DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Songs => Topic started by: Kevin on November 23, 2009, 09:17:54 AM
-
WTF? Another single with jaunty harmonica, vocal gymnastics and inane lyrics that seem to contain nothing but the words "me", "you" and "love?" Talk about playing it safe.
Are these guys writing to a winning formula or what. Another song like this and they're in danger of becoming the Jonas Brothers of 1963.
I don't like Please Please Me but at least it had some balls. If their next song doesn't show something new I'm switching to the Rolling Stones.
-
I agree. This song has never done anything for me, although I must admit that they didn't choose the b-side Thank You Girl to become the new single, which was considered. They probably needed a confirmation before really they took off. They got it: From Me To You was a hit. In hindsight, it is a repetition of Love Me Do more than Please Please Me.
-
Musically - it had a lot of great Beatle hooks! First, the harmonica - it was a fresh sound for Love Me Do/PPM, and it still was just a short while later - I recall reading that it wasn't a sound heard on the radio back then, which I guess would make it an awesome "branding" tool - "The Beatles sound!!".
Was there another great Beatle hook in the song - you bet! It had one of the ultimate ones - the John and Paul's harmonies! They are excellent as usual, not just in the verse ("...you want...", and "From Me, To You"), but also in the middle eight ("I've got arms ...").
And the middle eight!! ...It was a complete change of key, and they were blown away by it, if they said so themselves (it's been written that when they were writing it in the back of the van on the way to a gig, one of them hit a wrong chord on the guitar, and the rest was history!). It really is quite wonderful, and they liked it so much they did exactly the same thing in "I Want to Hold Your Hand" - listen to that bit, "And when I touch you I feel happy ..." to hear the similarities.
Finally, it doesn't seem at all unusual to me for a 1963 teenage love song to have the words "You", "Me" and "Love" used a lot, especially when the title of the song happens to be "From Me to You"! Remember, they were singing to their fan base - just about all their early songs could be imagined by a young girl to be sung directly to THEM. This was part of their songwriting marketing strategy. It might not appeal to some middle aged guy 50 years later, but I think their sights were set a little more short-term. Prog rock would have to wait ;)
BTW, Kevin - why are you using this Beatles fan forum to post over and over how you don't like Beatles songs? That's all fine and good you feel that way, but why do that here?
-
BTW, Kevin - why are you using this Beatles fan forum to post over and over how you don't like Beatles songs? That's all fine and good you feel that way, but why do that here?
Kevin is well know for not being a particular fan of the very early stuff. I think this is a good way of having a fairly in depth discussion on each single rather than treating a collection as a whole i.e. a 'What's you favourite album' thread. Even a favourite single thread doesn't do it because it naturally goes off in too many tangents.
I think it's ok, but agree that it's very formulaic and too similar to Love Me Do. This was not uncommon for the period though. People ability to accept change in a short space of time was far less in those days. I think they were still treading water and learning their craft.
I recently watched the BBC doc containing all the stuff that comes with the new CD's. Interesting that George Martin says that as far as he was concerned singles were singles, and albums were for all the stuff that was left over. But I think there are three better songs on the first album alone than the first three singles.
I'm surprised and a little dismayed that these threads haven't proved more popular. It's the first time I've seen a forum attempt this kind of thing in separate threads. Shame the kids don't want to get involved and give us their opinion, and maybe learn something at the same time.
-
BTW, Kevin - why are you using this Beatles fan forum to post over and over how you don't like Beatles songs? That's all fine and good you feel that way, but why do that here?
I don't like everything they did. Their early singles don't appeal to me. They don't seem to have universal appeal to everyone else either.
And check out the contempory charts - even by the standards of the day The Beatles singles lyrics are remarkably simple. And no, I don't think lyrics necessarily need to be complicated (I have no problem with Hello Goodbye) but three in a row, all so bloody similar? I find it hard not to accept that by this song they were writing to a formula. (or as you so amply put it, their marketing strategy. I reckon if it were a modern band doing this, say The Jonas Brothers, we would have nothing but contempt for them.) Yes these early songs are written for little screaming pant wetters - no suprise I don't find them that enjoyable. The best is yet to come.
And Alexis mate - isn't a little discussion preferable to endless threads about who's the cutest, most adorable, the best kisser, has the best eyebrows or why we love them soooo much. I'm trying to stop this forum becoming a thirteen year old girls slumber party. (no offence to those of you who get off on that, knock yourself out, but it's not why I'm here.)
ps I can't stand I Want To Hold Your Hand either - probably for the very reasons you love it. More hooks than a Taiwanese fishing trawler. But lets save that for another day. :)
I want to talk about these things. I want to undo them and start again.
-
It's not a great song. Kind of wimpy, and not in a good way. I agree that they were definitely going for a sort of formula. I remember reading somewhere that they deliberately released songs that had the words "me" and "you" in them in order to establish a sort of connection to their record bying audience. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but it's interesting to think about.
-
It's not a great song. Kind of wimpy, and not in a good way. I agree that they were definitely going for a sort of formula. I remember reading somewhere that they deliberately released songs that had the words "me" and "you" in them in order to establish a sort of connection to their record bying audience. I don't know how much truth there is to that, but it's interesting to think about.
I think you're right. The simplicity of their lyrics was apparently very deliberate. And I guess it worked, which means they were very clever.
(I removed a whole lot of cr*p from this)
-
I should imagine that at that period of the sixties, there was a huge fanbase-in-waiting for 4 'cute' guys that sang a new type of song, and directly to them! I was but a mere babe-in-arms then so I really don't remember too much of that hysteria! The audience was just starting to get a little more liberated than previous decades, and the newer rock 'n' roll from the US had stirred a revolution in the listeners and wannabe-performers - when the beatles hit with these early songs, it was pretty much inevitable that their sound would captivate that young female core of the audience, and yes, they did cleverly 'orchestrate' it with these songs...
Steve.
-
isn't a little discussion preferable to endless threads about who's the cutest, most adorable, the best kisser, has the best eyebrows or why we love them soooo much. I'm trying to stop this forum becoming a thirteen year old girls slumber party. (no offence to those of you who get off on that, knock yourself out, but it's not why I'm here.)
Bravo! Hoorah!
