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.
Aaron: Recently in the comments, we touched a bit on the different release history of The Beatles albums vis a vis the UK and the US. Many of us who grew up in the US – pre-compact disc, anyway – were used to a set of albums that were different from their UK counterparts – similar, but something like phantom copies in the way they replicated the UK releases, but modified them. Sometimes this resulted in albums with completely different titles – of the first four albums we’ve discussed here at Track Chatter, only the US
A Hard Day’s Night shares a title with its UK counterpart, although the two albums share only seven tracks. Capitol would continue to release different versions in North America up through and including 1966’s
Revolver and in that year would release one more, US-only album,
Yesterday and Today, which included tracks from the UK (but not US) versions of
Help!,
Rubber Soul, and the aforementioned
Revolver.
Perhaps the biggest discrepancy comes on the album up for discussion this week,
Help!. The UK version included twelve original Beatles songs (including two George Harrison numbers), and two covers – “Act Naturally” and “Dizzy Miss Lizzy.” The Capitol release included only seven of those tracks, plus five instrumentals from the soundtrack to the film (which always made the album seem a bit boring to me as a kid). So for some readers, this entry’s track discussion might seem startling at first, as we’ll be talking about “Yesterday,” originally released in August 1965 as the penultimate track on side two of the UK version of
Help!.
Can anything be said about “Yesterday” that hasn’t already been said – by fans, critics, or the many many artists who’ve interpreted it via cover version (over 1,600)? In some ways, “Yesterday” is an example both of what makes The Beatles such an interesting band as well as what so many of the band’s detractors hate about them. Perhaps we can shed some light on why that might be.
And while “Yesterday” might seem at first to be outside the purview of this project – it can hardly be described as a “lesser-known” track – its near ubiquity in a way makes it ripe for discussion: it’s a song that everybody knows, so few people rarely listen to. Or maybe not.
What do you think, Lew: is “Yesterday” even worth talking about?
Lew: It is worth talking about, for sure. It's a song that can be looked at in several ways, I think. To start, I completely agree with your statement that its ubiquity locates it in sort of a blind spot. It's one of those cultural icons that's simply accepted as being present, and consequently, rarely considered in and of itself. In a lot of respects, you could probably call it a “traditional” at this point. It's a more extreme example, but one rarely hears anyone talking about "Amazing Grace" as a song with strengths or weaknesses (although I think it's pretty cool) - it serves a certain cultural function, and that role supersedes any question about its quality. I also think that the phrase “familiarity breeds contempt” is pretty appropriate here. One can only hear so many
lounge versions of a song without starting to judge it on its use in that context. There's a lot more to say, but why don't you weigh in for a second? Do you think “Yesterday” is worth discussing?
Aaron: In a lot of ways, yes. I think it’s one of those songs that Beatles detractors point to as an example of the schmaltzy side of the band (even if less so than some later Paul compositions). Hand-in-hand with John’s “druggy” songs and the factors relating to overexposure that we’ve already touched on somewhat, this schmaltziness seems to be “proof” to some that the Beatles are overrated or coasting on reputation. But the more I listen to the song, the more I realize that couldn’t be further from the truth.
But before I get to breaking the track itself down, there are a few things worth mentioning. First, I’ve never really noticed this before, but do you think it might be fair to say that Help! is where we really begin to see the emergence of “John” songs and “Paul” songs? We’ve discussed briefly the end of their “head-to-head” writing sessions. I realize that, with a few exceptions, they would continue to contribute to each other’s songs throughout the life of the band, but do we see on
Help! the beginning of more individually voiced songs? For instance, last entry we talked about how
“Every Little Thing” sounds like a Lennon song (in part because of his role singing it) even though it was written mainly by McCartney. Could we imagine Lennon singing “Yesterday”? Or McCartney singing
“Hide Your Love Away”? I know that the band didn’t think so. Apparently, they considered “Yesterday” to be almost a McCartney solo song, so much so that they vetoed its release as a single in the UK (it was released as a single in the US, where it went to number one; it was released as a UK single in 1976, making it to number eight). They seemed to think “Yesterday” didn’t have the Beatles “sound.”
