rock band in leathers) about TTWY ?
i have never heard how do you do it. the cavern club was probably another cup of noodles, as far as the audience goes. and was probably where the beatles put it all together.  ;)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 30, 2011, 04:46:16 PM
actually it is a little complicated - though seemingly simple
-
in that, through verse, chorus and break,  it dances back and forth between the 1/4/5 chords in the dominant key of Gmajor and the 1/4/5 chords in the relative minor key of Eminor
...
to me that gives it alot of tension and resolution and happy/sad emotional shifts
-
but i kind of assumed that George had just learned, lifted and altered this family of chords from one of the many songs the beatles learned and covered in their early days . .

also when george starts singing, the song isn't on the root chord as many (most?) (simple?) songs do... it just throws you into the melody a little disoriented adding to the frenetic vibe -
...
for you music heads - the verse's chord progression is:   Bminor... A.... G... Eminor
so mentally as george plays it, the Eminor is phrased like an afterthought to the dominant G . . kind of a fake out when you thought he had landed on the 1 chord (G major)
and therefore.... is the Bminor the minor 3 chord in the key of Gmajor...... or the 5 chord in the key of Eminor
total fake out, lol
george's sensibility is dark and naturally askew (in my opinion) . .  which i like
 ha2ha

...
maybe more in the rhythm than the chords, but this song always reminds me of the shiek of araby

thank you nyfan(41). i was going to say that he squeezes alot of emotion out of a few not so simple chord changes, and a more or less direct pentatonic melody. a very interesting device that G major/e minor chord progression. every bit sounds like an integral part of the song, the lead break just rips, total economy through and through, typical george. the song never slows down for a minute, takes your breath away, as it were. and the guitar/bass intro coupled with the clave rhythm is innovative, to me that is complicated structure, i'm speaking as a hand drummer and guitarist here, and it does not disappoint.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 31, 2011, 10:41:45 PM
nyfan wrote;
"actually it is a little complicated - though seemingly simple-in that, through verse, chorus and break,  it dances back and forth between the 1/4/5 chords in the dominant key of Gmajor and the 1/4/5 chords in the relative minor key of Eminor
also when george starts singing, the song isn't on the root chord as many (most?) (simple?) songs do... it just throws you into the melody a little disoriented adding to the frenetic vibe"


OK, Lets look at Verse 1;

Em                    Bm                  A                 G
Since she's been gone I want no one to talk to me.
Em             Bm                  A                         G
It's not the same but I'm to blame, it's plain to see.
 

so looking at that in the key of Em the singing does start on the root.....then the chorus;

                      
                Em                     A         Em    
I've got no time for you right now, don't bother me.


so still in Em ?........then the bridge/refrain;


            D            Em              D                            Em
I know I'll never be the same if I don't get her back again.
          Bm                 Am     C             Em
Because I know she'll always be the only girl for me.

These are the 3 sections of the song and as far as I can see the song is not in Gmajor but it is in Eminor. Someone might mistakenly say a song is in the key of G when it is actually in the key of Em.
Im not trying to score points against you nyfan but if you look at the song as being in Em it is relatively simple.  ;)







Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 01, 2011, 12:02:58 AM
nimrod . . i respect you to the maximum (and also the music you posted - for real)
..
-

but here's why i think you are wrong about this  ha2ha
-
what the drummer would call the "ONE" . . (the first beat of the first measure) . .
is not the E minor of 'since'....-as what you typed would imply
it's the B minor of "GONE"

the way you typed it it's Em / Bm / A / G . . . but the chord progression that starts the verse is really Bm / A / G / Em

--------------
ok,
breaking it into bars, the song is like this:
(intro)
D / D / Em / Em

(verse)
Bm / A / G / Em
Bm / A / G / G


(chorus)
Em / A / Em / Em

(bridge)
D / D / Em / Em
D / D / Em / Em
Bm / Bm / Am / Am
C / C / Em / Em


-------------------------------

now try and follow my madness,,,,,
it's when the first lyric line of the verse lands and ends on that G (talk to ME) . .  that's what gives the momentary impression that the G is the tonic
-
in fact, in the second line of the verse (Bm / A / G / G )  he stays on the G from "plain to see" till the 4th measure's end like like G is the root chord. check it out


