What happens when you take a simple song with just 6 chords, throw a pile of Beatles songwriting techniques at it, and then have it mixed by Abbey Road Studios?
Well done, James! That is a very thorough mini-class in specific songwriting techniques. And, you didn't too caught up in a lot of music theory! I appreciate being reminded that The Beatles learned from earlier music "masters." Music seems to be a lot like science where new tunes or compositions are based on what came before in a new musical expression. Cheers, mate!
The result is great and improves the song much. At looking at chords for beatles songs they did make some interesting chords changes that make the songs more exciting.
This is excellent information. I noticed you have an internal pickup in your Takamine. I also have a Takimine but it has a preamp built in it. That said I assume you prefer "not" having a preamp on your acoustic. You have a great singing voice mate. 👌👍
Fascinating analysis. I would say that a McCartney bass line is an essential component of a Beatles song with lots of 2nd inversions, descending scales and high obligatory bass fills. Even more backing vocals and a less overdriven lead guitar. I am currently preparing a Beatles showcase with Abbey Road style session orchestra and so am completely immersed in the sound world. Spot on with all the modulations and time changes. You are right about George Martin. Keep ‘em coming - great project.
@@JamesHargreavesGuitaractually paul and john would play together as one track. play back over another and tipple up a track thing they invented out of necessity are just a day in the office now.
I loved this precious lesson, and the song did change from a cute caterpillar into a gorgeous butterfly, but I'm missing other things that made Beatles songs, like George's guitars and Ringo's drums.
Great points there. Ringo seemed simple, for the most part, but played things in very *different* way then typical drummers, with distinctive syncopations and such. "In My Life", for example.
Even more so, _I Need You (That Thing You Do)._ The vocals and instrumentation are great, and the driving, leading bass is incredible. A perfect way to end a movie that has so many perfect moments.
Nice breakdown on where and how to possibly drop in these beatley ideas 👍 No need to namedrop, but a studio musician friend once said that when music was in trouble, they'd turn to the Beatles. 60 years later and still relevant in so many ways.
I learned a lot from your video. The only area that I would say was lacking was the melodic invention that the Beatles had. This is very hard to imitate.
I saw a documentary once by some famous Classical Conductor. I forget his name. But he broke down all the Beatles Songs and explained why every song was written so amazingly and how all the chords, chord progressions, harmonies etc. Were all super advanced and nothing like 99% of other song writers. They literally were a group of 4 guys all massively talented on another level & I'm sure Producers & the occasional musican friends who we all know helped too, but they had to all be that good themselves in the 1st place. What an amazing, lucky situation the Beatles were / are. Like a Super Group but were just a group of kids from the same area like millions of bands before or since & even with the knowledge of their abilities & other greats it's still so hard to make 1 hit song, let alone probably 100s of them by the Beatles & their Post Projects.
This is something that can be analyzed, studied, written about, and even imitated. But sometimes, it just has to be in your DNA. I know this, because it's not in mine!
Nice video. I'm not sure though Paul McCartney ever thought too deeply about that he was changing keys multiple times. It's was probably "hey that's sounds good". This creative use of chords and the bass note under it and the note you actually sing is the skill of a great song writer.
He's actually spoken about the early days where anytime he learned a new chord, he would try to find any way he knew how to try to work every chord he knew that would work, into a song. Likewise when he learned about keys and key changes, he would find any way he could to use it in his songs. What he lacked in technical knowledge, he would seek from people who knew.
Luckily finding a good sound would take to long I think, considering the number and variety of songs he wrote. He has to know beforehand how it might sound. The formal terms and notation are just a convention for communicating that understanding to others, and not particularly important in the case of a small band.
@@Dehazer2112 Can’t disagree and it’s no hit lyric either. But, as a way to illustrate the tricks used at a time when very good song writers seem scarce, it’s fun and thought provoking.
In 1993, master guitarist Phil Keaggy released “Everywhere I Look.” Being an avid Beatles fan, he delivered a very “Beatlesque” tribute to the style of the Fab Four. Give it a listen.
