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.
Our second entry comes from the With the Beatles. As was common during the early days of rock, this album was released in the same year as its predecessor. And like Please Please Me, it included six cover songs amongst its fourteen tracks. Most of these tracks would be released in the US two months later (Jan ’64) on Meet the Beatles. Both albums feature Robert Freeman’s distinctive photograph of the lads’ four faces cast in shadow, although the design of the covers is somewhat different and Meet the Beatles includes a slight blue tint on the photograph.
In addition to “Don’t Bother Me,” With the Beatles includes such well-known tracks as “It Won’t Be Long,” “All My Loving,” “I Wanna Be Your Man,” and the sublime cover of “Please Mister Postman.”
Like our previous entry, “Chains,” “Don’t Bother Me” features a vocal performance by George Harrison, the difference being that in this case, the song was also written by George. In fact, “Don’t Bother Me” is the first Harrison-penned song to appear on a Beatles album.
Aaron chose this track, so we’ll turn it over to him now.
Aaron: I’ll just start by saying that this was the song that first gave us the idea for the project that would become Track Chatter. I was out at a pub and having one of those ever-so-enlightening conversations about the Beatles that proceeds along familiar lines: they were all that vs. they weren’t at all / or X band (Stones, Who, Kinks) were much better or more influential. Nobody ever wins these conversations, and I guess the fun is really in using the structure of the conversation to reminisce about what was a very exciting moment in pop music history, regardless of how one feels about any particular band or song. Anyway, during that particular conversation, one of my friends (yes, we’re still friends!) was explaining in intricate detail how badly the Beatles suck and how much better the Kinks were. As happens, the conversation passed on to other topics. Later that same week, I got a copy of With the Beatles, one of last year’s new mono releases. What struck me first was how few of the songs I knew really well. And I couldn’t stop listening to “Don’t Bother Me.” I found myself thinking, this really sounds like a Kinks song (the first Kinks’ recordings were released in 1964). I brought it up with Lew and during a protracted e-mail conversation and much New Years' carousing last year, the idea of Track Chatter was born. So, Lew, I’d just like to throw that out there. Is there anything about “Don’t Bother Me” that marks it as atypical of early Beatles?
Lew: I do think that “Don't Bother Me” is somewhat atypical of the early Beatles. Most obviously, it seems to have a good deal darker emotional content than many of the other songs that Lennon and McCartney were writing around this time, especially compared to the other songs on With the Beatles. Considering that they were still covering Chuck Berry songs, and 50's doo-wop tunes around this time, "Don't Bother Me" seems like a fairly substantial forecast of where they'd be headed later on. I don't think it would sound especially out of place on Rubber Soul. But, I'd also say that it has much more in common with the British Invasion songs that would be getting popular during the next couple of years than any of the Lennon/McCartney songs on the album, which is something that I think you pointed out to me during the aforementioned New Years' carousing. Do you still feel that way about it?
Aaron: I do. I wonder if, not being part of the “team,” George felt freer to explore different songwriting directions. I recently saw an old Dick Cavett interview with John Lennon from about 1972. Cavett asks Lennon how his songwriting has changed over the years. As part of his answer, Lennon makes a comment about how in the early days of the Beatles he and McCartney were under so much pressure to churn out hits that they would often take an already existing form and do their own version – a rock ‘n’ roll song, a Motown number, a soul track, and so on. Under no such pressure, George here seems to be onto something slightly more original, even if it’s a bit rougher than some of his later songwriting. I don’t think the lyric is quite as clever as early Lennon/McCartney stuff, and it doesn’t have those huge harmonies. But you’re certainly correct about its darkness being very different from what the other lads were offering. In fact, I’d wager that it’s a darker song than you’re likely to find amongst any of the pop music coming out in 1963. Certainly blues and country had long been showcasing songs that deal with that solitary and angry loneliness that comes after a breakup. Dylan’s “Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right,” also from ’63, might be along the same lines. But even that one is fairly even tempered, whereas the singer of “Don’t Bother Me” is simply demanding complete solitude. He hasn’t yet moved on to a place where he can be so ironic and coy as to say “you just kind of wasted my precious time,” but it’s no big deal. He’s still pissed. And he doesn’t care what anybody thinks about that. I love the way George delivers the line, “I’ve got no time for you right now” at the beginning of the second chorus. In fact, much like with “Chains,” I think it’s George’s attitude as much as anything that really sells the song. I also really dig the way the verses seem to contain most of the song’s urgency, and then when the choruses come, they seem more relaxed and resigned. It sounds a bit like in the verses he’s trying to explain the situation, but when it’s time to really push his point at the chorus, he just loses steam, says forget it, and generally can’t be bothered. That’s another way it seems different from Lennon/McCarthy, who loved those huge choruses, like on “All My Loving” or “It Won’t Be Long” from this same album. Does that make sense?