-
What I find extraordinary about From Me To You, is the same thing that Paul highlights about it in the Anthology Video. The chord change at "I've got arms that long to hold you". I think it is a minor chord that it changes to. To me it makes the song and adds a richness to it.
-
I think I like From Me To You better than Please, Please Me, not sure why though. Still, I won't put it on purposely, but I won't change the song if it happens to come on shuffle or something. I think it's rather enjoyable ;D (I like listening to shallow music every once and while, can't listen to deep stuff all the time!)
-
.
-
Cashing in on the ignorance of the audience in my opinion. 'From Me To You' is 'Love Me Do' only with a bit more umph and thats not a good thing. The harmonica actually detracts from the song in my opinion. Kind of aggravates me when I hear it. The song goes nowhere quick for me and I could do without it.
They chose wisely though. 'Thank You Girl' (although I like it better than 'From Me To You') is all over the place time wise and it does absolutly nothing.
-
remember its 1963. time wasnt as fast as it is now.
-
I don't like everything they did. Their early singles don't appeal to me. They don't seem to have universal appeal to everyone else either.
And check out the contempory charts - even by the standards of the day The Beatles singles lyrics are remarkably simple. And no, I don't think lyrics necessarily need to be complicated (I have no problem with Hello Goodbye) but three in a row, all so bloody similar? I find it hard not to accept that by this song they were writing to a formula. (or as you so amply put it, their marketing strategy. I reckon if it were a modern band doing this, say The Jonas Brothers, we would have nothing but contempt for them.) Yes these early songs are written for little screaming pant wetters - no suprise I don't find them that enjoyable. The best is yet to come.
And Alexis mate - isn't a little discussion preferable to endless threads about who's the cutest, most adorable, the best kisser, has the best eyebrows or why we love them soooo much. I'm trying to stop this forum becoming a thirteen year old girls slumber party. (no offence to those of you who get off on that, knock yourself out, but it's not why I'm here.)
ps I can't stand I Want To Hold Your Hand either - probably for the very reasons you love it. More hooks than a Taiwanese fishing trawler. But lets save that for another day. :)
I want to talk about these things. I want to undo them and start again.
Hey, Kevin - fair enough of course! It just came across as so attacking to me, I think I'm probably in an overly sensitive mood recently.
Re: the youngest generation of fans ... I'm in favor of those threads! Without them I think the forum will eventually be like one of those churches where everyone is a blue-haired pensioner and the numbers just get smaller and smaller.
Personal trivia here - I didn't even know this song EXISTED for the first 10 or 20 years of my Beatles fandom. It never appeared on an original American album, and of course I'm not old enough to remember the singles being released. I have a feeling a lot of Yanks might be have been in a similar position.
One of the main reasons I like the song is a) the middle eight, and b) like all early Beatle songs, it's fun to listen while knowing what they later evolved into. Kind of like looking at baby pictures when the kid is all grown up?!
P.S. Nelson-Wilbury ... "concept single" ... very funny, I like it!!
-
.
-
Re: the youngest generation of fans ... I'm in favor of those threads! Without them I think the forum will eventually be like one of those churches where everyone is a blue-haired pensioner and the numbers just get smaller and smaller.
Ditto. Each to their own. It can just be a mortifying to log in on a monday morning and wade through ten pages of the weekend's "recent posts" and not find one concerning music.
-
*What do you mean I'm funny?
*What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
*Funny how? What's funny about it?
*You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f***ed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f***in' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?*
(Joe Pesci in Goodfellas)
ha2ha
Hey, how come you know more about American culture than I do? Stop that!! ;)
-
.
-
Ditto. Each to their own. It can just be a mortifying to log in on a monday morning and wade through ten pages of the weekend's "recent posts" and not find one concerning music.
This is very true. We're researching a way to somehow make settings for recent posts in the personal settings. Posts from the Member Mailboxes or loads of pictures can be a treasure to some members and a nightmare to others.
-
I'm with Kevin here. A decent debate around here anymore is a rare thing.
As Bobber said though, I see the pages upon pages of pictures of the guys tedious and a waste of bandwidth (who actually looks at those pictures?), but I suppose others like it or there wouldnt be pages upon pages.
-
I don't see any problem with picture threads, or even some of the more gushing teenybopperish threads at all. I participated in that stuff when I was 13 because that's part of the Beatles experience too. It's when they start to outnumber the threads about the music that it becomes a problem.
-
I don't see any problem with picture threads, or even some of the more gushing teenybopperish threads at all. I participated in that stuff when I was 13 because that's part of the Beatles experience too. It's when they start to outnumber the threads about the music that it becomes a problem.
Before I suggest to get back on topic: it's not a problem. There's people here who like to chitchat thousands of posts and hardly post about The Beatles or music. That's fine with me. But if you have to struggle your way through lots of posts with chitchat and pics, it's a nightmare. Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to be able to personalize the recent posts. I will ask Dmitry if he can arrange such a thing. If anyone would like to discuss this any further, I think it's better to move this subject to the Suggestions etc. board.
-
Just read where Paul even called 'From Me To You' rubbish. Its obvious they were following the formula on that tune.
-
Just read where Paul even called 'From Me To You' rubbish. Its obvious they were following the formula on that tune.
It's not one I relish covering, I know that much. lol
-
not a big fan of from me to you. one of the most forgettable singles they made
-
.
-
it's fun to listen while knowing what they later evolved into. Kind of like looking at baby pictures when the kid is all grown up?!
My sentiments exactly!! It was a phase they had to go through, in order to learn and move on. A bit like the 13 yr old slumber party???!!! ha2ha
-
Musically - it had a lot of great Beatle hooks! First, the harmonica - it was a fresh sound for Love Me Do/PPM, and it still was just a short while later - I recall reading that it wasn't a sound heard on the radio back then, which I guess would make it an awesome "branding" tool - "The Beatles sound!!".
Was there another great Beatle hook in the song - you bet! It had one of the ultimate ones - the John and Paul's harmonies! They are excellent as usual, not just in the verse ("...you want...", and "From Me, To You"), but also in the middle eight ("I've got arms ...").