Very informative, James, but Lennon and McCartney didn't overthink the thought process (or music theory) behind chord changes. For the most part -- and this is the important thing that most most modern songwriters do not grasp -- for the most part, John and Paul simply found whatever chords were necessary to follow the melody wherever it took them. Bacharach did the same thing. Instead of imposing their will on the song, they followed the Muse. That's why they ended up with unique chord changes and odd time signature changes that never felt forced (unlike the way most progressive rock changes sound like the musicians are just showing off their technical ability). Less gifted songwriters than the Beatles and Bacharach tend to create rigid 16-bar chord patterns and then force the melody to fit it. Like everything the Eagles ever did, and everything in today's boring pop and country markets. Also, you make too big a deal out of "mixed at Abbey Road." So what. The name of the studio is nowhere near as important as the name of the people doing the mixing. Many of the local mix engineers here in Nashville could have done a better job in their home studio than the perfunctory mix you got from some unnamed people at "Abbey Road". Granted, they are probably not used to being stuck with only 4 tracks to work with. Loved your singing and guitar playing, but the song could really benefit from bass and drums, and more polished guitar textures and backing vocals. To my ears, it sounds like a demo. An unfinished production. Keep up the good work! I will tune in again to see how you are doing!
@mobsiesixsixsix9785 Ahhh, the world of RU-vid commenters. How duuummb, to think intelligent people who make insightful and accurate comments on RU-vid need their own channel to be legit.
@@BeatlesCentricUniverse Seems a bit odd that you both despise the Eagles..... Some might think you're actually defending your own sock puppet account.
@@mobsiesixsixsix9785 Hey RU-vid "Genius:" I LOVE the Eagles. I'm quoting the famous line from The Big Lebowski because I got a copyright strike for posting an Eagles guitar solo. Calling my account a "sock puppet account" LOL. Another RU-vid genius demonstrates he is actually unable to think on his own. Please go away Genius RU-vid commenter. Bu-bye!
I discovered while watching this that I use several of these techniques myself in my own compositions without putting much thought into it - it just comes naturally to me. I am happy to see your analysis and application on how to make a good song even better (Beatle pun unintended). Thanks for sharing!
Love it. Great job explaining the chord changes and the application to your song. I guess your already aware of the step and half up change in , "Your gonna lose that girl" and the pivot chord being F then back down to E. I wanted to mention also the one in "Shes's a woman jumping up two steps from A to C# in the chorus and D to E getting back the Key of A. I do really love the way the beatles used those changes. This was so much fun to see this come to life!
Can you recommend a good book that is simple and explains chord theory. Also I can only read Tab , but I've been playing for years and only now am I starting to learn the all the positions of the major and minor pentatonic across the whole neck....I was stuck in a box before.
Sorry, but the only comparison I've got is Pinocchio becoming Frankenstein. Love the whole concept and process, but there's something way off. It can't be that simple, to just implemented Beatles ideas in this song. It doesn't work for me. Maybe it's something about that reverse engineering kind of thing.
I absolutely love this song James... Its got everything I love about songwriting and melody .. and some real Marshall Crenshaw/XTC vibes .. and being a fellow Baritone singer I love what you did with your voice! Oh and your use of open chord voicings remind me of another guy I worked with .. Emitt Rhodes
Beautiful job of explaining Beatle tricks. You have a really good voice/vocal range, but I didn't like your harmony/backing vocals choices. Maybe having a good vocal range tempted you to overuse it. I'm also a songwriter who knows a good amount of theory. Your original song with some of the key changes used would have served the song better. But, I know you were trying to make a point.
@@MrSandalwoodYeah honestly, I looked at this video to help me with writer's block and hearing this awful song just made me more discouraged. You need natural-born talent to write; seriously. This may have been the worst song I've ever heard.
@@Lu-em5wxyes, too pretentious and too overconstructed with a lot of unnesessery details and a lack of melodie to remember! Very far from the beatle style! No catchy tunes!😢
I’m not sure I fully heard the simpler version but I do really love this end product. I love the key changes which honestly weren’t super noticeable which is exactly what you were going to. This video did inspire me and I did learn something key about music.