-
then the C and D in the bridge relate to that family of chords because they're the 4 and 5 of Gmajor  (... of which the relative minor key is ,yes, Eminor)
ok, next
you see how there is an Amajor in the verse and chorus but in the bridge it becomes Aminor?
Aminor being the relative minor of C allows the chord progression to move to C (aka the 4 chord in G major) . . .
-
that A in the bridge being minor has it registering  as the minor 2 chord in the Gmajor family as well as the 4 chord to Eminor

(btw, i never said the song was in G . . i said it dances back and forth between 1-4-5 chords of G and 1-4-5 chords of Eminor . . similar to what happens in and i love her)
but nimrod, this is not a basic 1 4 5 "three chord song"
in fact, it's pretty clever for a simple song . . . Admit it, you hate George ha2ha ;sorry
-----------------------------

-
anyway, do i think george knowingly constructed great deceptive music theory in his first song - -not really
do i think george just has a left of center approach that makes this melody, rhythm, chord progression a rough cut gem? most definitely!
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 01, 2011, 01:16:22 AM
also when george starts singing, the song isn't on the root chord as many (most?) (simple?) songs do... it just throws you into the melody a little disoriented adding to the frenetic vibe"
the verse does start with a B minor, and i didn't realize there was so much voicing going on, chordwise, in the bridge. thanks nyfan(41).
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 01, 2011, 01:25:57 AM
Quote
what the drummer would call the "ONE" . . (the first beat of the first measure) . .
is not the E minor of 'since'....-as what you typed would imply
it's the B minor of "GONE"

Yes maybe a drummer would but when George sings 'since' the chord is already Em from the intro section so the song does start with the root  ;D

btw I dont hate George at all  ha2ha I stuck up for him in that review or Sgt Pepper, I said his lyrics on WY&WY were some of the best ever.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 01, 2011, 01:37:35 AM
oh yeah that's right - you did . . .
ok, we're all running out of points to disagree on -> time for tkitna to roll out the next album for debate !  ha2ha ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 01, 2011, 01:39:33 AM
oh yeah that's right - you did . . .
ok, we're all running out of points to disagree on -> time for tkitna to roll out the next album for debate !  ha2ha ;D

I agree nyfan  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: peterbell1 on April 01, 2011, 11:11:12 AM
Just been listening to the WTB version of Money (one of my favourite Beatles covers, recorded July '63) alongside their version from a Swedish radio show in October '63 and their version from the Decca audition on 1 Jan 1962.
The Decca one is fairly fast and frenetic and has plenty of energy but by the time they get to the October '63 version the song is just SO powerful. I always thought the Kinks invented heavy metal with You Really Got Me (  ;D ), but I think that Sweden version of Money is ballsier and rockier than just about anything the Kinks did.

MONEY (1962) by the Beatles with Pete Best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3If5AWP5eL4#ws)

The Beatles - Money (That's What I Want) (2009 Mono Remaster) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inhec9uucl8#)

04 - Money (Swedish Radio Show '63) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkeYQCNanVM#)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 02, 2011, 12:12:57 AM
the verse does start with a B minor, and i didn't realize there was so much voicing going on, chordwise, in the bridge. thanks nyfan(41).


no it doesnt  ???

when george sing 'since' the chord is Eminor, it doesnt move to Bm until he sings 'gone'
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 02, 2011, 05:43:55 PM
no it doesnt  ???

when george sing 'since' the chord is Eminor, it doesnt move to Bm until he sings 'gone'
yeah you're right, technically yes. but i guess those are off beats like nyfan(41) was describing, the structure is as how he described it.  it is a highly syncopated polished gem of a song.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Bobber on April 02, 2011, 06:49:25 PM
yeah you're right, technically yes. but i guess those are off beats like nyfan(41) was describing, the structure is as how he described it.  it is a highly syncopated polished gem of a song.