What’s interesting to me now, however, is that “Yesterday” comes from the same album as “Hide Your Love Away” and the many similarities between the two. Both songs are showcases for their individual writer – although on “Yesterday” Paul is the only Beatle to perform, whereas on “Hide Your Love Away,” the entire band appears. Both songs feature outside instrumentation (the orchestra of “Yesterday,” the flute of “Hide Your Love Away”). Both songs feature very pure distillations of that combination of simple and raw songwriting that we’ve discussed, with nearly unadorned or distracting musical arrangements. And both songs are about the singer dealing with the aftermath of a painful breakup. In fact, “Yesterday” even features the line “now I need a place to hide away.”
Now, I love “Hide Your Love Away.” It’s been one of my favorite songs of all time – Beatles or no – since I can remember. But I wonder if it doesn’t get props for being a better song because it’s a Lennon track, or perhaps because “Yesterday” is, as we’ve said, “overdone.” So I’d like to get into talking about the lyrics and music of “Yesterday,” to see if it does stand up, if it is a good song. So, take it away in one of those directions, Lew, unless you’d also like to add some “meta” to the conversation before we get down to the nitty gritty.
Lew: Well, you've definitely presented some food for thought here. I was initially a little wary about drawing comparisons between “Hide Your Love Away” and “Yesterday.” That's probably more about me than anything else - I generally avoid that kind of comparison because it seems kind of “reductive” (for lack of a better word). But, having thought it through, I agree that you're on the money when you identify them as sharing a lot of common ground, lyrically. Both songs are written from the perspective of someone who's in the aftermath of a romantic tragedy, and they're both great at describing that experience for different reasons.
In “Yesterday,” the lyric places the event chronologically (today), and refers to an earlier, more carefree time (yesterday). That may seem fairly self-evident, but I think that it's important to point out, because I have the feeling that it's a common experience when you're experiencing a crisis. Speaking for myself, I know that there's always a tendency for me to delineate between the now (in which a terrible event is happening), and before (when things were good, and I didn't know/appreciate it). The narrator of “Yesterday” captures this experience pretty clearly, and it may be (although this is pure hypothesis) that commonality that has made the song so popular. Of course, it's a catchy tune, as well.
To extend the comparison to “Hide Your Love Away” a bit, I think it's important to note some differences, in addition to the similarities. "Yesterday" seems to be written from a perspective of isolation, while “Hide Your Love Away” is very clearly placed in a social perspective; from the title, to the constant references to people that are looking at the narrator. It has aspects of paranoia, in addition to the obvious resignation and heartbreak. “Yesterday” doesn't seem to have any kind of self-awareness - it's only expressing the heartbreak.
I completely agree that with
Help!, we're starting to songs that can be much more clearly defined as “John” and “Paul” songs. I wonder if you could say that, once they stopped writing the more overt pop songs, they started moving away from each other. It seems like they were able to write together very seamlessly while they were borrowing cliches, but that maybe once they started trying to raise the quality of their creative output, their respective identities became too pronounced to maintain the same kind of partnership.
Aaron: Yeah, “reductive” probably is the right word. And the two songs certainly have as many differences as they have commonalities. It’s the difference in their reception I find so odd, when there are so many clear similarities. Maybe it’s also a case of “Yesterday” just being too popular, which tends to make things unlikeable for a certain segment of fandom (myself, on occasion, included).
