Did the Beatles know much about music theory?

It happened in the 90s. The group was The Wu-Tang Clan, and it's members were all produced by The RZA. For 4 years, they were like what I imagine the Beatles were like. Every new single had something new. Every new album was an advance over the previous. I haven't come across anything like it since. I think those times are very rare.

If you look at where the Beatles and a lot of other groups were by 1968, it didn't seem like there was a clear path forward. The first Beatles sessions of 1968 showed the group split in different directions - "Lady Madonna" was retro; "Hey Bulldog" was straight rock and harder than almost anything they had done previously; the previously recorded "The Inner Light" was another Indian song; "Across The Universe" was gently psychedelic. At this point there didn't seem to be any particular direction. Production-wise, "Lady Madonna" was a step backward, and I've never read anything about the decision being scrutinized.

Then they wrote all those songs in India and did the White Album. It wasn't psychedelic. It wasn't progressive aside from a song or two. Nor was it a total retreat. Somehow it just seemed like they weren't thinking about moving forward with sound and production. I haven't seen a good explanation as to why that side of the Beatles stopped. Your theory might be correct. Then when George and John fell under the spell of The Basement Tapes and Music From Big Pink, it was all over. Then the direction forward was clearly 'back to basics'. The Beatles were no longer determining the future sound of rock and pop.

 

John Lennon made a comment about not wanting to "keep doing fancier and fancier productions, until we disappear up our own arses." John usually had a desire to keep it more simple, direct, and basic - like folk music. McCartney and George Martin wanted to make it more complicated and rich, I think, and were more interested in polishing, craft, and "concepts." The tension between the two impulses within the group made for some magical stuff indeed, but couldn't be sustained indefinitely it seems. They returned to the Sgt. Pepper approach a second time when they did Abbey Road, IMO, with spectacular results again. But that was the end of the line.

 

I respect your well-informed opinions, but I have to completely disagree with you here. Even what we now refer to as "classical" music was never "only about the music." The Romantic myth of Beethoven as a tortured, depressed, long-haired, anti-social eccentric is a direct antecedent of the Romantic myths that surround rock musicians as diverse as Keith Richards and Syd Barrett. Beethoven's personality cult is as much a part of his cultural impact as his music. Fans focus on his triumph over deafness much as modern-day music fans marvel at Brian Wilson's achievements despite being deaf in one ear. The "adult child" myth that surrounds Brian Wilson has a more or less exact parallel that surrounds Mozart - just watch the Amadeus movie, if you don't believe me.

 

I guess the irony doesn't matter that after The Beatles, McCartney mostly made stripped down albums (aside from Ram) while Lennon made increasingly large productions (aside from POB).

George Martin said he wanted to push the group towards more of those longer pieces had the group gone on. Would The Beatles have gone prog? It seems like that's what Martin was thinking.

 

This is such a good point. I've meant to discuss this in the "what is prog rock?" thread, but progresssion can come from new developments in instrument technology. Beethoven's piano concertos are different from Mozart's as much because of improvements in piano technology (in a word, they got louder) as because of intellectual currents that were in the air. The electric guitar opened up a whole new sound-world that made the I-IV-V progression sound fresh again for decades. Digital delay pedals allowed the Edge of U2 to compose songs that would have been literally impossible to play before. So many forum members dismiss synthesizers and sequencers and drum machines, but they, too, have opened up whole new sound-worlds to explore.

 

After the break-up, McCartney has flirted with longer forms, from "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" to the Red Rose Speedway medley to Band on the Run to Standing Stone to the Liverpool Oratorio, etc. The problem, again, is that his natural genius and talent can only take him as far as a three-part song like "Band on the Run," with maybe a "reprise" tacked on at the end of the album. In order to create his longer "classical" works, he has to rely on a collaborator, as he did in the 60s with George Martin, who knows enough about theory to develop the themes and ideas he comes up with. McCartney could go to music school himself, or take composition lessons, but, from what I have read over the years, he fears that this would stifle his "natural" creativity, and turn him into someone like George Martin, who knows all of "the rules," but cannot create anything individual himself precisely because he knows all of "the rules." Yes, I know Martin wrote the music for side two of Yellow Submarine, but his primary strength was embellishing the ideas the Lennon and McCartney presented to him. The two camps - call them the "unschooled" and the "overschooled" - needed each other to create masterpieces such as "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever." The challenge of post-Wagner Western music has been how to reconcile those two camps in one person, i.e., one who knows theory and understands the achievements of the past, but is not creatively stifled by that knowledge. Like I said, women seem less prone to this problem, because, by their nature, they don't sit around constructing hierarchies, lists, and canons the way men do - they just create.