Lew: I think what you say makes a lot of sense, especially when you talk about songwriting forms. The point about Lennon and McCartney using established styles to make their own songs is a great one, and it's hard to ignore. Dipping into traditionalism in the way they do - that is to say, by appropriating existing forms for your own purposes - cuts both ways, to my mind. On one hand, it does exactly what the term traditionalism implies; it makes you part of a narrative. When a form or style endures successive trends, it's easy to note all manner of innovations in terms of composition and performance. I think most people would agree that that is the reason for jazz musicians to learn standards; it provides a yardstick to measure yourself against your progenitors, or determine that you can't relate to them, if that's the case. On the other hand, tradition should be useful, rather than constricting. The ability to access an established form can be liberating, or it might stifle creativity at some level, because it requires everyone to observe a particular structure. In that context, I wouldn't say that "Don't Bother Me" is clearly participating in a set tradition. It's more of an amalgam of various traditions, and in that respect, I'd say that it more successfully forecasts the advent of rock music that was deliberately opposed to existing forms. I could go on, but I'll pause here for a second to see what you think about that.
Aaron: Well, just a couple thoughts, really, before I toss it back to you. I like the way you describe the tension between tradition as liberating or constricting. It’s a tension that pretty much permeates rock music history and has led to some of its greatest achievements and most spectacular failures. I’ll be interested in taking the question up more as we make our way to some Lennon/McCartney numbers, which might better lend themselves to such a discussion. Also, while I’m sure this is probably clear to anybody reading this, I’d just like to point out that by describing “Don’t Bother Me” as adventurous or predictive of rock that opposed existing forms, we’re certainly aware that it’s not a radical departure – along the lines of say Zappa or Captain Beefheart or even the way, by 1963, Dylan was deconstructing tradition popular song forms. Having said that, however, I’d love to hear more from you on just how “Don’t Bother Me” is predictive in that way. And when you call it an “amalgam” of various traditions, have you got anything specific in mind?
Lew: You're definitely right to add the disclaimer about “Don't Bother Me” as being less radical than any number of more deconstructive approaches to rock or pop songwriting. When I say it's predictive of later rock music, I don't necessarily mean to say that it's blazing a trail that would be followed by others (although it probably did that to a greater or lesser degree), or that it presents the listener with a dramatic upheaval of opposition to traditional songwriting forms. I think more of what I'm trying to get at is that, in contrast to Lennon and McCartney's very obvious use of traditional styles as jumping-off points for their own songs, George seems to be making use of traditions in a more organic way. In terms of what he's actually synthesizing in “Don't Bother Me,” I'd say that there's a more traditional English vibe to the melody than in a lot of the other songs The Beatles were making around that time, but again, I don't want to say that he's wearing that on his sleeve in the same way John was overtly channeling Little Richard for “Dizzy Miss Lizzy,” for example. Whatever influences helped him write that song seem pretty well subsumed by the song itself. I also want to say that if it sounds like I'm being negative about the songs Lennon & McCartney were writing, I don't meant to be. I'm trying to differentiate, not make a qualitative comparison. Does that makes sense?