And the middle eight!! ...It was a complete change of key, and they were blown away by it, if they said so themselves (it's been written that when they were writing it in the back of the van on the way to a gig, one of them hit a wrong chord on the guitar, and the rest was history!). It really is quite wonderful, and they liked it so much they did exactly the same thing in "I Want to Hold Your Hand" - listen to that bit, "And when I touch you I feel happy ..." to hear the similarities.
Finally, it doesn't seem at all unusual to me for a 1963 teenage love song to have the words "You", "Me" and "Love" used a lot, especially when the title of the song happens to be "From Me to You"! Remember, they were singing to their fan base - just about all their early songs could be imagined by a young girl to be sung directly to THEM. This was part of their songwriting marketing strategy. It might not appeal to some middle aged guy 50 years later, but I think their sights were set a little more short-term. Prog rock would have to wait ;)
Well put, alexis. Many here are listening to this song retrospectively. I first heard this song when it was newly released. It was so different from what we had around at the time. I like this song as much today as I did when I first heard it. And I heard it first on AM radio! You can imagine how I feel about the mono and stereo remasters I have now.
remember its 1963. time wasnt as fast as it is now.
Yes. It was a simpler time.
-
It was a simpler time.
Hi mate. I used to think this - that this was how pop music was made in those days. But go to somewhere like everyhit.com and check out the UK charts for the week From Me To You was released and then google some of the lyrics of those songs. (yes, I have way too much time on my hands.) From Me To You isn't alone - the Pacemakers How Do You Do It is very much of the same ilk. But there are plenty there - Tommy Roe and Buddy Holly for instance - that have lyrics that go beyond teen baiting.
I don't think The Beatles wrote and released three songs all based on "me", "you" and "love" because they were constricted by the practices of the day. Like The Bay City Rollers and The Jonas Brothers after them I think (and as Mairi said they confess to this) they deliberately wrote simple lyrics that would appeal directly to their intended market ie young screaming teenagers.
And IMO FMTY is the weakest of the three.
-
I don't think The Beatles wrote and released three songs all based on "me", "you" and "love" because they were constricted by the practices of the day. Like The Bay City Rollers and The Jonas Brothers after them I think (and as Mairi said they confess to this) they deliberately wrote simple lyrics that would appeal directly to their intended market ie young screaming teenagers.
And IMO FMTY is the weakest of the three.
Weaker than
Love, love me do.
You know I love you,
I'll always be true,
So please, love me do.
Whoa, love me do.
Someone to love,
Somebody new.
Someone to love,
Someone like you.
said twice?
From Me To You says this twice:
If there's anything that you want
If there's anything I can do
Just call on me and I'll send it along
With love from me to you
I've got everything that you want
Like a heart that's oh so true
Just call on me and I'll send it along
With love from me to you
I got arms that long to hold you
And keep you by my side
I got lips that long to kiss you
And keep you satisfied, oooh
I prefer the later.
I think they were writing easy lyrics to get to more people: easier to remember for everyone and easy for foreigners to understand too. Basicaly they replaced the whistles they used while composing for words, most of the time monosyllables ;-)
-
The Beatles On Record (part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKkbn-pdCMA#normal)
Listen at 7:33: George addresses exactly what we're saying here, he says basically their goal was to BE derivative, "everyone's goal was to make a hit just like the last one, we even left the harmonica in there for that reason". Their sights were set on not having to pack it up and go work in the factory. Genius would have to wait!
-
OK, for those who say there is not enough discussion of the MUSIC in this forum, here is a little something I threw together regarding my thoughts of the song:
**********************************************************************************
Notes on "From Me To You"
Key: C Major
Meter: 4/4
Form: Intro | Verse | Verse | Bridge |
| Verse | Verse (solo) | Bridge |
| Verse | Outro (with complete ending)
CD: "Past Masters", Volume 1, Track 2 (Parlophone CDP 90043-2)
Recorded: 5th March 1963, Abbey Road 2
UK-release: 11th April 1963 (A Single / "Thank You Girl")
US-release: 27th May 1963 (A Single / "Thank You Girl")
1
General Points of Interest
Style
Besides a catchy tune and deceptively complex arrangement, "From Me To You" has a difficult-to-pigeon-hole musical style; after all, is it rock or pop, blues or skiffle?
Maybe it's just unmistakably Early Beatles, and with that, I'm only being whimsical in part. "From Me To You" was their third single, recorded during the charmed period between the recording and the release of the "Please Please Me" album. Those tight vocal harmonies with their flashes of passionate falsetto, the drum fills, the harmonica hook phrase, the personal pronouns, and so many other details were becoming both Trend setting and a bit formulaic by that point, and who could really blame them, given the roll they were so obviously on?
We've already seen in our earlier studies of the likes of "Love Me Do", "Thank You Girl", "Please Please Me", and "I Saw Her Standing There" most, if not all, of the specific techniques that come into play in "From Me To You". If unique coverage of such techniques per se were our main interest in this series, we could just as well have skipped this one.
But, if anything, the fact that the songs in this first crop of their originals are still so different from each other in mood and manner, in spite of the relatively restricted compositional vocabulary with which they were written makes them all the more extraordinary. The image comes to mind of master chefs, capable of producing an astonishing variety of dishes from a small, fixed list of ingredients.
So come 'head; this one's "got (almost) everything that you want!"
Form
The short eight-measure verse creates an overall time scale of modest proportions even though the form is paradoxically quite sprawling, with two bridges, two verses intervening, and both intro and outro.
The irony of the short length versus long form will seem sharper if you recall that in form, "From Me To You" is identical to "I Saw Her Standing There".
The lyrics of the four fully sung verses create a pattern of ABAA. The second half of the verse lyrics are a mini-refrain repeated each time, even in the solo verse. Lyrics of both bridges are identical as usual.
Rhythmically all sections start off with a pickup before the downbeat.
Melody and Harmony
The melodic content is more chromatic than usual, a combination of the bluesy E-flats in the verses, the modulation effecting B-flats at the start of the bridges, and the D# atop the augmented chord at the very end of the bridges. The verse tune is somewhat jumpy and covers the range of a full octave. The bridge tune covers a slightly smaller range and is primarily stepwise.
