"Chains" Please Please Me (1963)

Welcome to Track Chatter, where we choose a different song to discuss in depth. This entry is part of an ongoing series in which we reconsider songs by The Beatles. Can anything new be said about this band or its music? Have a look below and let us know what you think.

This entry’s track comes from Please Please Me, the Beatles' first UK full-length album. Released in March of 1963, the bulk of the album was recorded in one session on 11 February that stretched nearly ten hours, with a few of the songs having been recorded in the autumn of 1962. In the US, most of the songs from Please Please Me were released either on Introducing . . . the Beatles (Vee-Jay 1964) or the better-known The Early Beatles (Capital 1965).

In addition to the title track, the album includes such well-known songs as “I Saw Her Standing There,” “Love Me Do,” and “Twist and Shout.” Here at Track Chatter, we’ve decided to dedicate our inaugural post do a discussion of one of the album's many cover tunes. “Chains” was written by husband and wife songwriters Gerry Goffin and Carol King, and was originally a minor hit for The Cookies.



Lew chose this one, so we’ll let him kick it off.

Lew: I chose to focus on this song for a couple of reasons: One, because it's an insanely catchy tune that is probably less known than a few of the other tracks on Please Please Me, but also because it showcases The Beatles as a band. If you compare The Beatles’ version to the original, it's pretty clear that they definitely gave it the "rock" treatment, so to speak. They play it faster with less swing, and I would say that there's a certain urgency to it that you don't get from The Cookies' version. It's got a lot of attitude, by comparison.

Aaron: Well I’m glad you chose this song to kick things off with for a few reasons. First of all, I didn’t really know it that well before you told me that you’d picked it, and I’ve really enjoyed giving it a ton of listens these past few days. I agree with you about how catchy it is. Also, at first I wasn’t so sure about the idea of kicking off this whole project with a cover, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made. After all, six out of fourteen songs on Please Please Me are covers, a trend that would characterize three of their first four albums (A Hard Day’s Night being the exception). I think it’s easy to forget these days how important covers were fifty years ago when it came to getting songs on the radio and establishing recording artists’ careers, and The Beatles were no exception – in fact, the change that they brought to that process (along with Dylan and a few others) – is something I imagine we’ll bring up later on in this series, as it’s a key component of their legacy. One last thing I thought I’d mention is that this song does a fine job of showing off just how varied The Beatles’ influences were. I don’t want to get into the whole Stones/Beatles thing, but I think one of the reasons the Beatles might have been such a hit earlier, and one of the reasons their catalogue of original music is so much more interesting during the 1960s, is that they were drawing on a much broader range of influences than most bands of their time. Is that fair to say, or am I overstating it? Finally, I like what you said about how they play the song with “urgency.” I’d love to hear you say a bit more about what you mean by that, and also what you mean by how it showcases them as a band.

Lew: I'm glad you're enjoying this song. I actually was inspired to buy Please Please Me again recently because I saw Ferris Bueller's day off and the “Twist and Shout” scene reminded me of how powerful that song is. I bought the album (coincidentally right after the newest reissues had come out), listened to “Twist and Shout” 4-5 times, and then didn't think about it for a couple of weeks. As time went by, I found myself walking around, singing “Chains” to myself constantly, and really got back into the album because of it. I think your observation about the diversity of influences that The Beatles were drawing on is spot on. Although they have some of the same American influences that The Rolling Stones et al. had, they also draw heavily from British musical theater, doo-wop, and so on. I remember reading an interview with Paul McCartney where he talked about scouting his neighborhood to find people who knew more chords than he did. Although it's obviously conjecture, it's easy to speculate that learning music in such a communal setting may have had something to do with the broad range of musical perspectives that The Beatles were drawing on, particularly in the early days. On the notion of urgency in The Beatles' rendition of “Chains,” I can say a few things to clarify what I meant. For one, Ringo really takes the swing out of the rhythm section. The drumming on the track alludes to the "4 on the floor" rock beat, rather than the easy, relaxed feel of the original. The tempo is also much faster. I also noticed that the vocals, while similar in most ways to what was sung on the original, seem to have more of a staccato feel, and instead laying back behind the beat, seem to drop their accents very much on the beat. All of those subtle changes give the song a more aggressive, "rocking" feel to my ears. Would you agree with that?

Aaron: I like the way you say Ringo’s drumming “alludes” to the rock beat. There’s still a little swing going on there, especially during the verses. It almost sounds like he wants to break into the “4 on the floor” as each verse builds to the chorus, but then he reins it back into the oom pah pah swing. It creates a tension that probably adds to the urgency you’re talking about. Ringo really can swing when he wants to, but I’m not sure if that’s his natural inclination. I’ve heard different stories about why George Martin brought in a session drummer for a couple of the tracks on this album (“Love Me Do” and “P.S. I Love You”), but the all revolve around Martin’s being unhappy with Ringo’s control. Maybe that had something to do with this urgency or tension. I think a lot of the elements of The Beatles’ sound that people like today were actually frowned on a bit a the time for not being “professional” enough. So while we might admire that urgency, I can see it might have driven a perfectionist like Martin a bit batty.