So what about “Yesterday” on its own? I agree with you that it captures an experience very clearly. The more I listen to it, the more I think it’s pretty much crystal clear. Paul is getting very economical at this point – an aspect of his songwriting that gets overlooked sometimes (perhaps because he’s so un-economical at times). I don’t want to misuse musical terms, so please correct me, but is it right to say the song doesn’t really have a chorus. Something more like a verse and a bridge (how would you characterize the “why she had to go” part?). In any case, there are very few actual lyrics in the song, and there’s a fair amount of repetition. I generally despise the use of “poetic” to describe pop music, but there’s an element of truth in using that description for this song. Not in any flowery or overtly metaphorical sense, but in the way the lyrics – simple as they are – have multiple meanings that can lead thoughts in different directions at the same time. Just one example might be, “I’m not half the man I used to be.” I don’t really know exactly what he means by that. Is it a very literal “my other half (i.e. my partner) is now gone”? Is it something more metaphorical, as in half of some essence of whatever it was that made him a man is gone. Is it about his missing confidence, self-possession, etc? Or is it the simple lover’s lament that life really sucks without her? It’s somehow a combination of those sentiments (and more, probably), and I could see how it might come across as overtly weepy to some listeners. But even more interesting to me is how it comes after the dramatic, “Suddenly” – that’s where the clarity of it comes in for me. The whole song is really about that “suddenly” moment – the difference between yesterday and today is only a few hours, after all. And it’s not only “suddenly she’s gone” (it’s partly that), or “suddenly I’m sad and confused” (partly that, too), but “suddenly, I’m not half the man I used to be.” In some ways it’s not nearly as clever as “here I stand, head in hand, turn my face to the wall” (which makes visual much the same feeling, I guess, so gets props for the whole “show don’t tell” thing); but while not being as clever, it’s much more confessional and raw. I don’t mean to get back to the reductive comparison, because both lines are effective for me. But I can definitely see why those lines (and the songs) would appeal differently to different listeners.
I could go on about how the lyrics to “Yesterday” work for me, but I’m curious to hear your take on them (before, I hope, we get to some talk about the music).
Lew: Well, I'd agree that the lyrics are economical, and probably brilliant in their economy. The way the verses are structured so that the first word of the verse also concludes the verse is a smart bit of writing. I'd agree that the verse that begins with the word “suddenly” is probably the most clarifying moment in the song, and the best writing. I think the line "yesterday came suddenly" is a truly inspired moment. This verse is really pivotal to the song, both musically and lyrically. Lyrically, it leads to the “I'm not half the man I used to be,” which, as you pointed out, is a line that carries more than one interpretation and probably conveys the most essential statement of the narrator's condition in the song. Musically, Paul singing the word "suddenly" arrives at the same time as the string section, which I think lends weight to the vocal part. It's a very well-conceived arrangement, in the way that the abrupt arrival of strings mirrors the word being sung by the vocalist.
I think the perception that the song is overly sentimental, or “weepy” as you say, is misplaced. I'll grant that it's morose, but I think the music manages to avoid a lot of the potential pitfalls that go with this type of song. For one thing, as recorded here, it's only slightly over two minutes long. I'm inclined to call that understated, since he really could have expanded certain things, or even repeated sections to make it longer. Secondly, as a corollary to the song's length, I can't help noticing that the tempo isn't as slow as I want to think it is. If you listen to the way he articulates the guitar part, it's anything but dirge-like. Finally, I wanted to mention Paul's vocal, which I also find to be quite understated. In my mind, I tend to hear the song as very slow, and with a slightly overdone vocal take, but the truth is, he doesn't use vibrato once in the entire vocal! Even the held notes are sustained plainly, and I think it's that lack of affectation (mirroring the lyric) that really saves the song for me.
I guess I've jumped straight from the lyrics to talking about the music with no warning. I'm sure you have some things to say about that, as well, so let's get into it.
Aaron: Hey, I really like that observation about how the first utterance of “suddenly” comes just as the strings kick in. It’s one of those glaringly obvious aspects of the song that I’ve just never really paid attention to – again, probably a byproduct of too many listens. Also agree that “yesterday came suddenly” is an inspired line.
As a brief sidetrack before taking up the music, I’d just like to land again on the subject of the band’s approach to recording because I think it relates to what you wrote about Paul’s approach to singing the song. Their later experiments with recording are well known (and seemingly equally well loved/hated), but, as we’ve already touched on somewhat in this series, they were taking novel approaches to studio work from the very beginning. We’ve talked about double-tracked vocals, playing with volume levels, “supporting the song,” and I think a lot of that comes into play with “Yesterday,” and demonstrates the technical mastery they had developed by this point in their career as a band. The decision alone not to have any of the other band members play on the track (which seems to have many origin stories) is one notable moment. But there’s an approach to the singing that I want to check with you because I don’t know if it’s just the version I have, or listening to it on my MacBook, or the actual recording. In the first bridge, are the vocals double-tracked only on the lines “I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday?” I think so. But on the second bridge, those lines are not double-tracked. However, on the first, double-tracked bridge, Paul sings the concluding syllable, “-day,” as one sustained note while the violins descend four steps; whereas on the final utterance (the single-tracked), his voice descends through the four steps while the violins hold the first note. Sorry if my musical terminology is not up to scratch, but is that about how you’d describe it? It’s such a simple decision – combining the band’s knowledge of recording and music (and probably with a heavy dollop of a George Martin contribution) – but it provides such texture to the song. I think everybody probably thinks that Paul goes down those four steps on both passes, but the difference, though subtle, I think adds to the emotional richness of the song’s texture.