 

These things don't get mentioned in art and music schools. In art school one studies the great masters, but the reality of their lives is off the table. The fact that they needed benefactors or otherwise very wealthy nobility to fund the projects was essential, and it's hardly romantic. Homelessness stalked many of the best artists. "Only about the art" was frequently "All about my next meal" and it was just as true during the Renaissance as in Van Gogh's day. Now we study these guys and pay millions of dollars for their work. Of course, Amadeus isn't entirely accurate as a biography, but the dynamic of the musician/writer and their function in society is pretty much dead on.

The myths surrounding your Mozarts, Beethovens, Michaelangelos, etc... grew over time though didn't they? They were more or less the well known artists within the circles that cared (rich people, royalty), but they didn't have the myths back then, or did they? It seems that the ability to have a myth is connected to the ability to distribute it and there wasn't that kind of network hundreds of years ago; just rich people talking to other rich people. The Brian Wilson myth was spread through magazines and books.

 

Well that's all true. I excluded Ram from my observation because it actually was McCartney's attempt to make a solo Abbey Road. His other pre-Band On The Run music was pretty basic rock and roll or acoustic pop. He did that medley at the end of RRS, but the playing was still stripped down.

Generally speaking, I think that left to his own devices you're correct, "Band On The Run" is exactly the most complicated piece of long-form music McCartney can do. He can write incredible passages of melody and hooks every day before breakfast. But I don't think he could write a 20 minute piece without help. Nothing wrong with help, but Standing Stone required a classically trained musician as a collaborator. I think its okay that Paul does that stuff for a lark. But hopefully he knows what puts butter on the bread. It sure isn't "A Leaf".

 

The myths surrounding Mozart and Brian Wilson have an awful lot in common. There is that famous Beach Boys bootleg titled Adult Child, and the film Amadeus might just as well have the same title. In both cases, the fundamental question that drives the myth is: "How could this socially retarded, impulsive, spendthrift, irresponsible, child-like freak have created what was, by some distance, the most beautiful and sophisticated music of his era?" It's a question that remains eternally fascinating, largely because it defies any answer other than "He was a genius."

It's also always fascinated that both Mozart and Wilson (and Pete Townshend) were the sons of relatively unsuccesful musician fathers, who likely didn't "understand" their son's music.

 

Doesn't this then demonstrate that his lack of musical training is a limitation, rather than an asset?

People will probably dismiss this because they don't like his recent music, but about 10 years ago Elvis Costello learned how to write music. He had always had the same opinion as McCartney, that knowing how to do things more conventionally would stifle his creativity. Instead he said it had the opposite effect -- now he could think of something and immediately work it out on paper, instead of having to stumble around on the piano or work with a collaborator. Now, I can't argue that it led to more exciting music from him. But from his point of view, anyway, it freed him up to explore more things. (Of course, this raises the corollary issue of whether we need classical music from Elvis Costello.)

 

This is all true, and Lord knows my record collection keeps growing because of it, but sonic textures don't really amount to fundamental progress or change in the nature or structure of music, do they? I mean, I suppose it could ultimately lead to that, but then it wouldn't likely be considered rock anymore. I have shelves full of (mostly electronic) albums by people who explore sonic textures and innovations. I'm always on the hunt for a new aural kick of some kind. But none of these developments are accepted as rock music anymore (not in the mainstream sense) although the creators may have, as artists, started with rock as a touchstone in the very beginning of their explorations.

 

Even Duke Ellington had problems when he attempted "long form" compositions. I think he was a "song guy" at heart, and I think that's where I'd put McCartney. You can just be a genius at that, in my book.

 

I was thinking about Elvis Costello myself. Certainly he's the only obvious example of a successful songwriter who was unschooled but then became proficient in musical theory at a later stage in his career. I guess the jury is out on what benefit, if any, this has made to Costello's output, but at least he has tried to make the transition. He learned really fast too - he says he still doesn't sight read particularly well but has no trouble doing 60 part orchestral scores (on paper too, not on a computer). I certainly can't think of another example of someone who has done this. Other "pop songwriters turned classical" such as Joe Jackson don't qualify because he was classically trained prior to turning to pop music. Costello still is writing conventional songs, as well as orchestral stuff, so his new found knowledge hasn't killed his enthusiasm for writing straightforward songs.

However, many of Costello's songs were sophisticated before he learned to read and write notation, so I think it's best to assume that he already had a grasp of musical theory on some level. I'd have to say, and I think this applies to the Beatles too, that you don't have to be able to read music to understand musical theory. I'm pretty certain that if you have a good ear and learn to play a lot of songs, you'll start to notice that there are certain "conventions" in songwriting. Lennon and McCartney certainly knew enough to recognise that it was interesting to substitute a iv for a IV in a song, and that you could even go further and use a bVI instead of the iv and really get a radical effect. The bVI is used so much in early Beatles songs, and at very dramatic points in the songs that it is clear that Lennon and McCartney knew they were doing something out of the ordinary. McCartney specifically mentions his use of the bII chord in "Things We Said Today" as being a really special moment. It's hard to imagine that they didn't write down the chords as they jotted down the lyrics to these songs, and perhaps even noted interesting fragments of the melodies. Elvis Costello certainly wrote down the chord changes when he wrote his early songs - in fact I'd be surprised if most good songwriters didn't - and apparently devised his own form of notation so that he could keep track of the ideas in his mind.
Just because he (and the Beatles) didn't know musical notation doesn't mean they didn't know the notes they were playing!