I would have double-tracked your entire vocal, lowered the volume and simplified the electric guitar, or Ideally replaced it with a string instrument. Very interesting though!
Good effort but proves once again that great music is not about music theory it's about magic, the interaction of the words and music, bringing something into being that connects with people.
Great explanation. Lousy song. Sorry. I know you were just using it as a demonstration but it's all over the place melodically. Unlike The Beatles who, as you rightly point out, were masters - Paul in particular - at making dissonant sounding chords harmonious and beautiful.
I applaud the song, the performance and production. The attempt to implement Beatle signature finesse was a complete failure. You can’t just do what you did and expect anyone to identify it as “Beatle-ish”. It may be that I was alive when the Beatles were still together, but my opinion is that nobody came close to the stuff they did. Nice try.😊
Nice try. I am composing myself, and like to create music with interesting changes in harmonies and meters- but it's more for myself. Why? Because hearing the stuff on the radio, I came to the conclusion that my stuff wouldn't sell. It's no easy listening stuff like the musik consumers of these days would have the time or nerve to listen to. Hardly any Kid here in Germany know the Beatles or the late works of the Beach Boys or progressive rock. Let alone Jazz, or classical music. They consume today's crap while they fiddle with their mobile phones instead of just just listening. The attention span of the averange person has dropped alarmingly. I keep wondering how the kids nowdays make it through highschool at all. Music has degenerated to musical fastfood. And the average listeners of today has forgotten how to just listen and pay close attention to music. It's so sad!
Well done!! Thanks for explaining what you were doing too, youre quickly becoming one of my favorite channels. Tastefully artistic songwriting seems like its disappearing. It had a bit of an Oasis vibe as well (obviously, they were massive beatles fans). Any band would be lucky to have u.
Honestly, I liked the second version a lot, but I liked the 1st version more. Sounds more straightforward to me. The 2nd sounds like the ending song of an epic movie with a teenager as a main character (which I love).
The distinct Britishness of the Beatles in the early 1960's was like the times- optimism building a better britain, negativity coming from the war time experience. Hence major /minor switches. They took rock and roll back to basics and made it different, more thoughtful and deliberately pushed the boundaries to be relatable. In my opinion.
Well now, maybe a number of artists watching your videos will go back to some of their songs and rework them. Having said that, I think the song you chose is pretty lame even with the Beatle tweaks. I guess there's no saving some songs.
Really good stuff - the song is great and the mix is great too - well done, fantastic videos on cracking the code! You deserve good success from this. In the same mode you might like to look at and de-construct a couple of albums that are a connaisseur's take on the whole psychadelic era ('66-'68) by XTC, although they decided to use a different bandname for the albums and pretended it wasn't them! - the albums are 25 O'Clock and Psonic Psunspot and the group name is The Dukes of Stratosphear. You can hear the most amazing pastiche of effects and styles from the late 60s, brilliantly observed - lots of Beatlification too. They are such an enjoyable listen.
What I love is that it doesn't sound like it was done by another rabid beatles fan, you used the techniques but still got your own modern sound,,,,not that theres anything wrong with rabid Beatles fans...i've just heard so much, could be the AI fakers in udio....i joined a group on facebook with 32k members called "post your original song here"...i think you might attract some more subs over there, Well done...and I'm putting these tips into my songs haha
This whole process was a lot of fun to watch...and you simply can't go wrong by studying and applying the methods of The Beatles if you're a songwriter or composer...so interesting, yet accessible, and they never repeated themselves! I think the second version of your song is the best (and you could and should make a video about how you played lead over those changes), but I do think adding some drums at some point would take it to another level (Ringo's clever drum patterns could be yet another useful tool to talk about as well)...keep up the good work!!!
Who in their right mind doesn't love the Beatles (along with ALL of music), and so your technique was a great idea, and resulted in a wonderful sounding song. Quite lovely and unique.
Nice job. Only problem is that the original song is nowhere near the Beatles quality. What you are missing is a friend next to you telling you that "that sucks" and "you got to change that". There lies the real secret of Beatle magic. They were really good at hearing what works and what does not, were ready to say it, and spend hours of finding a solution that works.