Also, I love George’s vocals on this track. He sounds almost worn out (which we’ll get into more, I think, with the next track discussion as well). I guess he was only about twenty years old when they recorded Please Please Me, but he sounds a lot older. Later he’d do some really wonderful, smooth and melodic singing, but on this one, his voice has got the perfect amount of gruff and weariness. It’s probably a result of all the touring, double-session gigs, and amphetamines, but it’s perfect for the song because it really sounds like he’s “chained” and has been for a long time. That voice combined with the faster pace really makes it sound different from The Cookies’ version, which is much more languid, also due to the laying behind the beat that you mentioned. I wonder if that changes the meaning of the song in some way. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but in The Cookies’ version, it sounds somewhat like the object of the singer’s regret is something of a trifle – like, “well I sure would like to kiss you, but I’ve got this other relationship going on now, so I can’t.” Whereas in The Beatles’ version, it sounds more like a combination of something like frustration and quiet desperation – like the singer really does want away from the chains. Is that over thinking it?

Lew: It doesn't seem like over-thinking the situation at all, to me. Having never heard The Cookies' version before, I was actually pretty surprised by how unruffled the singer sounds by the entire situation. By comparison, I really think that George implies the circumstance of a person who is in a relationship that has run its course but that he isn't able to leave yet for some reason, meeting a person who seems to be offering some fantastic new possibility. Maybe that is over-thinking, but I feel a genuine sense of helplessness in the way he sings it, and I think that the band as a whole plays with enough tension to support that.

Aaron: I know that when they recorded this album, they were still a helluva live band, and I know that George Martin was impressed with their playing abilities, but I wonder how aware they were of things like “playing with tension.” Is that something they would have been aiming for, or just a natural by-product of having spent so much time playing above the din in clubs and strip joints? Or was it Martin’s influence? You’ve played in a lot of bands – what do you think?

Lew: Yeah, that's an interesting question. Of course, it's all conjecture, but my thought is that George Martin, as a trained classical guy, probably wouldn't have thought of the comparatively "rock" treatment that the Beatles give this song. It's really down to small rhythmic and dynamic decisions, to my ears. Ringo is hitting 2 & 4 a lot harder than the drummer in The Cookies' version, and the rhythm section generally picks up toward the end of the verses to give the transition a bit more tension/release feeling. I think those are spontaneous decisions that come from feeling the vibe of the song in a particular way, personally. Another take could have been completely different.

As a relative side-note, I really think that the way the rhythm guitars treat this song is really foreshadowing rock guitar playing down to things that you still hear today. The way they will play whole note during the verses at points, and then come back in with a busier rhythm is really great. It's definitely something that you hear AC/DC doing, and something that I like to do, as well. Those small dynamic alterations give it a much more aggressive feeling, whereas The Cookies' version, with dense harmony vocals and canned sounding horn parts, feels dynamically flat. It's similar to listening to The Ramones or Tom Petty playing "Needles and Pins" - same song, but very different feeling, musically.

Aaron: From the Beatles to AC/DC . . . sweet. Just to clarify (for us non-musicians), by “whole” note, do you mean as in "entire" (although I'm not sure what that would mean . . .) or “whole” as opposed to “half” or “quarter”? Could you give a couple other examples of tunes? I think I know what you mean, but it might be helpful to hear some other ways in which the technique is used. And did it become more prominent with advances in sound technology? I’m thinking how in AC/DC the whole notes really ring out, with a lot of sustain. Whereas here they sound a bit tinny, which I guess would be a by-product of early 60s recording styles.

Going back to George Martin, just for a sec. One thing to keep in mind in terms of his approach to recording is that, while his background was largely in classical music (as you mention), he also did a lot of comedy work before The Beatles, particularly on the Goon Show with Spike Milligan. In that setting he would have become accustomed to a great amount of improvisation. I might be wrong about this (maybe I should have a read a book!), but I think part of what attracted The Beatles to Martin was his Goon Show and other comedy work. And it was probably that combination, which both sides brought, of a love of musical precision and an appreciation of various forms and a great appreciation for the “zany” that made for such a fruitful relationship. I guess.

One last question that I think might be worth asking of many of these songs: can you imagine hearing “Chains” on the radio today? Or is it very much a song of its era? Going back to the question of relevance, I’m just wondering, what might contemporary listeners and musicians take away from this song?

Lew: That's an interesting point about George Martin's history in comedy, and something that I really wasn't aware of until now. I can definitely see how that would have related to his work with The Beatles - especially with regard to his contributions to arrangements. A track like "Good Morning," from Sgt. Pepper's definitely has a comedic side to the way it's arranged.

In response to your questions about musical terminology, etc., I can offer a bit of clarification: When I say "whole notes," I do mean a note that would last for an entire measure of 4/4. I think a good example of AC/DC using that device is at the beginning of the song "If You Want Blood." The rhythm guitar starts the song by playing the verse riff. Once the band enters, they play whole notes on the first beat of the measure for the first 3 measures, and then play quarter notes during the fourth measure, entering the main part of the verse from there.

I'm not sure if I could see a track like "Chains" getting played next to a Katy Perry song, but I could definitely see a band that wrote songs like that getting some attention in indie circles. In fact, I think that bands like Best Coast and the Vivian Girls are pretty deeply indebted to this type of writing, and even The Breeders definitely alluded to it from time to time.

Aaron: Hey, thanks for the clarification on the whole notes . . . now that I read back over my question, I feel a bit like an eejit, but so it goes. It’s much clearer now, anyway. And I think you’re right about the type of indie band that might take a stab at something like this, probably in a pretty low-fi way, I’m guessing.

I’d say that about wraps it up for “Chains.” We’d love to hear from anybody who agrees or totally disagrees with our take on the track, and we’re more than happy to engage in the comments, look forward to it in fact. So post away . . .

Coming Next: More George as we take on a track from the Beatles’ second album With the Beatles.