On "The Beatles Anthology" before Take 1 of "Yesterday" McCartney is demonstrating the chords - he has tuned down his guitar a whole step and he explains that the chords are actually in a different key! He's playing G major shapes but the song is in F major - his explanation makes it abundantly clear that he understands musical theory well enough when it comes to transposing between keys.

On the other hand ... Elton John appears to have had a musical education - certainly he plays piano like he was classically trained. I'd say the same about Billy Joel. And I understand that David Bowie is well versed in theory. This knowledge doesn't seem to have hurt their writing too much.

 

Thats a somewhat universal theme I suppose. The thing I get from Amadeus (assuming it's accurate) is that he was an entirely dysfunctional genius who had no respect for his talent. That point was made in the scene where Salieri gets all caught up in a piece of music Mozart discarded as trash. Brian Wilson wasn't quite that bad. He knew he was good. He knew what it meant. But he became depressed, took too many drugs, got demoralized, etc... Some would say he squandered his gift, but I think it's a more complicated story. A better example is someone like David Crosby who was a prick for the majority of his career. He was beyond irresponsible, seemingly doing everything he could to destroy his gift, yet he still did brilliant stuff and came out on top. Maybe Stephen Stills is even better. He was also a prick, and eventually ran his creativity into the ground. Or Gram Parsons? I get your point though. Brian Wilson is a more substantial character in which to draw the comparison. Althought it would be easier to count the rock stars for whom the term "adult child" didn't apply.

Only if that's what he wanted to do. I certainly don't think anyone is complaining that McCartney hasn't done enough proper 20 minute symphonic pieces.

I knew about this. Did working with Burt move Costello to learn to read and write. Burt once commented that his ability to write made it possible for him to hear a melody at dinner and literally write it down on a napkin. He didn't need a recorder around at all times to catch every stray melodic idea. On the other hand, I think a lot of writers simply remember the stuff they think of during dinner then work out the chords on guitar or piano when they get home and record it. That even fits in with McCartney's "Yesterday" story about how he thought someone else must have written it and he went around to different people and sang the melody until he was convinced it was his own song. He probably carried lesser known songs around in his head as well. Even I can carry around melodies for years that I've made up.

I think it just doesn't matter much for a guy like McCartney or Lennon. So what if John had written out the melody for "Child Of Nature"? He recorded a couple demos, and obviously wrote down the chords, and when he wanted to revisit the melody, it was there on tape and his piece of paper with word and names of chords on top.

I can't think of any examples other than Burt Bacharach who was a major pop songwriter in the same era. Did Jimmy Webb write? Or Goffin/King? Burt's writing skill was an asset for him, but his technical ability probably made his music just that extra bit more sophisticated that it wasn't "hip" or "cool".

 

Excellent post, and one that hits on something that I have been thinking about posting for the past day or two - being able to read and write music is a lot liking being able to read and write the English language (or any other language). We take it for granted in 21st century America that everyone can read and write, but obviously, there are people who can't. But even "illiterate" people intuitively understand the rules of grammar, just as His Master's Vice points that Lennon and McCartney intuitively understood certain rules/principles of musical harmony, whether or not they could "explain" what they knew. One can see this principle with children who cannot yet read or write when they make "mistakes" such as saying "I thinked about you yesterday" instead of "I thought about you yesterday." The child who makes that "mistake"* has grasped the rule that you add "-ed" to a verb to make it past tense, even if he could not explain what a verb is or what past, present, or future tense, or read or write the sentence, or diagram the sentence. Likewise, anyone who grows up in Western society, whether it's Paul McCartney or you or me, automatically intuits certain rules of musical harmony, such as "the V wants to resolve to the I" simply from listening to and/or whistling/singing/playing-along-by-ear-with popular music. Illiterate people can be tremendously linguistically creative in shorter, oral forms, just as musically illiterate people such as Paul McCartney can be tremendously creative in shorter forms such as the thre-minute popular song. But just as an illiterate person cannot write a 500-page novel (or at least couldn't do it without help - i.e., a literate person to whom the illiterate person could dictate the novel), a musically illiterate person cannot write a symphony (or at least can't do it without help - i.e. a musically literate person to whom the musically illiterate person could hum or play the basic ideas of the symphony).