It's fairly well documented that (certainly in the studio years) that George martin would ply extended chords and they would sing the piano lines he played. Was definitely lightning in a bottle...though I think Paul was 75% of their success - his post Beatles stuff certainly measures up at times - e.g. Pipes of Peace / Soily / Band On The Run / Wanderlust - all exceptional songs. Pretty sure George Martin was involved in those too.
Great video James! Is there any evidence of noel doing these tricks for oasis songs I know he claims not to know anything about music structure but he's very good for being a fluke :-)
Here’s a few of the many possible examples: Key changes in ‘Its better people’ and ‘some might say’ Genre swapped chords in ‘DLBIA’ and ‘She’s electric’ Time signature change in ‘Rock n Roll Star’ The one area in which Noel was always fairly basic however was song structures. Usually ALWAYS vvbcvbc solo bcc
Still doesnt sound like beatle song. Even after these changes nothing has been overall song vibe because of the lyrics and the way they were sang. It still sounds like modern song but fancy, thats all. Solo part also nothing like "beatle-ish". If the concept was to change only chords prog to more beatle-ish, quite that was it, but if it was supposed to sound like beatle song... didn happen. So i dont think it was beatle-ifyed..
Awesome lesson in various songwriting techniques with the Beatles as a perfect example of interesting progressions with how melody note selection ties it all together. Subbed. And now I'm motivated to finally put something together of my own!🥰
I love what you did to the Beatles-like version. I know you didn't want to add keyboard into it, but I think it would have been cool to have some keyboard replicating a string section or just a good organ sound. Not trying to be critical in the least. I've watched 2 of your videos and have learned so much! Besides this one, I watched your video on the secret scale that the greats like Clapton and Page used to approach their lead theory. It simply never occurred to me that when playing lead in a chord progression to deviate from playing pentatonic scales that work for whatever key the chord progression is in that you could play the scales of the key over each chord change of the song. Thanks so much! You're a brilliant and cool guy 😎
Wow that was really cool. You really captured why the Beatles sound was so much different and better than other bands. The Beatleification of that song takes it to another level. Amazing...I just had to subscribe to your channel. Cheers from Ottawa, Canada🍁
This was an amazing watch, and the end result is an incredible song. I liked the first version anyway but the way you developed it was really interesting to see. Great guitar solo aswell.
Very nice James, cool song! Basically, major and minor chords can get very boring unless you actively switch them up, this is why jazz and classical chord voicings can be invaluable, or just experiment with chord changes you normally don't use. The Beatles were masters of this, I could also argue that David Bowie was very good at this as well.
I have learned from your lesson, I, an eternal and inept beginner. But just as important is to say how moved I am by your kindness and generosity, as through your effort in these lessons, you are helping people you don't even know. This shows a great and generous spirit!
The truth is that you have to be born with the talent to be a songwriter not everyone can do it and I can promise you no songwriter or composer ever analyzes what they're doing when their writing it if they're writing something really inspired because music comes from God and Paul McCartney got the melody for yesterday because he heard the whole thing in a dream creating real music it's not done by some bag of human formula tricks and the song the guy was singing had none the charm of any Beatles song ever that the Beatles had extensive knowledge of chords and that helped them but there are many musicians with extensive knowledge of cords but have not written anything memorable but there is no magical formula because music itself is magic. And I say this is someone who's the songwriter who's written several big hit songs I never ever ever ever ever ever analyze the music that I'm writing it just comes because I was born with the talent to do that
I’m 72 and I’ve been watching and listening to RU-vid videos for quite awhile. Never come across an analysis like this. Very interesting indeed. Really liked your son. I felt your vocals could do with a little bit more reverb IMHO.
