Did the Beatles know much about music theory?

Someone mentioned Burt Bacharach above -- there's a trained composer who, at least for the pop world, breaks every rule in the book, with his weird time signatures and unpredictable melodies. I just don't think we should generalize from the Beatles to all potential musical situations.

 

Music Theory is just a load of jargon that was made up, to help us better understand music being made by true musicians. The music came first, before anyone knew what sense to make of it, or how to explain how each note related to the next. Who cares if The Beatles were entirely conscious of everything they were making? Its all just a bunch of labels that we put on music....which is for the most part impossible TO label, and which defies categorization, try as we may. Not to mention that with The Beatles, their sound was more important than the technical side of things anyhow. Music theory is overrated.

 

If that is true, then wouldn't women also be prone to "reinventing the wheel" or just going ahead with the cliches? Or are you arguing that studied avoidance of cliche on the part of men in classical music just causes paralysis? I think I understand the dilemna from how research is done in academia. It's a competitive scene, as are all professions in a way, I suppose. You have to come up with something that hasn't been done before to be successful in that particular arena, and get it published, even though it usually can and should be based on the work that others did before.

In the pop/rock area, because it is based on electronic generations of sound and/or tape manipulation, the areas of innovation are often just textures of sound, or sometimes rhythmic permutations. This does not lend itself to analysis in the same way that notated compositions do. Hence, music theory as such is not very relevant for this kind of thing. People like Brian Eno and Klaus Schulze have taken things farther and added some formal charts when they do their composition and planning, and in Eno's case we even get some system theory with randomness incorporated as part of the scheme.

 

Back in the 70s I didn't know one note from the other. Yet, this didn't keep me from creating a song that covers the following 6/8, 7/8, 6/8, 7/8, 4/4, 6/8. Luckily, my girlfriend back then was an honor piano and organ student. I would play her the music on my guitar or sing to her the parts I heard in my head that I wanted the other instruments to do and she did all the transcription. I shared writing credits with her in return.

 

It's more than that. The classical composers are thinking about theory when they do their work. They may do composition in their heads or with the help of a piano, but within a framework of theoretical concerns. Then the musicians in an orchestra or ensemble play what they are told. Are these players true musicians? I think so, as are the composers. Functions have been separated in this case.

 

While it is true that some talents can be maimed by the study of musical theory, it is also true that musicians are often told to disregard theory (for example, harmony) at certain moments if they so desire in their pursuit of musical expression once they've learned it.

 

interesting perspective - I tend to agree, especially with the latter part

 

I can't remember who said it, but someone said that they don't listen to any new music because they don't want it to influence their work negatively. Ignorance is bliss in other words. I'm pretty sure it was Neil Young who said it.

My experience is that those jazz guys know what they're doing. They DO go by feel, but they also know where the notes are and could probably justify a lot of their playing with music theory. It never gets to the point where they're just playing notes. Even the improvisation fits within a framework, albeit sometimes a very loose one. I've also known jazz guys that can play music by reading it and can play in bands, but they can't improvise. Rock guys are the same. At some point while learning music, I concluded that everything can be justified with some rule, particularly after learning whole note and diminished scales.

Burt is a great example using the rules to maximum effect. His earliest stuff was very derivative (according to Burt, that is). His first attempts at pop songwriting weren't usually too good. Eventually he learned to merge his classical training with pop songwriting and created a unique sound. The difference between Burt and McCartney is that while McCartney might break rules without knowing, Burt probably knew exactly what he was doing. Thus, McCartney could never have written "Promises, Promises" (not that he'd want to) because it deliberately breaks rules all over the place. I've read that those Burt sessions were tough on the studio musicians because the music was so hard to play.

 

I couldn't agree less. Classical music written in the 18th century exists now only because it was written down. Its not such a big deal with rock because its all recorded, but Mozart obviously wasn't. Even if he had been, it may have been impossible to reproduce all the charts for each instrument exactly as Mozart intended.

 

Frank Zappa once said (paraphrase), "Sometimes I can't come up with a chord ugly enough to express what I want - so I'll use a giraffe filled with whipped cream."

 

writing it down is recording it (by definition)

 

I respect your views, John, and you also make a compelling argument for women musicians.
I believe we really didn't get to see how rock has truley evolved. We got to see skinny ties go to fringe and bellbottoms->leisure suits->spandex->flannel>back to skinny ties...etc instead.
The tragedy with rock music is that it never was about the music alone. The sound was only part of it. Hair cuts, dance steps and sometimes politcal statements had to be supplied with every seemingly new movement.