The prominence given to the I -» vi chord progression in "From Me To You" is something fairly widespread among the early Lennon and McCartney originals. Similarly, the gratuitous dominant seventh on F in measure 5 of the verse ("gratuitous" to the extent that it doesn't actually function as a dominant seventh but merely comes along for the spice it adds), and the augmented triad in the bridge are also fairly typical Lennon and McCartney chord tricks. There are, however, a few more novel details elsewhere in the harmony.
The song is among the very first of their officially released originals to feature a modulation to an alternate key during the bridge section. In spite of its brevity, the excursus to F Major we'll see below creates an expansive sense of harmonic space that belies the compressed time scale of the song.
Also unique is the clever surprise ending on the vi chord.
Arrangement
Several characteristic ingredients in the arrangement would eventually become almost cliche trademarks.
* The vocal part features a duet virtually throughout. Granted, the many flashes of two-part harmony are separated by long stretches of the same line sung in unison by Paul and John, but there is no vocal solo part here.
* Those flashes of vocal harmony, make frequent use of open fifths and falsetto singing.
* Drum fills are carefully deployed at special, structural or dramatic points in the song, not at liberty.
* An overdubbed harmonica is used to introduce the hook phrase.
* And what sounds like it might be a simple oom-pah bass part actually features a snapped rhythm of dotted quarters and eighth notes in alternation.
2
Section-by-Section Walkthrough
Intro
The short, four-measure intro presents, right at the outset, two repetitions of the hook phrase of this song. Just as we saw in "Please Please Me", the instrumental version of this hook turns out to be subtly different in rhythmic pattern from the one used in the verses even though the pitch content of both versions is identical.
Note the complete reliance in this intro on just the I and vi chords. Also note the scoring for harmonica and scat-singing voices, and the way the drum fill seems to both articulate the border between the intro and following verse section, as well as effecting a neat transition between the two.
Verse
As already mentioned, the verse is only eight measures long and its harmonic shape is closed off by virtue of remaining closely within the home key and ending more or less on the I chord. Although the melody itself is not particularly arch-like in outline, the harmony in this instance lends some dramatic arch shape to the verse. Use of that F7, with its E-flats that are foreign to the key, helps add an effective bluesy bit of tension right at the mid-point, while the slight increase in the harmonic rhythm toward the end of the phrase helps wind it down again:
|C |a |C |G |
C: I vi I V
|F7 |a |C G |C a |
IV vi I V I vi
[Figure 28.1]
The diagram above is of the first verse. The use of the vi chord in the second half of the last measure keeps the harmony open just enough to allow the music to continue at this point with verse #2. See for yourself just how lame that transition would sound if you eliminate the vi chord. The fact that this detail is missing in "take 2" of the song — there, they stay with the C chord for the entire measure — indicates clearly just how careful they were in the studio to revise at the last minute even relatively small details for the better.
Speaking of outtakes, the incomplete "take 1" of this song comes to a sudden, ragged halt for no clear reason, and the resulting three way discussion between John, Paul, and the control room in which they accuse each other in turn of having called for the timeout is one of those particularly charming and candid snapshots we're lucky to have of their life in the studio at this time.
At the end of the second verse the change to the a-minor chord in measure 8 is eliminated and in its place, the C chord has a dominant seventh added to it in the second half of the measure. This sustaining of the C root provides an added sense of closure at that point and the addition of the seventh to it more effectively sets up the coming bridge.
The hook phrase as it appears in the first part of this verse is presented with quite a bit more bouncy syncopation in comparison to its rather more foursquare appearance in the intro. The melody of the song in general, is shot through with gentle syncopations which play off effectively against the even, skiffle-like shuffle of the instrumental accompaniment.
The little snippets of vocal harmony include an open fifth in the first case — "... that you want" — and a surprising and suddenly passionate burst of falsetto from John in the second — "... I can do". I believe it is John who sings the lead part here with Paul singing harmony. This results in Paul singing above John in the first phrase and then crossing over him to sing below in the second phrase; a variation on a similar trick seen earlier in both "Love Me Do" and "I Saw Her Standing There".
While we're on the topic of vocal parts, chalk up in verse 2 yet another of those infamous word collisions between John and Paul on the phrase "Just/so call on me ..." It only goes to show that nobody who was there at the time was thinking in terms of people going over this stuff as carefully as some now do, so many years after the fact. Either that, or perhaps this "mistake" was on purpose; i.e. a very early clue :-).
Bridge
The bridge is also eight measures long but it harmonically branches out nicely in contrast to the verse:
|g |C7 |F |- |
F: ii V I
C: IV
|D7 |- |G |#5(aug) |
C: V-of-V V
[Figure 28.2]
We have what is called a pivot modulation to the key of F. The common chord between the home key of C and this new key is the C-Major chord at the end of the previous verse. One hears that chord at the time it's first played as the I of the home key. But once the bridge begins, the ear retrospectively reinterprets it as though it were the V of the key of F. Such common chords are not strictly required in order to effect a change of key, but their utilization makes such shifts smoother, and less abrupt. It's somehow analogous to the variety of means by which you might change the topic of conversation.
This bridge provides quite a bit of contrast to the verse sections. Right off the bat the melody suddenly becomes much less syncopated. And in live versions, the drumming, especially the cymbal bashing, may be noted to suddenly become quite muted at this point.
But the greater source of contrast is the way this section builds toward an ultimate climax as opposed to the arch-like, closed shape of the verse. Particularly in the last two measures we have a pile-up of intensification based on several musical factors — the augmented inflection of the V chord by literally stretching the D in the melody to a D#, the cross rhythm of slow triplets in the rhythm guitar (must be John, right?), the patented Ringo drum frills, and of course, that crowd pleasing falsetto moan for two-part harmony on the word (ahem) "whooo."
For the sake of variation — and avoidance of foolish consistency — they add in the second bridge a novel touch of two-part harmony at the very beginning of the section. Note how, true to form, Paul's backing part yet again starts off beneath John's lead, only to jump over it a few notes into the phrase.
Instrumental Solo Verse
You might call this section a "semi-solo," a simple, standard trick of the trade the Boys would re-use in "A Hard Days Night".
The musical framework is identical to all the other verses, yet what starts out as an instrumental solo merely "based on" the same old chord progression, degenerates in the second half, to a refrain-like verbatim repeat of that part of the verse.