George Martin may indeed have been the one they learned a great deal from, and could be considered a fifth Beatle. I was not a fly on the wall, thus I cannot say for certain he was the 5th Beatle. Let's just call it a great possibility. Wish that Paul had done more like Tug of War, with Martin. Post Beatles era was a tough act to follow. What happened with John? Walls and Bridges is sorta interesting. The songs John wrote for Ringo are fun. George races out the gate with All Things Must Pass, then sort of got winded? Paul has some good stuff, like NEW album, which really had some Beatlish stuff on it, with some The Fireman tossed in. When Paul is not flying off the rails, he showing the brilliance. Alas, five heads are better than one. Yeah,yeah, yeah! With the pure energy of the early years, it was just as much a feeling than anything! The 60's youngsters, as Ed would say, are really something.
Timing change occurred as early as We Can Work It Out [Written in 1965]...only 4 bars in the bridge....4/4 = "Life is very short and there's no time, for [3/4] fussing and fighting my friend." Where did they get these ideas? Songs like the cover of A Taste of Honey...BEFORE the George Martin influences...which goes from a waltz [3/4 time] to a probably cut time [2/2] shuffle swing beat in the bridge. This song can be heard on their first album Please Please Me or other American incarnations like The Early Beatles [Capitol Records] of Vejay's "Introducing the Beatles
James! Thanks ! VERY interesting video, and excellent song you've crafted!... Like your song a lot... I also like the vast majority of what you added in the final version herein, but do think some slight “simplifications” in some spots COULD improve it. I get a sense that the song will "grow-on-you", but do think some simplification would help, especially with first impressions... I'd think of it a bit like a sculpture.... You've got plenty of elements therein for a VERY catchy song, maybe even "a hit", or good album quality, at least, but maybe whittling away some small bits would help bring out some of the most endearing parts even more. For instance, I like your first lines of lead guitar much, and think it works really well with your lead vocal. But I think it gets a little too busy when you have the lead guitar WITH your vocal harmonies on the first instance of the line “You were born to be with me.” I wouldn’t eliminate the lead guitar COMPLETELY there for that vocal harmony line, but I WOULD fade that lead guitar way down there, to hear more of that line of vocal HARMONY/Unison for "You were born to be with me"… Then, before the following vocal line, soon after that, which will be “I don’t know why but I feel alive” you could then ADD some instrumental exciting dynamism by then FADING with a swell/surge UP again with your strumming, and/or add a quick flourish of lead guitar on top of the strumming rhythm, and/or make it a bit punchier/more-energetic rather than perfectly-maintained-and-controlled strumming right there, ONLY… and that volume swell and/or flourish/heightened instrumental energy could break up a sort of “pause” in the excitement, in that spot… building some bit of extra excitement, which I think would somewhat "justify" and play into your next vocal line of “I don’t know why but I feel alive”. I don't recall the length of the song, though I think maybe you mentioned it at some point... but it's not overly long at all. And I wonder if it might work better at a slightly slower tempo. There are so many nice and beautiful parts, but it seems to push us forward a bit too quickly to fully enjoy them, and have them sink into us a bit more on first listens. Maybe you could give it a hear at a slower tempo, and see if you might like a slightly slower pace . There’s only two more most minor tweaks I can think of to suggest, both with the “backing” vocals. I do NOT think in your first line after the guitar solo , “We could carry on high…” that your associated backing vocal should be DESCENDING there in 1-2-3 sustained notes. You are talking about “carry on” “high”, which would evoke “playfulness” I’d think. But 1-2-3 notes , prominently, from the backing vocal does not equate to “playfulness” , I think…Also, you’ve got “carry on high” and following by imagery of balancing on a wire and “we could fly away free”, which all seems a bit “airy” and “high” but your 1-2-3 DESCENDING backing vocal with “carry on high” seems like a “come down” or “let down” (though it’s a bit “cool” sounding) but I think, by itself, it cuts against the playful “high” stuff… So I’d suggest you ADD some additional backing vocal/s to make an overall “playful” quality and maybe a bit of “lift” to those backing vocals, and this part of the song. The 2nd tweak is regarding background vocals again… I don’t like the “Fly away! Fly away! “ Maybe the attempt there was to add “lift” and excitement there, like a baby bird launching into flight for the first time? But to say “Fly AWAY! Fly AWAY!” to me cuts against your basic message that “you belong WITH ME”… I think the “AWAY!” references work AGAINST the “with me” and togetherness you are saying is meant to be. "FLY AWAY! FLY AWAY!" ? And I think your main vocal there is strong enough in itself, and that main and concluding message and summary of the theme of “though I don’t believe in destiny” (a very cool line, incidentally) and “you were born to be with me”. I would just cut the “Fly away! Fly away!” I think it’s superfluous, and distracting, and works against the togetherness theme and "with me". Thanks again , James, for this beautiful song you've made, which seems most largely perfect, already. And yes, generally an impressively good "mix" of the music too, I’d say. You could probably just edit-in some spots of video, to add some bits of further interest visually , to have a great video too, because much of this already can work well visually too. And besides your song, your very insightful description of some of the Beatles song structures and techniques... and, your process of Beatle-ifying a song to improve it… all very helpful it seems. Thanks again, best wishes, and good luck to you.