That's one way to talk yourself out of trouble. ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 02, 2011, 07:35:16 PM
(intro)
D / D / Em / Em

(verse)
Bm / A / G / Em
Bm / A / G / G


(chorus)
Em / A / Em / Em

(bridge)
D / D / Em / Em
D / D / Em / Em
Bm / Bm / Am / Am
C / C / Em / Em


(http://www.gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=2265238&t=o) (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/2265238/armssss.html)  (http://www.gifsoup.com/)(http://www.gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=2265143&t=o) (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/2265143/smashhhh.html)  (http://www.gifsoup.com/)
 ha2ha
 
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 02, 2011, 11:45:47 PM
That's one way to talk yourself out of trouble. ha2ha
well i can see him saying that as a bass player, i guess.. i just know the "hang time" on the E minor chord is rather small..

but the basic progression is as nyfan(41) has stated :
 
B minor
A minor
G major
E minor


that in itself is what makes this song so interesting.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 03, 2011, 12:00:21 AM
but the basic progression is as nyfan(41) has stated :
 
B minor
A minor
G major
E minor


(  A major, not minor . . . . . . . .  but i'm willing to call it a L,M,N,O,P chord if that shuts us all up  ;D  )
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 03, 2011, 12:39:24 AM
yeah you're right, technically yes. but i guess those are off beats like nyfan(41) was describing, the structure is as how he described it.  it is a highly syncopated polished gem of a song.

thank you

btw 'All I Got To Do' is much more syncopated.

the tempo (bpm) of Dont Bother Me sounds slow but it is actually double how it sounds..
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 03, 2011, 12:46:13 AM
Quote
you see how there is an Amajor in the verse and chorus but in the bridge it becomes Aminor?

Ive just dug out the piano sheet music nyfan and that Amajor in the verse it shows as Aminor, and you can actually play the minor  ha2ha

and in the first bar, where goerge sings 'since she's been' the piano chord is Eminor  ;)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 03, 2011, 01:34:41 AM
you really want to drag this out and can't let it go
go "dig out" anything you like
lead sheets say all kind of things - the song wasn't written in a notated form - so it's an after the fact
and 3 different fake books can give you 3 different chords for the same song
so i don't need to care what the paper says - it's an A MAJOR not an A MINOR in the verse. you can hear that when you listen to the song
-
and one last time-
george sings 'since youve been' on the last three beats of the 4 measure introduction
the chord progression of the 8 measure verse starts on GONE... the "1 beat" . . .the B MINOR
-
but what is your point man? - me and 7 13 leave a nice avenue to let the thing drop and all walk away clean but you dont take that route
you know 'nimrod' is slang for 'fool'? lol
-
-
and by the way - what you're describing isnt 'sheet music' to what's actually being played
it's an interpretation someone wrote - a lead sheet with chords and basic melody such as exists in fake books
case in point, dont bother me doesnt have a piano in it
-
nimrod, i never took a music lesson in my life but my dad was a professional musician who read and write music like we read and write english on this forum
get over youself - your ear = not as good as you think
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 03, 2011, 02:51:33 AM
you really want to drag this out and can't let it go
go "dig out" anything you like
lead sheets say all kind of things - the song wasn't written in a notated form - so it's an after the fact

you know 'nimrod' is slang for 'fool'? lol
-
-
nimrod, i never took a music lesson in my life but my dad was a professional musician who read and write music like we read and write english on this forum
get over yourself - your ear = not as good as you think
 ;sorry

my apologies nyfan, I was under the  impression it was sort of freindly discussion like you would have about something interesting, I have never meant to annoy anyone. I will leave these album threads alone from now on.
It was certainly NOT my intention to score points at all.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 03, 2011, 03:37:17 AM
nimrod, you are still my brother but you came back with the thing too many times. that's all i was saying lol
don't let me or anyone make you leave a thread - you write some of the best stuff on this forum
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on April 03, 2011, 05:11:05 AM
I will leave these album threads alone from now on.

Sorry, not allowed. I value your input. If the technical jargon is causing a riff between you guys (as it seems to be), leave it at the door, but dont bail altogether.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on April 03, 2011, 05:34:42 AM
Sorry, not allowed. I value your input. If the technical jargon is causing a riff between you guys (as it seems to be), leave it at the door, but dont bail altogether.