There are two other cute little twists in the front half. First is the way that the instrumental first half of the section presents the hook figure in its alternate incarnation from the intro. This momentary retreat into the realm of the more square makes the syncopated second half of the section sound all the more bouncy when it returns. Second, is the responsive, mockingbird-like interjection of the singers here which almost subliminally broadcasts the title of the song at you.
This section did not yet exist as of that early "take 2" mentioned above, and based on the impression made by that otherwise pleasing performance, I assume that they belatedly added this because the song felt a tad too short without it.
Outro
This outro section is developed as a springboard-like outgrowth of the end of the final verse. The last two words of that verse are repeated the canonical three times, making for a creative variation on the more routine procedure where the entire last line gets reiterated; as in, for example, "I Saw Her Standing There". Far from being an arbitrary change, the repetition here of only "to you" bears effective emphasis.
The rhetoric of the lyrics is ably abetted by the antiphonal accompaniment, which includes a descending bass line, which in turn, is nicely reinforced by heavy syncopation and vigorous drum fills. As that bass line moves from C -» A -» A-flat, it incidentally creates yet another augmented chord, one that is more suspenseful and harmonically ambiguous than the one seen earlier in the bridge.
This second augmented chord, spelled from bottom up, A-flat / C / E, could move in one of two directions. Either the A-flat can resolve downward, making for a move to C-Major, or else, the A-flat can behave as though it were a G#, resolving upward, making for a move to a-minor.
What we get is quite enigmatically ingenious: the very next chord following the augmented one turns out, indeed, to be C-Major, the I chord of our home key, yet the music immediately proceeds with one final statement of the hook phrase before terminating abruptly on the a-minor chord. The musical logic of bringing down the curtain on the hook phrase is so subtly persuasive, that you barely note the ironic fact that the song has ended off-center from the home key; actually on the chord of the home key's relative minor.
Note by the way how, for virtually for the only time in the song, the voices are silent in this little coda; in contrast, even the intro at least included scat singing as part of the instrumental texture.
3
Some Final Thoughts
Personal Pronouns
Nowhere is the uniqueness of this song in spite of its recycled ingredients more evident than in the meaning of its lyrics.
Next note Paul with rather unwonted candor, in the interview which appears as a preface to Lewisohn's "Recording Sessions", allows that they had gotten themselves into a bit of a rut in the early songs with their repeated wordplay on personal pronouns, but he adds that this started out being motivated by a desire to "play to the market." He mentions our song by name in this context, but even so, I think it would be unfair to under-rate it as a mere exploitational pandering to what Brian Matthews on BBC radio might call "the little darlin's."
In "From Me To You", a particular immediacy is achieved by the use of direct address. How else could this group of four fabulous gentlemen manage, in the midst of a crowded concert hall or across the incorporeal airwaves, to establish such a direct connection to their audience? If you think not, try for comparison the very different feel that this song takes on when the lyrics are just slightly changed as they were in order to use it as the title jingle for their series of BBC radio holiday specials. "From Us To You", for my money, is much more impersonal because the change of "me" to the plural "us" subconsciously leads one to hear the "you" which follows in the plural as well.
I bring this whole thing up because in the context of a plethora of songs about "you & I," this one is still rare, if not entirely unique in the way that its message so simply and starkly describes what the lover longs to give to the beloved without condition or expectation of anything in return.
The other pronoun-bound songs that come to mind are otherwise embroidered with details which, though they add context and color, also skew the focus and complicate the message. We find such things as the drama of pursuit — "Please Please Me" — or blind faith in its successful outcome — "I'll Get You")-- or a polite request — "I Want To Hold Your Hand") — or a raw pleading — "Love Me Do" — that love be requited; an expression of gratitude for love received — "Thank You Girl" — or a prayer that it be not harmed by absence or separation ("P.S. I Love You", "All My Loving", et al.) The list goes on. As usual, I haven't done my homework as exhaustively as I should, but I hope the point is made.
"From Me To You" is all the more potent because its expression of love that is ready and willing to be given is so completely unencumbered and unobscured. We're not even told in this instance what it is within or about the other person that motivates such love, but the combination of words and music leaves no room for doubt that it most certainly must exist.
Regards,
...
Previous
Revision History
072291 28.0 Original release
020301 28.1 Adapt to series template
Copyright © 2001 by Alan W. Pollack. All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced, retransmitted, redistributed and otherwise propagated at will, provided that this notice remains intact and in place.
***********************************************************************
OK, OK, I didn't actually write this, it's by Alan Pollack, from a most excellent website http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml) .
I bolded some of his comments - validates the opinions they were in a "let's do whatever it takes to have another hit" frame of mind (as opposed to, "let's write a song for the ages, boys"). I agree with him that it doesn't diminish the good about the song, just IMO!
-
TL DR
-
"From Me To You" is all the more potent because its expression of love that is ready and willing to be given is so completely unencumbered and unobscured. We're not even told in this instance what it is within or about the other person that motivates such love, but the combination of words and music leaves no room for doubt that it most certainly must exist.
Good God! I was going to read it all until my eyes fell on that little gem. And here's me thinking it's a song they knocked up in the back of a bus by flogging the title from a letters page in a magazine. Respect to Mr Pollack and all his hard work but this makes me suspect his objectivity (let alone his sanity.)
I don't think I've ever said FMTY is a bad song. Just as their third single it's very repititious of earlier efforts. Fair enough - they had to mark their ground, but if I stand back and look at it objectively I have to be as critical of them as I would of anyone else. They could, and would, do so much better
-
They could, and would, do so much better
But did they know by then?
Yes, mr Pollack is a bit too detailed for me, not just on this song but in general. I don't think The Beatles ever looked at their songwriting in such a way.
-
Hi Kevin - I'm with you 100% - I don't think Alan Pollack is necessarily objective, or even sane! I actually envision him to be some dude with classical training who is an insane Beatles fan, like many people I might think of ;) . For my part, as someone who fancies himself a songwriter ha2ha (but with a day job!) , I've learned a lot about song structure, and music theory from him.
Anyway, I suspect that most people on this forum agree on the major points about "From Me to You":
- not their best song,
- maybe not even their best song to date (if one likes Please Please Me better),
- clearly and intentionally derivative (by the Beatles own words!)