I’d love to hear more about the music; any other thoughts on the relationship between the three parts: vocals, guitar, string quartet?
Lew: You’re absolutely correct about the way the vocals are double-tracked. Again, it’s something that I had never really paid much attention to until we started talking about the song recently. I actually think it’s quite interesting that the vocals are double-tracked the first time through the bridge, and not the second. This is definitely one of those instances where it’s hard to know how much analysis is appropriate, because it’s either a very deliberate decision, and in that case an odd one, or something completely arbitrary that only took place because they ran out of time in the studio, or something like that. Personally, I would have double-tracked it both times. Leaving that aside, I love the way he sustains the one note at the end of the first bridge. I think that the sound of him holding that one note against the descending figure that the strings are playing adds a cool polyphonic dimension to the way that statement is concluded. I know I mentioned this already, but I’m still amazed that there isn't even a trace of vibrato on that note. It’s definitely unusual - some people might even say it makes his vocal technique sound unstudied - but as I said before, I really think it enhances the song because there’s so little artifice about it.
About the relationship between voice, guitar and string; it’s a really interesting arrangement for me. Paul’s voice is the focal point, but the guitar part really provides the rhythmic foundation for the song. It’s an odd part in some respects - I like the way he voices the chords, but the rhythmic figure is pretty stiff. That’s not a knock on Paul’s guitar playing; I'm sure he could have played something more syncopated, so the rigidity is obviously deliberate. Maybe he played it that way at George Martin’s suggestion? I'm not sure, but I can't help wondering what it would have sounded like if one of the guitar players in the band had played the part. Or, it might just be me. Did you notice the stiffness that I'm referencing here?
Aaron: I wonder if there’s a difference between “stiff” and “rigid.” I definitely know what you mean, though. It sounds almost metronomic in its steadiness. And yet, like you said, it seems deliberate as well, which I think is likely because it provides a steadiness to the song that the vocals and quartet can then play off. I know that Paul could be something of a melodic bass player, but he was a bass player nevertheless. I wonder how much that figured into his guitar playing here. On the other hand, I think it’s pretty well documented that “Yesterday” was written on piano. Do you know if there are any existing versions out there of Paul playing it on piano? It would be interesting to hear if that changed his rhythmic approach to the song.
In any case, one thing that this write-up has really shed a light on for me is how unadorned this song actually is. Yes, the quartet gives it a polished, “serious” sheen that makes it seem very “pretty.” However, I wonder how much our contemporary take on the quarter has been affected by the forty odd years of rock bands trying to go “serious” by adding strings. Whereas with “Yesterday” it might have been more a question of texture (as you mention) than one of “polish” or adornment. Just a hunch, and I’m sure somebody out there might have a more definitive take on it than I can give here (I swear I’m going to get the Ian MacDonald book soon!). But the point is, with his singing style (as you so well describe) and the simple guitar and the relatively low-key string accompaniment, the song is much more an exercise in restraint than it’s always seemed to be in my mind. Listening to it again for this project has made that so clear.
Lew: That's a good point about the piano. Actually, now that you’ve said that, I’m hearing the guitar part a little differently. Before, I was hearing it as a very stiff strumming pattern, but in the context that you’ve presented, I have the idea that his intention was to adapt the left/right hand relationship from his original piano part to the guitar. That makes more sense to me.