Aaron: Yeah, it makes sense. I like the way you describe its use of tradition as more organic but also as being “subsumed by the song itself.” I think one of the (pretty well established) important aspects of early Lennon/McCartney songs was the way they reinvigorated pop music in the early 1960s, on both sides of the pond. For them, I assume, it made sense to turn to the Little Richards and Chuck Berrys of America because they were the only ones really making “rock n roll” at that time as opposed to bubblegum (I know this is somewhat of a simplification, but it’s close enough to true for the purposes of this discussion). So what Lennon/McCartney did seems to have been very deliberate (even calculated), but they did it so damned well that it worked. And it probably freed up other British acts to incorporate a bit more of that “organic traditionalism” that you mention. The Stones, of course, would also look to American music in their early years, but other British Invasion bands like the Kinks, the Who, the Animals, and others, while grounded in various strains of American RnB, perhaps didn’t feel so beholden to it. If bands back then were anything like bands today, I’m sure there were a lot of guys trying not to sound like the Beatles while still picking up on their energy, enthusiasm, and rhythmic dynamism. In that sense, their songs, too, would contain “subsumed” traditionalism, if that makes sense. In any case, I wouldn’t ever think you were slagging off Paul and John – they would have plenty of “originality” to contribute to the pop landscape, and soon enough (in fact, just as we discussed with “Chains," I’d say that even their take on traditional American forms was fairly original from a contemporaneous point of view). But this brings me back to what I said earlier about “Don’t Bother Me” sounding like a Kinks song. In that sense, I think you’re on the money when you talk about the song as being “predictive,” and why I think that’s such a good word for it – it may not be that “Don’t Bother Me” was highly influential on bands like the Kinks or the Animals, but it certainly pointed in the direction that British Invasion bands were heading as the whole era got up and running over the next two years or so.
Any thoughts on that, or any final thoughts you might want to add?
Lew: The only other thing that I thought might be worth mentioning is the way that “Don't Bother Me” differs from the Lennon/McCartney songs that we'll be talking about with regard to sheer musical structure. I had a feeling about this so I took a minute and learned the chords to “Don't Bother Me.” At the risk of going too far into theoretical terminology, I think it's important to say that “Don't Bother Me” is coming from completely different place in terms of chordal relationships than a number of Lennon/McCartney songs (as we'll see when we talk about “Tell Me Why” next). I have been thinking that “Don't Bother Me” is kind of a Modal tune - not in the sense of the word implied by post-bop jazz, but more in the sense of Renaissance music or Gregorian chant (I realize that this may be a bit of a stretch, aesthetically speaking). The term “modal” is a fairly hotly debated one, so I'm not really ready to claim that “Don’t Bother Me” is definitively modal, but I will say that the song suggests some aspects of modal music over tonal music. The chords in the song imply a key center (E minor, in this case), but the chord E minor itself isn't necessarily treated as a tonic, in the sense that one uses that word in the context of tonal music - that is, where the Dominant-Tonic relationship resolves musical phrases and cadences (in this case, the chords B Dominant 7 to E Minor). “Don't Bother Me” does use a B7, but not in the way that you'd expect. B7 contains the notes B, D#, F#, and A. Emin contains E, G, and B. Generally, one would move from B7 to Emin, and the resolution from the D# in the B7 to the E (a half-step) would create what's called “voice-leading.” By contrast, “Don't Bother Me” moves from Emin to B7, to A7, to Gmaj, and then back to Emin. There's no cut and dried resolution, beyond the fact that Gmaj is from the same chord family as Emin. Essentially, the chords of the song deviate from formal compositional tradition, and suggest a more unstudied approach - again, probably based in English folk music (which, unlike most American popular music, derives strongly from medieval music). Lennon and McCartney, by accident or design, were very proficient at using compositional devices that were much more in keeping with the tradition established by Baroque classical music. I realize that we haven't talked about the music of The Beatles in these terms previously, but I think it's going to be important to consider these musical aspects in greater depth as we go along - first, to illustrate the different musical perspectives that informed the early days of The Beatles, and also to show the ways in which John and Paul eventually turned away from the more traditional approaches that they had been taking to songwriting. I don't think I have a lot more to say about this track at the moment, but I'd love to know if I've been able to use musical terminology in a way that clarifies something about the song, rather than making it more confusing.
Aaron: No, that’s not confusing at all – I only wish you were here with a guitar to demonstrate more clearly what you mean in your discussion of the chord relationships. But I’m pretty sure I get it, and I think the potentially modal nature of the song you point out probably has a lot to do with what drew me to it in the first place. Of course, I would have had no idea about that and would not have been able to articulate it. But I think it does have something to do with the tension between the verses and the choruses that I was talking about earlier. It’s the lack of resolution you describe that gives the song – at least in part – such urgency. What’s really cool – and who knows if this was intentional on George’s part or not – is the way that the chord structure that you describe actually contributes to and works in tangent with the song’s lyrical structure. That’s a relationship that The Beatles would go on to explore more deeply later in the decade, so I agree with you completely that it’s an aspect of their music that we will have to continue to keep in mind and discuss as this conversation continues.
Coming next: "Tell Me Why" from A Hard Day's Night, the band's first album of all original tracks.
talking across the pond about songs we like and why we like them.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
"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.