- huge musical/songwriing leap - modulation to a new key for the middle eight (to the fourth: key of C transition to key of F, via Gm7. Their three previous recorded songs stayed in the "home" key throughout).
BTW - do any musicologists on the forum know what previous songs the Beatles may have heard, maybe growing up or otherwise, that had this kind of chord/key change? I thought maybe one of Goffin-King's songs might, but none jumped out at me after a quick look at their song list.
I would LOVE to know this, I'm pretty sure they weren't the first to ever use this musical "trick", but I can't figure where they may have heard it? A British "music hall" song from the 30s or 40s maybe? Apple, Nelson_Wilbury/Martin?
Thanks! :)
-
Good God! I was going to read it all until my eyes fell on that little gem. And here's me thinking it's a song they knocked up in the back of a bus by flogging the title from a letters page in a magazine. Respect to Mr Pollack and all his hard work but this makes me suspect his objectivity (let alone his sanity.)
I don't think I've ever said FMTY is a bad song. Just as their third single it's very repititious of earlier efforts. Fair enough - they had to mark their ground, but if I stand back and look at it objectively I have to be as critical of them as would anyone else. They could, and would, do so much better
Thanks Kevin for typing this before I had.
-
.
-
Alexis, at first I thought it was you who wrote it all! :o
Personally, I like the song very much!
-
Thanks Kevin for typing this before I had.
Dittto.
-
Always is good read an analysis, even if you're not agree.
I like this kind of discussion.
I'm sorry Alexis, I don't can help you this time. I'm not a good friend of the musical theory ;sorry
Maybe you can copy and paste the analysis of this author of the other singles
Yes, Martin, I thought you might like this!
I can post his analysis for any of the singles you like. But, if you click on this link, you can read them all for yourself!
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml) :D :D
-
.
-
Great! Thanks for the link
Another detail on FMTY is that the bass made the solo with the guitar and the harmonica, playing unison but an octave below. Listen!
The thing though is sometimes we put to much into stuff. I'll use Nelsons statement as an example for where i'm going with this. The Beatles did things because it sounded cool or good like the solo mentioned above, but they really didnt know what or why they were doing it most of the time. Their musicianship just wasnt that good for them to go around doing things off the cuff on purpose and understanding why they were doing it. Like the bass being an octave below as mentioned above, i'm sure Paul was trying to figure out that section and found that what he played sounded good so there it was. Now we have musical theorists coming in and dissecting everything and telling us how genius it was when in truth, it was just probably one of the lads playing something that fit the song after a few trys.
I guess the point i'm trying to make within my poorly worded paragraph above is that we tend to sometimes make things out to be greater than what they truly are. The prior analysis for 'From Me To You' by Pollack in this thread is a good illustration. He took a three chord pop song and broke it down so far that it seemed like it was something that took Beethoven several years to compose. Theres just no need to take it that far.
-
^ Amen to that. The assumption that The Beatles were born with genius oozing from every orifice is absurd. I'm no musician but I've glanced at Pollack's analysis before just out of idle interest. Have you seen how much he manages to write about 'Why Don't We Do It In The Road?'!!
-
.
-
Indeed I find these over-in-depth breakdowns quite fascinating.
I like the bit with the harmonica and the from me-to you and I couldn't say why.
Probably wouldn't get on my compilation album but hey...
It was number one in a few places.
-
Like the drums on Ticket to ride. Not was a genius idea from Ringo. They ask what pass if he eliminate 1 or 2 hits.
Your right since Paul told him what to play on that tune.
-
(http://www.rarebeatles.com/photopg3/cd5sing/cd15904.jpg)
-
I think I like this one better than Please Please Me but yeah it's not one I listen to very much either.
Now we have musical theorists coming in and dissecting everything and telling us how genius it was when in truth, it was just probably one of the lads playing something that fit the song after a few trys.
That doesn't mean it wasn't genius. Something doesn't have to be consciously aimed for to be genius.
-
That doesn't mean it wasn't genius. Something doesn't have to be consciously aimed for to be genius.
Accidents dont equate to genius in my opinion.
-
Accidents dont equate to genius in my opinion.
^let's look at this post:
the subject/noun "Accidents" leads off the thought perfectly - which then transitions into "don't" . . . a complete redirection of concept to the reader as tkitna brilliantly plays with our cognative reading comprehension in a way that feels so natural it's as if he's just "typing a sentence", per se.
2ch ha2ha
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . from me to you IS kinda genius though ;D ha2ha
-
^let's look at this post:
the subject/noun "Accidents" leads off the thought perfectly - which then transitions into "don't" . . . a complete redirection of concept to the reader as tkitna brilliantly plays with our cognative reading comprehension in a way that feels so natural it's as if he's just "typing a sentence", per se.
2ch ha2ha
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . . from me to you IS kinda genius though ;D ha2ha
I'm tired right now and kind of out of it, but i really dont know if your capping on me, joking around, making an actual grammer statement or what. I'm stumped.
(http://www.avatarsplus.com/d/13594-1/1076-shrug.gif)
-
;sorry that was supposed to be an example of overanalyzing something
.
.
.
because i agree with everyone who says stuff like the following can be over the top and ridiculous!! :
=========================================
Notes on "From Me To You"
Key: C Major
Meter: 4/4
Form: Intro | Verse | Verse | Bridge |
| Verse | Verse (solo) | Bridge |
| Verse | Outro (with complete ending)
CD: "Past Masters", Volume 1, Track 2 (Parlophone CDP 90043-2)
Recorded: 5th March 1963, Abbey Road 2
UK-release: 11th April 1963 (A Single / "Thank You Girl")
US-release: 27th May 1963 (A Single / "Thank You Girl")
1
General Points of Interest
Style
Besides a catchy tune and deceptively complex arrangement, "From Me To You" has a difficult-to-pigeon-hole musical style; after all, is it rock or pop, blues or skiffle?
Maybe it's just unmistakably Early Beatles, and with that, I'm only being whimsical in part. "From Me To You" was their third single, recorded during the charmed period between the recording and the release of the "Please Please Me" album. Those tight vocal harmonies with their flashes of passionate falsetto, the drum fills, the harmonica hook phrase, the personal pronouns, and so many other details were becoming both Trend setting and a bit formulaic by that point, and who could really blame them, given the roll they were so obviously on?
