Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Klang]

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.

 

[Bobber]

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.

[Klang]

Thank you.

 

[Moogmodule]

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. 

[Kevin]

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.

[Klang]

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?

 

[Kevin]

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.

[Bobber]

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[Klang]

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.

 

[LSD]

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.

[Normandie]

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. 

[Moogmodule]

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.
 

[tkitna]

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. 

[Moogmodule]

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.

[Moogmodule]

  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.

[oldbrownshoe]

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.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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).

[oldbrownshoe]

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'.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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.