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.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Welcome to Track Chatter
Welcome to Track Chatter. We’re two long-time friends who’ve been listening to, talking about, and playing music together for a helluva long time. And although we’re now separated by an ocean, we’ve managed to keep up a regular chatter, so we thought we’d go ahead and share some of our thoughts and discussions with the larger world (or all seven of you who are reading this).
On Track Chatter, each entry will be a discussion about a particular song. The ‘blog is set up as a dialogue, so you’ll see us swapping thoughts, raising questions, and trying to shed a little light on what makes certain songs so timeless or dated; what makes them listener friendly or more dependent on close listening; in short, what makes us love them, hate them, or not give a damn.
Phase One
To kick things off, we thought why not go ambitious: we’re going to have a look at The Beatles. In response to the recently released, re-mastered set of original UK LPs, with each entry we’ll choose one Beatles’ track from each of those releases. We’ll go in chronological order, starting with Please Please Me and ending with Let It Be. For the most part we’ll be discussing lesser-known tracks, songs that might let us re-evaluate the band without having to worry about the expectations and familiarity that come along with so many of their monster hits. But on some occasions we’ll try to tackle one of those big hits and see if we can’t find anything new to say about it.
Why The Beatles? That’s a damned good question. Before we get to talking different tracks, we might as well answer it.
So, Lew, is there anything to say about The Beatles that hasn’t been said? Or, to put it more specifically, in today's world of fractured media and ghettoized musical tastes, are The Beatles really relevant any more? Is there anything they still have to tell us about popular music?
Lew: Short answer, yes. Without overcomplicating things, I think that the question of relevance can be problematic, since it seems to raise the question; relevant to who? However, I think that The Beatles are highly relevant in the sense that an understanding of their work helps to provide a genealogy for musical gestures made by contemporary musicians; a sort of history lesson, I guess. Whether their songs still speak to our social context is more debatable. How do you answer that question?
Aaron: I guess there are a few things I’d like to pick up on in what you’ve said. First, the question of relevance will be important to the overall nature of this blog. I’d say relevant to music fans . . . or maybe relevant to fans of pop culture in general. With all the interbreeding today between music, film, literature, television, etc., can a person be “up” on those things without considering The Beatles. At least in terms of influence, I’d have to say their legacy is so huge, that at least some passing knowledge of their music is necessary. At this stage, however, it’s often difficult to separate their music from their image or their place in history – their role as some sort of cultural marker. Attempting to delineate that separation is one of the things I’m excited about with this project. I think your last question is important though, and gets to the heart of what we might be trying to do here. Do their songs speak to our social context? I don’t know. I’m sure that will come up as we discuss individual tracks. For now I’d have to say, I think so. But I’m getting long-winded here, so I’ll pass it back to you. I’d love to hear what you have to say about that.
Lew: Well, I think that in terms of relevance, you're right that the songs of the The Beatles, and their overall cultural impact, is something that's still a perceptible influence on pop culture and art. I also agree with what I think you're alluding to, when you talk about distinguishing their music from their place in history - at this stage The Beatles are such a massive part of the "culture industry" (most visibly in the US, mainly because some Europeans seem to be in denial about their role as a musical and cultural influence), that it's very difficult to interpret their music on its own terms, which I would say does a disservice to some really innovative pop songwriting. I tend to be of the opinion that canonization by the "establishment" (I use that term with some irony) shouldn't be a death sentence for a piece of art. And, I'd go so far as to say that it's mainly in rock music, and the other forms that have sprung up around urban culture, that you encounter these issues of authenticity. You don't run across people saying things like "Mozart was the original boy band" or whatever. But I think that the distrust of music that's recognized above the subcultural level has a lot to do with the fusion of capitalism and art that took place in the 20th century. It's something that has to be gotten around, if you're really trying to appreciate the art itself. What's your approach to that?