There was never any riff or problem of any kind on my part tkitna, I have apologised to nyfan for annoying him by bringing it up again.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 03, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
i'm the one who owes you an apology nimrod. i truly apologize. sorry man  ;sorry
sometimes i say harsh sht in debate though i actually have no grudge or bad feeling. but i was out of line and i hope you'll forgive me

so . . . anyhowwww  i don't know if i should write this next part, but here goes  ;D
i had just googled 'dont bother me' + 'e minor' because part of my apology was going to be saying that you're right and the song actually is in eminor
i clicked on a link and saw a long music theory analysis of dont bother me that goes into great depth about just what we're talking about as well as how musically unique the song is
it says alot of things you said . . the key is eminor, modal inflections, the aminor in the verse (which i still contest, lol), and your comment regarding the tempo
it says a few of the things i said . . the verse starting on bminor, the strange device of the amajor and aminor in the same song and how the chord choices and progression are unorthadox and fake out the listener
-
 . . i think the person who really had it right was 7 13. he was the one who said this is a complicated song. lol
anyway... here's an analysis of dont bother me by someone who - unlike me - seems to know what theyre talking about  ha2ha
(btw, i found it interesting how this author says several times - all the musically weird things george does in this song create an emotional effect on the listener that go perfectly with the lyrics . .  and also that this song foreshadows george's foray into indian music)