It always seemed to me that pop music being such big business is the very thing that keeps it from evolving. The minute you take music evolution out of the hands of musicians it has no natural place to go.
I feel we only had one brief shining innovative moment in rock and roll/popular music before it hit the corporate choke-hold. The internet is now our new hope for natural music evolution.
Innovation since the mid-70's has been an illusion. A magic trick with smoke and the power of suggestion. Misrepresented with new names like alternative, emo, shoe-gazing or techno-hop-house-euro-whatever. It's people who ignore these labels who will bring about true forward thinking.

I think the last couple of decades for rap/hip-hop were a different story. It has evolved much more naturally. It seems to have a hit-formula that keeps it going. It exists very comfortably in this bling-bling world.

I don't see rap, country or rock as rivals. They are just styles that could co-exist if the media wasn't constantly playing one against the other.

Rock (or whatever you want to call it) has not played itself out. But hipster music critics and A&R men sure have.

This message has been brought to you by "In My Opinion" of course.
Um,...What was the subject of this thread again?

Peace Love and wah-wah'd bongos
Marky

 

Some very good points, with which I mostly agree. But I do believe rock has played itself out as a musical form anyway. The corporate choke-hold was very strong but it didn't kill all innovation, at least not quite as soon as you say it did (mid 70s). I believe there was still some evolution of rock music through the 80s at least, but at a slower and more difficult pace: more hit and miss, and perhaps not a linear progression from what went before (more side alleys and such). But combining that choke-hold together with the weight of rock's historical develoment and milestone recordings, I think we've arrived at the result that John Hunter was talking about.

 

I've said it before, but to me, Brian Jones's haircut was as important as any sitar or recorder lick he ever played, No twentieth-century genre of music has ever been "just about the music." Miles Davis's Birth of the Cool maay have referred to the "cool" sounds he was playing, but his Italian suits and sunglasses were just as "cool," and just as much a part of his total impact.

 

That's not entirely correct. Certain classical works, such as Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, which makes a point of cycling through all of the keys in the Western system of harmony, would not/could not have been written without the composer's theoretical knowledge. Ditto Mozart's operas and piano concertos, which are structured around an intricate, "theoretical" system of key/tonal relationships that is inaccesible to non-trained musicians. That's what separates Mozart from McCartney and Brian Wilson - there are individual songs on Revolver and Pet Sounds that are as beautiful as any aria or theme that Mozart ever wrote, but McCartney and Wilson lacked the theoretical knowledge to structure their ideas into longer, coherent works such as Le Nozze Di Figaro. Drugs weren't the only reason Wilson didn't/couldn't finish Smile or that McCartney/The Beatles retreated from the ambition of Pepper - they did not possess the theoretical background necessary to compose longer works.

 

This is all true to a point -- practice usually precedes theory (except in France, where theory often comes before practice, with many lamentable consequences) and creativity should not be constrained by an overly rigid adherence to rules imposed by theory.

Yet, as has already been noted, most of what we consider "western" music, from Gregorian Chant to, uhm, Britney Spears, consists of a series of conventions embraced by a larger theory. Of course the music came first, before the parameters of the theory were delineated, but after a certain point, I think that the conventions and the theory they represented became, even if only unconsciously, part of the creative process itself. Thus, we have major/minor, tonic/dominant, the concept of a cadence (V7 resolving to I), song form, sonata form, free-form (as resistance to "form" itself).

Whether they knew what they were doing or not (and I share the belief that they knew only the rudiments of theory), the Beatles operated within the confines of these conventions. They used the same notes as everyone else. They used harmonies that had been around forever. They used song-structures that, however remotely, were recognized as "songs" by the listeners. They resorted to the musical tools that centuries of usage had refined into a common language. They "spoke" the language we might call "western music." In that sense they were not revolutionaries -- just like most musicians before them, from Mozart to Chuck Berry -- they used the same raw materials. They were very good, however, at combining these elements in new and creative ways, and were revolutionaries in the sense that they twisted and juxtaposed conventions in new ways to produce new and revolutionary sounds (e.g., "Strawberry Fields" and many other tunes) .