Aaron: Well, my approach, and I don’t know if this works – if it can work – for everybody, is to try and listen to them as a band. I’m biased. I grew up in a house in which there was no question about the Beatles being “good” or “relevant.” They were just there, and I listened to them a lot. In a way, they were almost like background music to my childhood. So I never really thought about not liking them. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve tried to separate my nostalgia from my appreciation of them as a rock band (and I do think they’re a rock band, in addition to being a great pop band). As a result of their being part of the culture industry, there are so many factors that go into any one individual’s approach to The Beatles that can hamper actually listening to them as a band: what’s their background; were they authentic and original or just magpies and copycats; Paul v. John; was Ringo any good. Questions like that. Those kinds of discussions are interesting, don’t get me wrong, and I’ve spent many a long night rapping on the old Beatles/Stones debate. But I don’t think any of those questions really speak to the music of the band – the notion that the four of them (along with George Martin) spent over a decade trying to push rock music in new directions (mostly with success), while at the same time remaining an incredibly tight rock and roll outfit. If you listen to the original recording of “Love Me Do” for instance, you hear a band that’s playing pop, but that’s also swinging (thank you, Ringo), and they’re tight as hell. Fast forward to something like the second side of Abby Road, and you’ve still got a band rocking out, still very tight, only now they’ve taken the notion of a rock “song” and turned it inside out. Yet it’s still extremely listenable (I’d say it kicks ass, but that’s just me). At this point in time, the superfluous questions about them are too numerous and too entrenched in the culture to be gotten past completely, but I think if we’re going to answer a question about relevance or whether their songs are still able to speak to the contemporary social context, we have to make an effort to focus mainly on the songs, and less on all those other questions, as interesting as they may be. Does that make sense?
Lew: Well, I think you're right to try to see them as a band; that is, to keep their music separate from the more culturally entrenched aspects of what most people know about the Beatles. We may have struck on this before, but I think that it's exactly that cultural entrenchment – the fact that they are such givens in Western European music – that leads some people to disregard them. Speaking for myself, I know I've definitely heard so much hype about a popular band/book/movie that I started disliking it. That kind of thing may play out even more intensely with the Beatles, because they aren't only popular - they're considered fundamental. Conversely, I also think that the Beatles are sometimes revered blindly for similar reasons, and that's really just as bad. But anyway, I guess that's the whole point of this discussion: In order to give the Beatles a fair shake either to succeed on their actual merits, rather than as a band who had the right ingredients to be in the right place at the right time, or fail in the light of a critical analysis, we really need to listen to their songs and try to make a fresh evaluation. I'm looking forward to it.
Aaron: Me too, and that seems like a great place to end this introductory discussion. We’ve hit on a lot of issues that I guess will come up again, and perhaps some of our readers out there might have something to add.
Coming Soon: We’ll discuss a surprising, lesser-known track from the Beatles’ first UK release, Please Please Me.
In the meantime, we welcome any questions, comments, or corrections that any of you out there reading might have.
On Track Chatter, each entry will be a discussion about a particular song. The ‘blog is set up as a dialogue, so you’ll see us swapping thoughts, raising questions, and trying to shed a little light on what makes certain songs so timeless or dated; what makes them listener friendly or more dependent on close listening; in short, what makes us love them, hate them, or not give a damn.
Phase One
To kick things off, we thought why not go ambitious: we’re going to have a look at The Beatles. In response to the recently released, re-mastered set of original UK LPs, with each entry we’ll choose one Beatles’ track from each of those releases. We’ll go in chronological order, starting with Please Please Me and ending with Let It Be. For the most part we’ll be discussing lesser-known tracks, songs that might let us re-evaluate the band without having to worry about the expectations and familiarity that come along with so many of their monster hits. But on some occasions we’ll try to tackle one of those big hits and see if we can’t find anything new to say about it.
Why The Beatles? That’s a damned good question. Before we get to talking different tracks, we might as well answer it.
So, Lew, is there anything to say about The Beatles that hasn’t been said? Or, to put it more specifically, in today's world of fractured media and ghettoized musical tastes, are The Beatles really relevant any more? Is there anything they still have to tell us about popular music?
Lew: Short answer, yes. Without overcomplicating things, I think that the question of relevance can be problematic, since it seems to raise the question; relevant to who? However, I think that The Beatles are highly relevant in the sense that an understanding of their work helps to provide a genealogy for musical gestures made by contemporary musicians; a sort of history lesson, I guess. Whether their songs still speak to our social context is more debatable. How do you answer that question?
Aaron: I guess there are a few things I’d like to pick up on in what you’ve said. First, the question of relevance will be important to the overall nature of this blog. I’d say relevant to music fans . . . or maybe relevant to fans of pop culture in general. With all the interbreeding today between music, film, literature, television, etc., can a person be “up” on those things without considering The Beatles. At least in terms of influence, I’d have to say their legacy is so huge, that at least some passing knowledge of their music is necessary. At this stage, however, it’s often difficult to separate their music from their image or their place in history – their role as some sort of cultural marker. Attempting to delineate that separation is one of the things I’m excited about with this project. I think your last question is important though, and gets to the heart of what we might be trying to do here. Do their songs speak to our social context? I don’t know. I’m sure that will come up as we discuss individual tracks. For now I’d have to say, I think so. But I’m getting long-winded here, so I’ll pass it back to you. I’d love to hear what you have to say about that.