-----------------------------------------------------
Notes on "Don't Bother Me"
by Alan W. Pollack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
         Key: e minor (with Pentatonic and Dorian inflections)
     Meter: 4/4
      Form: Intro | Verse | Verse | Bridge |
                  | Verse | Verse / Half-solo | Bridge |
                  | Verse | Outro (fade-out)
        CD: "With The Beatles", Track 4 (Parlophone CDP7 46436-2)
  Recorded: 11th, 12th September 1963, Abbey Road 2
UK-release: 22nd November 1963 (LP "With The Beatles")
US-release: 20th January 1964 (LP "Meet The Beatles")
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
1 General Points of Interest
  Style and Form
   This moody and exotic sounding number was, of course, the first solo-original composition George was to do With The Beatles. As a premiere effort, it is technically quite polished, yet even more notable for its compositional individualism, especially in light of what must have been the creative climate within the Beatles as a group at the time of its composition, in the second half of 1963. Even without any kind of direct peer-pressure from John and Paul, you'd think, given the rapidly rising tide of Beatlemania, it would have been the easiest, or at least easier, path for George to show up with something a lot less imaginative and rather more slavishly imitative of his older, more experienced mates.
   Instead, though you might be sorely tempted to want to pull him down on the bed with you by his shoulders and beg him to lighten up (would ya'?), you've got to admire him for being himself at all costs, and for coming up with a song that turns out in retrospect to uncannily foreshadow musical techniques and tendencies with which he would preoccupy himself for years to come; in particular, the minor key, the sensually modal melody, and the inwardly focused and sad/angry theme of the lyrics.
  Harmony
   Although the song sounds overall as though in a minor key, there are a number of positively modal touches to be found in the chord choices and progressions. In particular, the v chord used here is a minor triad, unsuitable for use as a strong dominant in establishing the home key. Consequently, the burden of that function is shared in this song between the VII chord (which in a Major key would have to be called 'flat-VII' because it does not occur naturally in Major keys, whereas it is actually quite at home here in the minor/modal domain), and the IV.
   The appearance in this song of the Major IV chord in a minor sounding mode is a unique twist on a trick we're used to see being played in reverse. Strictly speaking, this device is associated with the ancient "Dorian" church mode; think of it as the all white-note scale starting on D — and note, how its sixth scale degree is a Major sixth above the tonic note of the scale, whereas the other modes we're familiar with that have a minor bottom half, such as the "natural minor" (also known as "the Aeolian mode"), have a minor sixth degree.
  Melody
   The melody of this song is equally as pentatonic in pitch content as "All I've Got To Do", but there is a crucial difference between the two songs. "All I've Got To Do" uses the five notes of the pentatonic scale to conjure a mode that is primarily Major in feel; our song here, "Don't Bother Me", rearranges the same five notes to convey a deeply minor mode.
   In order to explain this, let's "normalize" the two song melodies by transposing them so that they both lie along the black notes of the piano. In this case, the home key of "All I've Got To Do" may be said to be F# Major, and the melody is for the most part built out of a Major scale that has some unusual gaps; i.e. with rare exceptions, mentioned in our note last time, the tune of "All I've Got To Do" is limited to a scale of F# - G# - A# - C# - D# - F#. Note carefully, the distinctive modal inflection created by the absence of both a fourth and seventh degree in this scale. On the other hand, the presence of A#, a Major third above the tonic note, is sufficient to establish the underlying feel of a Major key.
   "Don't Bother Me", when transposed to this world of the black notes, is in a home key that sounds very much like d# minor, but which contains its own unique set of modal inflections. In contrast to "All I've Got To Do", our scale for "Don't Bother Me" is spelled as D# - F# - G# - A# - C# - D#. This time it is the absence of a second and a sixth degree in the scale which lends a characteristic pungency to the song's melody. And yet again, the presence of F# in this scale, a minor third above the tonic note, is sufficient to establish the underlying feel of a minor key.
   What's particularly interesting about "Don't Bother Me" is the way in which those missing scale degrees do make their subtle, limited appearance. The second scale degree (E# — let's keep it all transposed to d# minor for the moment), for example, is carefully saved for its powerfully unique melodic appearance at the very climax of the bridge section; it also turns out to be the highest melodic note in the entire song. By the same token, the harmonic trick of alternating throughout the song between a minor and Major chord on IV (a-minor as alternated with A-Major) is made possible by manipulation of the sixth degree of the scale (in the transposed context of d# minor, we're talking about B and B#) which is otherwise entirely absent from the tune.
   And to hopefully head off my critics at the pass, I know that none of the Beatles could read or write musical notation and were untrained in the rudiments of theory. I acknowledge with equal unequivocality that none of them as composers would likely ever work the sorts of technical pirouettes we've been discussing into their songs aforethought, even if they had been trained in music theory. But that in no way diminishes the manifest sophistication of the finished product. If anything, the fact that they were capable of such intricacy on the subconscious, intuitive level makes their achievements all the more impressive, in my humble opinion.
  Arrangement
   We get George's double tracked vocal the whole way through in this song, and there are no other backing voices. If you have the chance to hear the single-track vocal on take 13 (which is the actual base track to which the second vocal was overdubbed) you'll acquire a sense of the power that double tracking has to paper over a multitude of notes sung slightly out of tune.
   The rhythm track is characterized by heavily reverbed guitar parts and an almost ostentatious battery of world-music percussion instruments; the latter being overdubbed by the other three Beatles along with George's second vocal.
   The solo guitar section is structured in a remarkably similar way to the one in "From Me To You"; an example of yet another formulaic device of the genre, in which the instrumental solo part is a close paraphrase of the original melody, and the vocal part is then resumed for the last phrase or two of the section as though it were a refrain.
2 Section-by-Section Walkthrough
  Intro
   I believe that the tempo of this song is actually twice the speed of what George slowly counts in at the beginning of takes 11 - 13; if for no other reason than the section lengths will appear to be impossibly short in terms of numbers-of-measures if we take George at his word, without any recalibration. In any event, the intro is four measures long and is built out of material which cleverly anticipates the opening of the bridge section to come much later, right down to that recognizable figure in the bassline:
     Chords: |D       |-       |e       |-       |
 Bassline:  D   F#  |E   D    E
        e:  VII               i

   [Figure 37.1]
 
   Regardless of tempo and elaborate percussion noises, the song retains a measured, somewhat ponderous feel as a result of the slow and even pace of the harmonic rhythm.
   The non-I opening with its reliance on the VII -» i progression to establish the initial sense of key is quite elliptical; you might even be fooled into thinking for an instant that the song is going to be in the key of D Major and that the e chord which follows is the ii, and not the i!
  Verse
   The verse is twelve measures long and built out of three phrases equal in length. Though the harmonies and overall style are far removed from the strict blues style, the structure here is undeniably quite blues-like:
        |b             |a             |G             |e             |
   e:  v              iv             III            i

      |b             |a             |G             |-             |
       v              iv             III

      |e             |A             |e             |-             |
       i              IV             i