Following the minor revelation above, I was thinking, “why didn't he just play piano on it, in that case?” But, I think that gets to what you were saying about the unadorned quality of “Yesterday's” arrangement and production. A piano would have sounded much “bigger” and, coupled with the strings, might have given more of a genuine orchestral vibe, whereas the slighter sound of the acoustic guitar seems to help in retaining a general lack of pretentiousness. I think that might be the difference between the way strings are used in “Yesterday” vs. the way rock bands have used them since, as you say, “Yesterday” uses them as a textural addition, and seems to do so with a fair degree of intentionality. By contrast, a lot of bands using strings don't seem to know what they want - they layer on strings, horns, tympani and whatever else because, again as you implied, they're really looking to borrow some kind of authenticity or musical gravitas by using instruments that belong to “high music,” as it were. Not everyone can write
“Bohemian Rhapsody,” but most people seem to think they can.
Aaron: Ha, Indeed! In fact, a song like “Bohemian Rhapsody” has probably had as much an influence on rock’s pretensions to seriousness as one like “Yesterday” because it is so BIG and has that operatic quality (in a good way) that I think sometimes gets misapplied to McCartney’s music (in a bad way). But the point is well made, specifically what you say about the relationship between the guitar and the strings in “Yesterday.” At the risk of getting a bit repetitive on this point, I think that knowledge, that in-studio savvy, is an important part of the Beatles’ legacy: while some of their songs might not seem “relevant” in today’s cultural context, their approach to song craft and recording – that combination of lyrics, musicianship, experimentation, and studio precision – that so defines their best work is incredibly relevant and vital today. I think you could argue that a band like Radiohead, even, as far as their sound is from the Beatles, is very directly a descendent of the Beatles in the way they consciously craft their songs. Perhaps that’s a stretch, but I don’t really think so.
But getting back to “Yesterday” and its relevance. I wanted to slip in an anecdote before signing off. A few years back I received a mix-CD (from our good buddy Dan D.) that included some live acoustic performances by Jeff Tweedy. Most of the performances (I believe) come from a show he did at Lounge Ax in Chicago – so, like, hipster central. He starts playing “Yesterday,” and the performance and the crowd reaction provide a really fascinating insight into the song’s reception these days. Tweedy plays it completely straight – no guitar flourishes, no funny voices, no sense of irony or cynicism at all. As he begins and sings the first line, there are audible bursts of laughter. A couple guys close to the recording mic actually start giggling derisively. Tweedy keeps plugging along. And the crowd starts to quiet down. A few people start singing along, and by the final bridge, what sounds like the whole crowd is singing along with obvious enthusiasm. It’s a great performance, to be sure. But it’s also a great example of how well the song works, how good the song is, if it’s listened to as the song it is, not some artifact of a long-lost era, or an example of some mythological faux-sentimentality on the part of Paul McCartney.
That’s my take, anyway. Any final thoughts on your part, Lew? It’s a big song – anything that needs saying before we turn it over to our readers?
Lew: I don't have much to add, although I think your observation that Radiohead owes a lot of its experimental approach to the legacy of the Beatles is spot on. I don't think it's at all far-fetched to compare Radiohead's development since
Pablo Honey to the Beatles development from
Please Please Me onward.
I'd like to hear that Jeff Tweedy performance.
I'll close my remarks on Yesterday by saying how surprised and pleased I am that it turned out to be such a fertile topic of conversation. For anyone who hasn't really given the song a serious listen (or five) in a few years, I definitely recommend further investigation.
Coming Next: We do our best to return to the (semi-) obscure with a track from the Beatles’ sixth UK release,
Rubber Soul.
Aaron: I’m a bit conflicted as well. When we first started the project, I sort of thought we’d burn through it in a few months, maybe 6 to 8 or so, and I was really excited. And while we were working on those first few entries, I got a real rush going back and listening to those older albums in full – it had been along time since I’d listened to all of Please Please Me or A Hard Day’s Night, for example – and in most cases, I was listening to the mono re-masters. That meant that in addition to hearing a lot of the songs again for the first time, I was hearing them in ways I hadn’t before, which was incredibly exciting. I think that sense of excitement comes out in those early entries in the way we write about something like the sound of Paul’s bass or the harmonies.