It's very interesting. But you're not the first. Check out "The ReBeatles Project" and their album "Get Back". Brilliant!! They really base "modern" songs on Beatles classics. I'm not a fan of the Abbey Road version of your number - to me it feels like an exercise of doing because you COULD rather than because you SHOULD, or if the song needed it. Too much of several good things perhaps? Just a personal view, but the original, simple Acoustic song - played entirely through with maybe a little modulation, harmony etc. would have suited it much better. Mind you, look at all the songs I've written and published on here (there's zero!!) so I'm hardly in a position to talk. It's still a good insight into tricks, mechanisms etc. The Beatles employed in some of their famous songs, which is cool to see them called out in this particular way. Hope you're not offended nor upset, as I say, just a personal view :)
The open chords remind me of Waiting for Today to Happen (Lightening Seeds) or All Around the World...by Oasis Even the other sections there is the use of the two finger on the bottom G and Em which is totally an Oasis thing. Other than the minor chord thrown in, nothing really strikes me as overly Beatlesque here. Okay, there are backing vocals/harmonies...but are they specifically a Beatle thing? It's all very 90s generally. But that's just my non-expert opinion.
Wow! Great job ... in the song writing, the performance, and the explanations. Btw, your whole idea and process is quite clever and original. I've definitely heard (in many songs) purposeful "borrowing" from Beatle songs ... not plagiarizing but letting an influence shine through. What you've done is way beyond that and yet it's a subtle lifting ... thus sounding like influence. It's also clever because the finished product actually DOESN'T sound super "Beatley" but rather a much improved song that is written in their STYLE ... again borrowing not lifting. I think this is because you never take any Beatle melody lines but worked within your own melody. To be honest, the original did sound a bit too simplistic to be very good ... although your PERFORMANCE of it was really good and pleasing. Actually it sounded like (purposely I'm guessing) what passes for songwriting today; in a word amateurish. All in all your whole video is superb and the new song very professional.
Excellent project to take on. You explained it so well. I know enough about the Beatles to appreciate just how well that has been 'Beatlified'. Spot on and, your video should also convince anyone who has any doubts about their uniqueness just how musically good they were.
what IS this simple song, "Be With Me"? and who was it originally played by ? Does it exist or is it by James Hargreaves? Before this edifying Beatlization - (which was most enlightening) it is a pretty awful song !? But WHAT IS IT?
Martha My Dear, as well as other compositions by The Beatles include Bach's "Counterpoint" along with these chord changes. Perhaps a deep dive into Counterpoint found in various Beatles songs would be another fun adventure! Yes, the song is highly improved by adding these creative chord changes. In reality, a completely different song, altogether! Thanks for the refreshment!!!
06:13 My musical knowledge begins and ends at [I refuse to call it 'Nashville'] numbers, so absolutely zero snark here, but I can't begin to wrap my head around an F# and a B being a "2 and 4" when home is G (for THIS version). It sort of implies you're not actually in G... unless you're saying it modulates to E? But can merely bumping the relative minor as you walk through a progression really be considered a key modulation?