We've already seen in our earlier studies of the likes of "Love Me Do", "Thank You Girl", "Please Please Me", and "I Saw Her Standing There" most, if not all, of the specific techniques that come into play in "From Me To You". If unique coverage of such techniques per se were our main interest in this series, we could just as well have skipped this one.
But, if anything, the fact that the songs in this first crop of their originals are still so different from each other in mood and manner, in spite of the relatively restricted compositional vocabulary with which they were written makes them all the more extraordinary. The image comes to mind of master chefs, capable of producing an astonishing variety of dishes from a small, fixed list of ingredients.
So come 'head; this one's "got (almost) everything that you want!"
Form
The short eight-measure verse creates an overall time scale of modest proportions even though the form is paradoxically quite sprawling, with two bridges, two verses intervening, and both intro and outro.
The irony of the short length versus long form will seem sharper if you recall that in form, "From Me To You" is identical to "I Saw Her Standing There".
The lyrics of the four fully sung verses create a pattern of ABAA. The second half of the verse lyrics are a mini-refrain repeated each time, even in the solo verse. Lyrics of both bridges are identical as usual.
Rhythmically all sections start off with a pickup before the downbeat.
Melody and Harmony
The melodic content is more chromatic than usual, a combination of the bluesy E-flats in the verses, the modulation effecting B-flats at the start of the bridges, and the D# atop the augmented chord at the very end of the bridges. The verse tune is somewhat jumpy and covers the range of a full octave. The bridge tune covers a slightly smaller range and is primarily stepwise.
The prominence given to the I -» vi chord progression in "From Me To You" is something fairly widespread among the early Lennon and McCartney originals. Similarly, the gratuitous dominant seventh on F in measure 5 of the verse ("gratuitous" to the extent that it doesn't actually function as a dominant seventh but merely comes along for the spice it adds), and the augmented triad in the bridge are also fairly typical Lennon and McCartney chord tricks. There are, however, a few more novel details elsewhere in the harmony.
The song is among the very first of their officially released originals to feature a modulation to an alternate key during the bridge section. In spite of its brevity, the excursus to F Major we'll see below creates an expansive sense of harmonic space that belies the compressed time scale of the song.
Also unique is the clever surprise ending on the vi chord.
Arrangement
Several characteristic ingredients in the arrangement would eventually become almost cliche trademarks.
* The vocal part features a duet virtually throughout. Granted, the many flashes of two-part harmony are separated by long stretches of the same line sung in unison by Paul and John, but there is no vocal solo part here.
* Those flashes of vocal harmony, make frequent use of open fifths and falsetto singing.
* Drum fills are carefully deployed at special, structural or dramatic points in the song, not at liberty.
* An overdubbed harmonica is used to introduce the hook phrase.
* And what sounds like it might be a simple oom-pah bass part actually features a snapped rhythm of dotted quarters and eighth notes in alternation.
2
Section-by-Section Walkthrough
Intro
The short, four-measure intro presents, right at the outset, two repetitions of the hook phrase of this song. Just as we saw in "Please Please Me", the instrumental version of this hook turns out to be subtly different in rhythmic pattern from the one used in the verses even though the pitch content of both versions is identical.
Note the complete reliance in this intro on just the I and vi chords. Also note the scoring for harmonica and scat-singing voices, and the way the drum fill seems to both articulate the border between the intro and following verse section, as well as effecting a neat transition between the two.
Verse
As already mentioned, the verse is only eight measures long and its harmonic shape is closed off by virtue of remaining closely within the home key and ending more or less on the I chord. Although the melody itself is not particularly arch-like in outline, the harmony in this instance lends some dramatic arch shape to the verse. Use of that F7, with its E-flats that are foreign to the key, helps add an effective bluesy bit of tension right at the mid-point, while the slight increase in the harmonic rhythm toward the end of the phrase helps wind it down again:
|C |a |C |G |
C: I vi I V
|F7 |a |C G |C a |
IV vi I V I vi
[Figure 28.1]
The diagram above is of the first verse. The use of the vi chord in the second half of the last measure keeps the harmony open just enough to allow the music to continue at this point with verse #2. See for yourself just how lame that transition would sound if you eliminate the vi chord. The fact that this detail is missing in "take 2" of the song — there, they stay with the C chord for the entire measure — indicates clearly just how careful they were in the studio to revise at the last minute even relatively small details for the better.
Speaking of outtakes, the incomplete "take 1" of this song comes to a sudden, ragged halt for no clear reason, and the resulting three way discussion between John, Paul, and the control room in which they accuse each other in turn of having called for the timeout is one of those particularly charming and candid snapshots we're lucky to have of their life in the studio at this time.
At the end of the second verse the change to the a-minor chord in measure 8 is eliminated and in its place, the C chord has a dominant seventh added to it in the second half of the measure. This sustaining of the C root provides an added sense of closure at that point and the addition of the seventh to it more effectively sets up the coming bridge.
The hook phrase as it appears in the first part of this verse is presented with quite a bit more bouncy syncopation in comparison to its rather more foursquare appearance in the intro. The melody of the song in general, is shot through with gentle syncopations which play off effectively against the even, skiffle-like shuffle of the instrumental accompaniment.
The little snippets of vocal harmony include an open fifth in the first case — "... that you want" — and a surprising and suddenly passionate burst of falsetto from John in the second — "... I can do". I believe it is John who sings the lead part here with Paul singing harmony. This results in Paul singing above John in the first phrase and then crossing over him to sing below in the second phrase; a variation on a similar trick seen earlier in both "Love Me Do" and "I Saw Her Standing There".
While we're on the topic of vocal parts, chalk up in verse 2 yet another of those infamous word collisions between John and Paul on the phrase "Just/so call on me ..." It only goes to show that nobody who was there at the time was thinking in terms of people going over this stuff as carefully as some now do, so many years after the fact. Either that, or perhaps this "mistake" was on purpose; i.e. a very early clue :-).
