A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles  (Read 12847 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #60 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..
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."
Sheet Music Plus Homepage

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #61 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  ;)
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #62 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
Logged

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #63 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.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 04:14:38 AM by nimrod »
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #64 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
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6876
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #65 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.

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #66 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.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 08:07:00 AM by nimrod »
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #67 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.
Logged

nyfan(41)

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 669
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2011, 04:00:40 PM »

.... now it's time for me to log out and go sit in the corner  ha2ha
Logged

peterbell1

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 690
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #69 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
Logged

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #70 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.
Logged
day tripper yeah

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #71 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.

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml
i dip into that bag alot, for different reasons. the notes on... series is da bomb.
 ;yes
Logged
day tripper yeah

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 6876
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #72 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.

peterbell1

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 690
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #73 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.
Logged

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #74 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
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 05:02:43 PM by 7 of 13 »
Logged
day tripper yeah

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10873
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #75 on: April 08, 2011, 02:29:37 AM »

Sometimes Alan W. Pollack sounds like this guy to me...

MUSIC OF THE RUTLES UNDER REVIEW
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #76 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
Logged
day tripper yeah

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2011, 09:32:06 PM »

Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

nimrod

  • Global Moderator
  • A Thousand Pages
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3131
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #78 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
Logged
"I have always thought in the back of my mind.... cheese & onion...."

7 of 13

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: Beatles under a microscope - With The Beatles
« Reply #79 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
Logged
day tripper yeah
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
 

Page created in 1.547 seconds with 28 queries.