Yes, they were indifferent to theory (bravo in their case) and probably didn't care about it. But insofar as "western" music is the embodiment of a certain theory, or, conversely, insofar as the theory of western music is a codification of all music created within that tradition, they reflect that theory and its conventions as much as Bach, Mozart, or (again) Britney Spears.

Moreover, applying theory can help us appreciate their achievement. If you do analyze some of their work from a theoretical standpoint, you can often discern just how original and brilliant they were.

 

I also agree with this sentiment

** EDIT **

though I would add that one doesn't necessarily need to theoretically analyze to appreciate originality and brilliance, but certainly additional appreciation can be attained this way (inasmuch as any creativity and brilliance exists in the analyzed work)

 

No, you don't need to analyze; you can just listen and groove. But where creativity goes, analysis follows, and for some, it is rewarding as well to acquire some understanding of "how it was done" and "what made this new." It can also be a humiliating experience when one realizes that, even armed with one's knowledge, one could not have composed a work created by people indifferent to knowledge and theory. That's why they are artists and most of the rest of us have jobs.

 

This tells us a lot about why rock reached a peak of ambition and scope around 1967. The most talented geniuses working in the genre decided that either they couldn't or were unwilling to take it any further. A few people since have tried, like PINK FLOYD for example (no offense, John ). They weren't the kind of people that were going to go enroll at the academy and apply themselves to disciplined musical study, after all. One wonders just what McCartney thinks he is doing with these "classical" works of his like Liverpool Oratario, Standing Stone, and Ecce Cor Meum.

 

That's superb commentary. I don't think anyone could have said it better or more precisely.

 

One may want to check THIS out as well:

http://www.geocities.com/hammodotcom/beathoven/revhome.htm

Wow!!

 

Though they may have had an image you could identify- the "pre-rock era" genres were not even close to being subjected to that kind image control and psuedo-intellectual hipsterism. Okay the latter permeates jazz but most jazz fans don't give two thoughts to what the person is wearing or how old they are.

Side alleys. Well put. That's exactly it and it was a false evolution. Was it just a coincedence that all the MTV bands sounded basically alike? No, of course not. That was copro-forced. If it was a natural evolution, punk would have been mainstream a lot sooner.
But I don't agree with that last bit, SoundQman. With all due respect of course.

Are we to assume that any new rock song created regardless of instrumentation and production is going to have a logical twin? And has that particular twin grown-up naturally? There's no freshness left? To me it's like saying their are no more good stories to be written in Science Fiction. To say it can't be done is just plain wrong IMO.

The milestone recordings will not totally reach their true peak of influence until many prejudices are dropped against it. That may well be way in the future. Anyway, the average listener doesn't care if this chord or harmony was done before. It's about how fresh and enjoyable it sounds and that still can be done even in a I, IV, V context.

We also must take into account that popular music is mostly a recording medium with lyrics and ideas. Not only do we have all the instruments of the orchestra and all the past theory, we also have guitars and newer instruments, echo or other multitudes of effects and it is acceptable to incorporate music of any world genre within it. Has every configuration along with every theoretical/lyrical/melodical sequence along with every kind of production been done? I could go on but you get the point, yes?

Has everything that flew "under the radar" all these years been deemed pointless and ultimately non-influential?

Get rid of the "dogs at the gate" and I think you'll see natural innovation in "whatever you call rock" again.

I wish that today we could at least have a band (like The Beatles) that brings something new to the table on every single. It's not that it can't be done. It's more that it's not allowed.

Paul McCartney has stated that the 1960's seems like the future in his mind. I know what he means and I believe he's right. We just had to get through the ugly goliath period to get back to where we once belonged.

This is how I see it anyway. Does anyone agree or am I all alone here?

Peace Love and Give music back to the musicians
Marky

 

Apparently, they didn't need to.......

 

I hope this is all true. The evidence of my ears and listening experiences over the last decade lead me to suspect otherwise, but maybe it is just the corporate stranglehold. In the meantime, I have turned more often lately to other genres for new and satisfying musical experiences. But the argument about whether rock has reached a dead end or not isn't so much because fresh new sounds aren't possible - they are, of course - but rather that something fundamentally different and groundbreaking, or even a significant evolution of the form itself is starting to seem like a very remote possibility. A entirely new genre of music might be in the offing, who knows? My sense is that something really new in music will not be rock. At the very most it may have some references or a tenuous connection to it, but no more.