Bridge
The bridge is also eight measures long but it harmonically branches out nicely in contrast to the verse:
|g |C7 |F |- |
F: ii V I
C: IV
|D7 |- |G |#5(aug) |
C: V-of-V V
[Figure 28.2]
We have what is called a pivot modulation to the key of F. The common chord between the home key of C and this new key is the C-Major chord at the end of the previous verse. One hears that chord at the time it's first played as the I of the home key. But once the bridge begins, the ear retrospectively reinterprets it as though it were the V of the key of F. Such common chords are not strictly required in order to effect a change of key, but their utilization makes such shifts smoother, and less abrupt. It's somehow analogous to the variety of means by which you might change the topic of conversation.
This bridge provides quite a bit of contrast to the verse sections. Right off the bat the melody suddenly becomes much less syncopated. And in live versions, the drumming, especially the cymbal bashing, may be noted to suddenly become quite muted at this point.
But the greater source of contrast is the way this section builds toward an ultimate climax as opposed to the arch-like, closed shape of the verse. Particularly in the last two measures we have a pile-up of intensification based on several musical factors — the augmented inflection of the V chord by literally stretching the D in the melody to a D#, the cross rhythm of slow triplets in the rhythm guitar (must be John, right?), the patented Ringo drum frills, and of course, that crowd pleasing falsetto moan for two-part harmony on the word (ahem) "whooo."
For the sake of variation — and avoidance of foolish consistency — they add in the second bridge a novel touch of two-part harmony at the very beginning of the section. Note how, true to form, Paul's backing part yet again starts off beneath John's lead, only to jump over it a few notes into the phrase.
Instrumental Solo Verse
You might call this section a "semi-solo," a simple, standard trick of the trade the Boys would re-use in "A Hard Days Night".
The musical framework is identical to all the other verses, yet what starts out as an instrumental solo merely "based on" the same old chord progression, degenerates in the second half, to a refrain-like verbatim repeat of that part of the verse.
There are two other cute little twists in the front half. First is the way that the instrumental first half of the section presents the hook figure in its alternate incarnation from the intro. This momentary retreat into the realm of the more square makes the syncopated second half of the section sound all the more bouncy when it returns. Second, is the responsive, mockingbird-like interjection of the singers here which almost subliminally broadcasts the title of the song at you.
This section did not yet exist as of that early "take 2" mentioned above, and based on the impression made by that otherwise pleasing performance, I assume that they belatedly added this because the song felt a tad too short without it.
Outro
This outro section is developed as a springboard-like outgrowth of the end of the final verse. The last two words of that verse are repeated the canonical three times, making for a creative variation on the more routine procedure where the entire last line gets reiterated; as in, for example, "I Saw Her Standing There". Far from being an arbitrary change, the repetition here of only "to you" bears effective emphasis.
The rhetoric of the lyrics is ably abetted by the antiphonal accompaniment, which includes a descending bass line, which in turn, is nicely reinforced by heavy syncopation and vigorous drum fills. As that bass line moves from C -» A -» A-flat, it incidentally creates yet another augmented chord, one that is more suspenseful and harmonically ambiguous than the one seen earlier in the bridge.
This second augmented chord, spelled from bottom up, A-flat / C / E, could move in one of two directions. Either the A-flat can resolve downward, making for a move to C-Major, or else, the A-flat can behave as though it were a G#, resolving upward, making for a move to a-minor.
What we get is quite enigmatically ingenious: the very next chord following the augmented one turns out, indeed, to be C-Major, the I chord of our home key, yet the music immediately proceeds with one final statement of the hook phrase before terminating abruptly on the a-minor chord. The musical logic of bringing down the curtain on the hook phrase is so subtly persuasive, that you barely note the ironic fact that the song has ended off-center from the home key; actually on the chord of the home key's relative minor.
Note by the way how, for virtually for the only time in the song, the voices are silent in this little coda; in contrast, even the intro at least included scat singing as part of the instrumental texture.
3
Some Final Thoughts
Personal Pronouns
Nowhere is the uniqueness of this song in spite of its recycled ingredients more evident than in the meaning of its lyrics.
Next note Paul with rather unwonted candor, in the interview which appears as a preface to Lewisohn's "Recording Sessions", allows that they had gotten themselves into a bit of a rut in the early songs with their repeated wordplay on personal pronouns, but he adds that this started out being motivated by a desire to "play to the market." He mentions our song by name in this context, but even so, I think it would be unfair to under-rate it as a mere exploitational pandering to what Brian Matthews on BBC radio might call "the little darlin's."
In "From Me To You", a particular immediacy is achieved by the use of direct address. How else could this group of four fabulous gentlemen manage, in the midst of a crowded concert hall or across the incorporeal airwaves, to establish such a direct connection to their audience? If you think not, try for comparison the very different feel that this song takes on when the lyrics are just slightly changed as they were in order to use it as the title jingle for their series of BBC radio holiday specials. "From Us To You", for my money, is much more impersonal because the change of "me" to the plural "us" subconsciously leads one to hear the "you" which follows in the plural as well.
I bring this whole thing up because in the context of a plethora of songs about "you & I," this one is still rare, if not entirely unique in the way that its message so simply and starkly describes what the lover longs to give to the beloved without condition or expectation of anything in return.
The other pronoun-bound songs that come to mind are otherwise embroidered with details which, though they add context and color, also skew the focus and complicate the message. We find such things as the drama of pursuit — "Please Please Me" — or blind faith in its successful outcome — "I'll Get You")-- or a polite request — "I Want To Hold Your Hand") — or a raw pleading — "Love Me Do" — that love be requited; an expression of gratitude for love received — "Thank You Girl" — or a prayer that it be not harmed by absence or separation ("P.S. I Love You", "All My Loving", et al.) The list goes on. As usual, I haven't done my homework as exhaustively as I should, but I hope the point is made.
"From Me To You" is all the more potent because its expression of love that is ready and willing to be given is so completely unencumbered and unobscured. We're not even told in this instance what it is within or about the other person that motivates such love, but the combination of words and music leaves no room for doubt that it most certainly must exist.
Regards,
...
Previous
Revision History
072291 28.0 Original release
020301 28.1 Adapt to series template
Copyright © 2001 by Alan W. Pollack.
-
(http://right-thoughts.us/images/uploads/not_this_sh*t_again.jpg)