Lew: Well, I think that in terms of relevance, you're right that the songs of the The Beatles, and their overall cultural impact, is something that's still a perceptible influence on pop culture and art. I also agree with what I think you're alluding to, when you talk about distinguishing their music from their place in history - at this stage The Beatles are such a massive part of the "culture industry" (most visibly in the US, mainly because some Europeans seem to be in denial about their role as a musical and cultural influence), that it's very difficult to interpret their music on its own terms, which I would say does a disservice to some really innovative pop songwriting. I tend to be of the opinion that canonization by the "establishment" (I use that term with some irony) shouldn't be a death sentence for a piece of art. And, I'd go so far as to say that it's mainly in rock music, and the other forms that have sprung up around urban culture, that you encounter these issues of authenticity. You don't run across people saying things like "Mozart was the original boy band" or whatever. But I think that the distrust of music that's recognized above the subcultural level has a lot to do with the fusion of capitalism and art that took place in the 20th century. It's something that has to be gotten around, if you're really trying to appreciate the art itself. What's your approach to that?
Aaron: Well, my approach, and I don’t know if this works – if it can work – for everybody, is to try and listen to them as a band. I’m biased. I grew up in a house in which there was no question about the Beatles being “good” or “relevant.” They were just there, and I listened to them a lot. In a way, they were almost like background music to my childhood. So I never really thought about not liking them. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve tried to separate my nostalgia from my appreciation of them as a rock band (and I do think they’re a rock band, in addition to being a great pop band). As a result of their being part of the culture industry, there are so many factors that go into any one individual’s approach to The Beatles that can hamper actually listening to them as a band: what’s their background; were they authentic and original or just magpies and copycats; Paul v. John; was Ringo any good. Questions like that. Those kinds of discussions are interesting, don’t get me wrong, and I’ve spent many a long night rapping on the old Beatles/Stones debate. But I don’t think any of those questions really speak to the music of the band – the notion that the four of them (along with George Martin) spent over a decade trying to push rock music in new directions (mostly with success), while at the same time remaining an incredibly tight rock and roll outfit. If you listen to the original recording of “Love Me Do” for instance, you hear a band that’s playing pop, but that’s also swinging (thank you, Ringo), and they’re tight as hell. Fast forward to something like the second side of Abby Road, and you’ve still got a band rocking out, still very tight, only now they’ve taken the notion of a rock “song” and turned it inside out. Yet it’s still extremely listenable (I’d say it kicks ass, but that’s just me). At this point in time, the superfluous questions about them are too numerous and too entrenched in the culture to be gotten past completely, but I think if we’re going to answer a question about relevance or whether their songs are still able to speak to the contemporary social context, we have to make an effort to focus mainly on the songs, and less on all those other questions, as interesting as they may be. Does that make sense?
Lew: Well, I think you're right to try to see them as a band; that is, to keep their music separate from the more culturally entrenched aspects of what most people know about the Beatles. We may have struck on this before, but I think that it's exactly that cultural entrenchment – the fact that they are such givens in Western European music – that leads some people to disregard them. Speaking for myself, I know I've definitely heard so much hype about a popular band/book/movie that I started disliking it. That kind of thing may play out even more intensely with the Beatles, because they aren't only popular - they're considered fundamental. Conversely, I also think that the Beatles are sometimes revered blindly for similar reasons, and that's really just as bad. But anyway, I guess that's the whole point of this discussion: In order to give the Beatles a fair shake either to succeed on their actual merits, rather than as a band who had the right ingredients to be in the right place at the right time, or fail in the light of a critical analysis, we really need to listen to their songs and try to make a fresh evaluation. I'm looking forward to it.
Aaron: Me too, and that seems like a great place to end this introductory discussion. We’ve hit on a lot of issues that I guess will come up again, and perhaps some of our readers out there might have something to add.
Coming Soon: We’ll discuss a surprising, lesser-known track from the Beatles’ first UK release, Please Please Me.
In the meantime, we welcome any questions, comments, or corrections that any of you out there reading might have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)