   [Figure 37.2]
 
   The first two phrases have a couplet-like parallelism to them, with the third phrase providing a refrain-like capping off; the flourish of drums at the end of the second phrase, followed by a sudden grand pause for just an instant further articulates this structure. Similarly, the fourth iteration of this section, with its guitar solo for the first two phrases and return of the vocal part in the final phrase also serves to underscore the refrain effect.
   All such formal articulation aside, this section is relatively static and closed up in shape. All three melodic phrases are flatly declarative in the way they tersely finish saying their respective pieces well before the end of the four measures of music allotted to them. The harmony is similarly static, giving virtually unrelieved emphasis to the i chord of e minor. The ending of the second phrase on G for a change, and the way in which the downward melodic motion of the third phrase balances out the upward gestures of the preceding two phrases are our only dynamic formal gestures. At the very least, this claustrophobic and withdrawn feeling of the music here is very much in keeping with the sense of the words.
   The minor iv chord is used in context of the chord-stream-like progression of the first two phrases where it fits in smoothly, and allows George to save that Dorian Major IV chord for expressive, surprise effect in the final phrase.
  Bridge
   The bridge is sixteen measures long and is built out of four phrases even in length; perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the final eight measures as one longer phrase; just as in the verse, the third phrase comes to balance out the couplet parallelism of the first two phrases:
     |D       |-       |e       |-       |
    VII               i

   |D       |-       |e       |-       ||
    VII               i

   |b       |-       |a       |-       |
    v                 iv

   |C       |-       |e       |-       ||
    VI                i

   [Figure 37.3]
 
   Several elements help create some sense of contrast between this section and the surrounding verses: the 4 * 4 phraseology, the opening up of the melodic space to allow for an effective climax on the high F# in measure 9, the appearance of a couple of chords not yet heard in the song, and the sudden slowing down of the harmonic rhythm to one chord change every other measure. Although the tempo of the song is steady throughout, the return in the following verse to chord changes in every measure creates a subtle illusion of acceleration.
   In spite of all the above, the inwardly focused and static mood established in the verses is pretty well sustained in this bridge; primarily a result of the continued relentless emphasis on the tonic chord of our home key of e minor. The relative absence here of strongly functional chord progressions, which in most songs are the principle agent by which a key is established, winds up defaulting a large part of that function to a phenomenon that might be described as "establishing the key by repetitive insistence." As a listener it makes you feel paradoxically in no real doubt as to what key we're, but still you may feel vaguely dissatisfied; a feeling not at all out of keeping with the song's own inner feelings.
   In my humble opinion, the most sublime moment of pathos in the song is found in the arpeggiated melodic ascent to the high note of F# in measure 9, followed as it is by a descent from the minor v chord to iv; note the parallel fifths created between bassline and melody by this move.
  Outro
   The outro presents a typical sort of looping on the final sub-phrase of the verse which by no coincidence includes the title within its lyrics.
   The harmony here oscillates between the i and IV chords. As a variation upon all previous appearances in the song of this chord progression, the IV chord is now emphasized by a hard-accented syncopation on the eighth note just before the downbeat where you expect it to appear; on "four-and". It's a matter of what I so often describe as an avoidance of foolish consistency, but even more so, its a touch of musical agitation in keeping with and reflective of what has been described in the words of the song throughout.
3 Some Final Thoughts
   At the time of its release "Don't Bother Me" was likely the most negative lyric in the Beatles' canon to-date. And for all that it superficially would seem to presage John's "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away", there are some key differences between the two songs which only serve to sharpen our view of George's individual profile and outlook.
   Whereas both fellows might seem to suffer with equal amounts of inconsolable sadness, it is George who seems to rush in where John would fear (or is perhaps too crashed-out to want to) tread. In place of John's reticent perplexity, George gives us many words and pronouncements; blaming himself, complaining about the unfairness of his fate ("it's just not right"), and above all, certain there can never be another like her, crying/waiting/hoping that there's a happy ending somewhere in store when she'll come back.
   Intentional or not, I believe that the wordiness of the song enhances and accentuates its impact. It's one of those cases where you can turn off the CD and read the text of the song quietly aloud to yourself from a book or computer screen; even without the musical medium, the message still seems come right at you, straight from the shoulder.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nyfan(41) on April 03, 2011, 04:00:40 PM
.... now it's time for me to log out and go sit in the corner  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: peterbell1 on April 03, 2011, 06:59:15 PM
-----------------------------------------------------
Notes on "Don't Bother Me"
by Alan W. Pollack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I remember reading all Alan W. Pollack's essays on Beatles songs several years ago - all are very interesting, and even if you aren't trained in music theory (I'm not) there is a lot to take from them.