When it comes to the beatles I wouldn't regard musical devices as 'tricks'. Whenever they used these devices they always served the song and took us on some very interesting changes with 'unexpected' chord too. Their music is gorgeous and exciting.
I love this. One correction/addition I’d make is in “I’m Only Sleeping” Lennon isn’t going to C Major. The reason he hits the E Major chord is because he’s in a minor. They’re not the same thing. D minor-E Major to a minor is iv-V-I in a minor not ii-iii-vi in C Major. Also, “Hold Me Tight” it’s a change of mode from G Major to g minor done by changing the IV chord, C Major, to a iv chord, c minor.
Bravo! Brilliant lesson in how to do music properly! Personally I think George Martin's music education made him the fifth Beatle - the lads themselves certainly weren't big on music theory. It's also interesting that complexity in music seems to have died in favour of doing it both quick and cheap, rather than having quality (you can't have all three).
It is also an expertise tool tot ry different style on you song, latin, swing, etc, rather than letting a producer behind of computer console dictate to you how it shall be. and rework lyrics wit intelligent thoughts and ideas, not just a sleazy rhyme There also other forces influencing how the Beatles wrote from from 50's rock and roll and ballad harmony such as the Everly Brothers and the Teddy Bears' To Know Him is to Love Him, early Motown harmonies, and later, Bob Dylan, and whether Lennon wnated to admit it or not, the big band era and English Music Hall [n the US, vaudeville] music they grew up with from their parents etc, on the radio. Lennon's critics of McCartney's writing "Grannie music" is unwarranted..he went along with it at the time. Early Beatles songs and even later that were co-written made him a lot of money, from Please Please Me and Tell Me Why etc to A Little Help from My Friends have hints of granny music. He criticized Hello Goodbye yet Tell Me Why lyrics were just fine with him "Tell me Why you cry and why you lie to me...". Well Hello and Goodbye, I don't know why you say good bye I say Hello...." why don't you tell me why? I can't tell you, but Do You Want to Know a Secret? The Walrus was Paul....
James, that was simply transformative. What a ride! I have been a bass player since high school (a very long time ago), but I’ve only had a rudimentary education in music theory. What you’ve just accomplished is Greek to me but I enjoyed it very very much. I would be curious to know how long in total this video took you to produce? From the beginning stages of the song all the way through the final production. Thanks again, Your newest fan.
Come on - you started with an EXTREMELY complex song by today's standards (and a pretty interesting one, at that!). Start with something truly boring and basic next time, which is most other songs, frankly.
Nah, list-topping pop songs aren’t written by playing and singing like this - mostly… They are ‘engineered’ on a four bar loop, sequenced into what becomes the beat. Then pro ‘top liners’ eke out melodic eh, lines - to be sung (or melodyne’d) into shape until the ‘recipe’ works. Creative yes, but never _performed_ into existence. Rather built from known elements (samples, loops, edits, fx…), than a real time flow of emergence from one or more people. This is opposite to the early Beatles (bands, singer-songwriters) who seldom or never “created” from theory knowledge. Rather from ontological knowledge, growing into theoretical insights later - especially when WE interpret what was done into declarations decades later. Composers (tin pan alley, Hollywood, signed to publishers, pro non-artist writers…) did, though - wanting to get to the money, not the fame. Leading to the industrial conformity of today. It works great from a financial standpoint - but seemingly doesn’t _give back_ except for ownership and rentier profits. Fine, but not for me after four decades in this very industry…😅
Sorry, man. While it improves a terrible song from an F to a D-Minus, it's still not very good. Simply, it lacks heart, and is overindulgent fluff. Worse, comparing it to the Beatles just accentuates its weakness. The Beatles were the cooperation of genius, and this was banal mediocrity in trying to formalize art. So, a big NO, thanks, pal.
Honestly this rings XTC’s sound a little bit- which is perfectly normal because I’m pretty sure The Beatles were a huge influence to them🤷🏼♂️ all in all this is a flavorful track for jus an experiment🙏✊
That was a really interesting listen, both your clear unpretentious explanations and the song itself. I always feel reluctant to criticise someone else's creative endeavours, because music is just so subjective, but you so ask for opinions. I will keep it simple. Positive 1: You have a great voice. 2: I like the song, with its simple form and lyrics. 3: I think the chord developments certainly give the song a more interesting feel. Less helpful: I thought the lead guitar didn't always work in conjunction with some of the more complicated singing harmonies. The lead solo was a great sound, beautifully reflecting the chord/key changes, but again, I'm not sure it was appropriate for such a simple love song. Thanks for your expertise. I have subscribed, just on the strength of this one post.
Have you considered doing the 2 - 5 turnaround a bit sooner? Like: E, A, B, E G, C F#m, H? This would happen in the first round of the verse, meaning that the second part of it might need to change a bit, to keep it different and interesting. Maybe it could simplify the G - C - F#m - B pattern to G - G - B - B. I have to say I like your experimental approach to finding out how to write interesting tunes. Well done!
Interesting. I am not sure The Beatles consciously adopted those techniques from George Martin, nor maybe did they do so for any other techniques. Probably the best way to find out, is to ask the remaining members, but I expect that in most case, they'll tell you they did it because it felt right at the time. Because, as you can hear in your demonstration, the problem is not whether or not you use any of the techniques that The Beatles used, but whether you use them exactly where THEY would. As with all singing groups, the exact build of the songs depends on the exact composition of the singers and their voices.(Yes, and the same for the instruments; I'm just more of a singer.) In a way, sounding like singing in a 1960-s Scouse accent is in fact exactly what some of their songs lack if you reproduce them. Since you don't sound like that, you may also need also need different techniques to improve the songs. Nice, but no cigar.
I'm gonna be in the minority here, but I like the first version more. While the process is interesting, and individually the changes sound good, overall it definitely feels forced to me, like there's just too much. Maybe meeting halfway would have been ideal. I also think there's something wrong with that specific electric guitar tone, like it doesn't fit well with the rest of the mix. Weirdly enough, the finished product sound more like a demo to me, while the first version had a nice acoustic ballad vibe.
Great example of what could be considered to change in a "normal" song but you have applied each trick you outlined - and that is too much. Furthermore I think the mix itself is not really good, even if it was done by an Abbey Road engineer. For my taste the electric guitar is much too loud, it should be subtle (except for the solo part). I also doubt that you chose the appropriate instrument (the electric guitar) when you applied the trick. Actually there should have been some kind of keyboards, a mellotron, eventually instead. Maybe this would suit better than the electric guitar. Yet I understand that you did not want to introduce a string ensemble/quartett here. So to sum it up, the beatle-ified version puts some interesting spice into your song but in the end this went over the top. For many, many years I have also recorded on a four track tape machine (TEAC A-2340SX) and hence I was restricted to only four tracks - but in some cases I recorded two instuments on one single track when they were not required to sound together but consecutively. So this limitation of having only four tracks available does not necessarily mean to be restricted to only four instruments. In fact there are songs of mine with roughly 10 or even 12 "instruments" but this required bouncing an original track and lead to a degradation of the frequency spectrum if done more than once. Only with a noise reduction system this could be partly avoided - I used Telefunken HighCom, the best NR system at that time. (/from Germany)
Very interesting. I was classically trained as a kid and I remember being taught about this stuff, often using Beatles songs I didn't actually know as examples (for some reason my teacher (my mum) assumed I did - even though she only ever played classical music and a bit of Abba (because it was a bit Mozarty in places) on the hifi - and my dad only had a reel to reel copy of Sgt Pepper that got played about three times in my childhood because of the hassle of playing reel to reel tapes). The stuff presented in this video isn't pop music theory or even Beatles per se. It presents the universal building blocks to all advanced music composition (at least composition that is based on a 12 semitone chromatic - I don't know enough about Eastern scales etc...) And kudos to you for presenting it in a way that makes sense to those who didn't have the privilege of having a piano teacher for a mum (sorry mum - you were right when you said "you'll thank me one day).
I love your channel just found it today been watching all day. Those scales video are dead on. My teacher said dont change positions play them all in same place by knowing your fretboard..