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 03, 2011, 07:36:55 PM
my apologies nyfan, I was under the  impression it was sort of freindly discussion like you would have about something interesting, I have never meant to annoy anyone. I will leave these album threads alone from now on.
It was certainly NOT my intention to score points at all.
whoa! don't go nimrod, if it's all the same to you.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 03, 2011, 07:38:35 PM
I remember reading all Alan W. Pollack's essays on Beatles songs several years ago - all are very interesting, and even if you aren't trained in music theory (I'm not) there is a lot to take from them.

[url]http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml[/url])
i dip into that bag alot, for different reasons. the notes on... series is da bomb.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: tkitna on April 04, 2011, 12:44:06 AM
I'm not into all the technical stuff, but i've found Pollacks stuff to be overinflated and bloated. The guy literally makes mountains out of mole hills. The guy must have access to good dope is all I can think.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: peterbell1 on April 04, 2011, 09:03:47 AM
I'm not into all the technical stuff, but i've found Pollacks stuff to be overinflated and bloated. The guy literally makes mountains out of mole hills. The guy must have access to good dope is all I can think.

 ;D  ;D  ;D

He does go into a lot of technical detail sometimes, and a lot of that goes way over my head, but it's worth getting through that stuff to discover some of his other insights.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on April 04, 2011, 06:12:19 PM
;D  ;D  ;D

He does go into a lot of technical detail sometimes, and a lot of that goes way over my head, but it's worth getting through that stuff to discover some of his other insights.
oh i agree totally. his insights, musical dissections and contributions are priceless, he is a well known musicologist and expert on beatles music.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hello Goodbye on April 08, 2011, 02:29:37 AM
Sometimes Alan W. Pollack sounds like this guy to me...

MUSIC OF THE RUTLES UNDER REVIEW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdujUF0was#)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on May 16, 2011, 08:19:12 PM
Sometimes Alan W. Pollack sounds like this guy to me...
i don't know i have never heard him speak, but his musical dissections, his beatles music analyses and his uncanny inspection of song structure and lyrics is priceless. he can really turn a song analysis on its' musical head.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on May 16, 2011, 09:32:06 PM
Sometimes Alan W. Pollack sounds like this guy to me...

MUSIC OF THE RUTLES UNDER REVIEW ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jdujUF0was#[/url])


 ha2ha ha2ha ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on August 06, 2011, 12:28:43 PM
I'm not into all the technical stuff, but i've found Pollacks stuff to be overinflated and bloated. The guy literally makes mountains out of mole hills. The guy must have access to good dope is all I can think.

Ive spent quite a while reading his synopsis of Beatle songs, Id never heard of him before (but I have read Wilfred Mellors book) and I have to agree with you Todd that he's padding things out way too much, although I agree with a lot of what he says he could be more succinct in his descriptions

good dope  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: 7 of 13 on August 28, 2011, 11:53:38 PM
Ive spent quite a while reading his synopsis of Beatle songs, Id never heard of him before (but I have read Wilfred Mellors book) and I have to agree with you Todd that he's padding things out way too much, although I agree with a lot of what he says he could be more succinct in his descriptions

good dope  ha2ha
hey how's it going nimrod? good moderator thingie you have there congratulations. as for Alan W Pollack and his musical discussions, my story is a bit different. long story short, i went there for some chord changes to a beatles song or two, then i started to dig deeper into his analyses.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on August 29, 2011, 05:14:07 AM
Ohh Im not saying its not good, its very interesting but I just think he uses some big words when small ones would suffice  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Yeshelloitsmehereagain on March 14, 2012, 11:07:20 PM

9. Hold Me Tight - Another guilty pleasure of mine. Its nothing more than an average filler tune, but I dig it for some reason. I’m on the fence with the handclaps. Sometimes I think their too much and then others they feel like they need to be there. I don’t know. Love how Paul carries the chorus with his high ’Its You oo oo’. The walking guitar is nice. Backgrounds don’t sound tight throughout for some reason. 1:55 mark theres a real low ’OHH’ in the background. Neat. Love the slow down ending.


Can't believe this one it sticks out for me, can't understand why. Just kicks ass in a really sublte way...
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: nimrod on March 14, 2012, 11:20:48 PM
Can't believe this one it sticks out for me, can't understand why. Just kicks ass in a really sublte way...

great song by Paul, very interesting guitar from George
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Yeshelloitsmehereagain on March 14, 2012, 11:44:09 PM
It's all a blast... I'm in love with it. It's things like this that wants me to get a guitar again...
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: topperking99 on March 20, 2012, 05:33:08 AM
This was the first Beatles album I owned. An older friend of my father's gave it to me. It was on a cassette, taped off of the LP so there were lots of skips and pops, but I loved it! It was an awakening for an 11 year old in Kuwait to hear "making love to only you" on Hold Me Tight. It was the first adult lyric that I can recall actually understanding what it was they were talking about.
Every time I hear the album, it takes me back. Love it.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Dcazz on July 17, 2012, 11:53:51 AM
With the Beatles/Beatles 2nd Album and maybe (Beatles 64 & Beatles 6) are the only two(4) records that I prefere the American versions of better. Meet the Beatles has a stronger set with ISHST and IWTHYH which anchor the set list as with later albums. The 2nd Album has a bluesier, harder setlist with pop gems like SLY etc... If this could have been their double album I think it would have amazing!
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Casbah on September 21, 2012, 02:40:29 PM
All I've gotta do should be called Squeaky Drum Bass Peh eh eh eh dal.

But its a good song. 

The remaster is awesome.

My sleeper song off this album is Devil In Her Heart, but I think that's because The Early Beatles was one of the first Beatle 8-Tracks we had in the house when I was a kid.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 21, 2012, 10:45:19 PM
With the Beatles/Beatles 2nd Album and maybe (Beatles 64 & Beatles 6) are the only two(4) records that I prefere the American versions of better. Meet the Beatles has a stronger set with ISHST and IWTHYH which anchor the set list as with later albums. The 2nd Album has a bluesier, harder setlist with pop gems like SLY etc... If this could have been their double album I think it would have amazing!

I'd say that Beatles 2nd Album and Beatles VI didn't have British sisters to be compared with. Meet The Beatles and Beatles '65 would be the American versions of With The Beatles and Beatles For Sale, respectively.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: ibanez_ax on September 22, 2012, 02:14:03 AM
I'd say that Beatles 2nd Album and Beatles VI didn't have British sisters to be compared with. Meet The Beatles and Beatles '65 would be the American versions of With The Beatles and Beatles For Sale, respectively.

Several tracks from Beatles For Sale were on Beatles VI also.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on September 22, 2012, 03:36:25 AM
Several tracks from Beatles For Sale were on Beatles VI also.

All right, but I mean the format, the tracklisting, Beatles '65 would be the diffuse mirror of Beatles For Sale, while Beatles VI is merely a bastard album without a definitive main origin.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
Post by: ibanez_ax on September 22, 2012, 04:37:36 AM
All right, but I mean the format, the tracklisting, Beatles '65 would be the diffuse mirror of Beatles For Sale, while Beatles VI is merely a bastard album without a definitive main origin.

Ahh...gotcha!