*The past tense "thought" and other "strong" past-tense verb forms in English and German such as "drink/drank/drunk" follow grammarical/phonetic rules of their own, which arose at earlier stages in the languages' histories, but now appear as exceptions to the general "rule" that one adds "-ed" to form the past tense. Sorry, for the English-geek digression.

 

I think in the case of Costello, his very strong intellect and curiosity got the better of him and he just HAD TO KNOW. I don't think it was part of any practical improvement program. Plus he was often around jazz musicians and arrangers and such and was probably tired of feeling inferior and wanted to be able to talk and deal in that setting.

Elton John did indeed have classical musical training before he became a pop star. He may have cut his secondary education short at some point when he became a gigging musician, but he was definitely going down that road when he was young.

 

I would take it a step further and say that most people who read and write perfectly well cannot explain all the grammatical rules or diagram sentences. I put myself in that category. I just know how to do it intuitively, and I think that is an alternate analogy for people like The Beatles. They are musically very literate, but couldn't give you the technical explanation or make the formal notation. Examining the analogy to novel writing - I can and have written fine short essays. I also have the ability to write a novel or more probably a non-fiction book myself rather than dictate it to someone. However it probably wouldn't be a very good one in the case of a novel, especially, and this may be why I haven't tried it. I could put the elements together and it would be free of obvious mistakes. I doubt that it would be a good story or stand up as literature, however. That takes a talent that I haven't pursued or developed, or perhaps don't even have within me. I think it may be the same with someone like Brian Wilson in music for example. If his life had taken a different turn, he might have in fact had the innate ability to become a very fine classical composer.

 

Has anyone read the two Walter Everett books? They are titled the Beatles as Musicians.

 

Interesting comment from Joni Mitchell on the difference between her "female" approach to music theory/harmony and what she sees as the traditional "male" approach thereto:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=105757

 

Yes, both are fantastic if a bit advanced in theory at times. But Everett provides plenty of concrete examples to listen for, and goes as far as analyzing demos and outtakes and comparing them with the finished product to show how things evolved. I highly recommend both volumes!



- John

 

The Allan Pollack "Notes on the Beatles" series of essays linked to earlier in the thread is a really solid theoretical look at the Beatles' work, but one written on a level that even theory novices such as myself can understand (or try to understand). I can't recommend it highly enough.

 

Or for those still obsessed with Mixolydian, that would be "like the v chord (minor) seems to want to lead to the I."

(couldn't resist...)

 

Interesting quote John! Joni is right to call sus chords unresolved. Funnily, I thought her use of sus chords might have been influenced by Pete Townsend.

She does have an idiosyncratic approach - whether or not women in general have a different approach to harmony ... it seems that many of the women who succeed as songwriters do! Perhaps it gives them that extra edge

However, when I think of standout male songwriters ... The Beatles, Paul Simon, Elvis Costello, Prince etc, I hear some fairly unusual approaches to harmony, and at times a reluctance to seek resolution. Songs like "SFF", "I Am The Walrus" and "Penny Lane" spring to mind. For Costello you could do worse than look at one of his early songs: "Accidents Will Happen" - when you expect it to resolve at the end of the verse to a D major chord he instead switches key to D minor (the parallel minor). This isn't just simple chord subsitution ... it's tonal ambiguity on a dramatic level. McCartney plays around with this in a slightly more subtle way on "The Fool on the Hill" (which may well have been an inspiration for Costello's song, now that I run them both through my mind).

I read an interview with McCartney recently in (I think) one of the guitar magazines and he talked about his approach to songwriting. He used one of his recent songs "At The Mercy" as an example, and explained how he wrote the song by playing around with an unusual chord sequence that caught his ear. Apparently he often writes that way, which surprised me as I would have thought that was more of a Lennonesque way of writing.

Anyway "At The Mercy" does have an unusual chord sequence, so Macca clearly knows something... I wish I could find the interview but I haven't had any luck so far.

 

When I was an English graduate student, I took a class in feminist literary theory in which we discussed whether or not there was such a thing as "l'ecriture feminin" which is French/academic-speak (which I have probably misspelled) for "feminine writing," or, to put it more precisely, whether or not women have a uniquely different approach to language than men. I'd be inclined to say yes, there are at least some differences between the way men's and women's brains work when it comes to language and music - not that one sex is superior or inferior to the other - they're just slightly different. I personally found Joni's theory that women tend towards "unresolved" chord progressions more frequently than men to be persuausive. As an extreme generalization, I would venture that the male mind is more prone towards rules, order, and "resolution" than the female mind. Again, I'm not saying that makes men better or worse musicians than women, just different.

 

The downside of this is, I find that many women songwriters who are not as clever or sophisticated as Joni Mitchell tend to write songs by putting a few simple chords together and just kind of emoting somewhat shapelessly over them (of course, I can think of men who do this too). You know, the kind of mediocre "women's music" you hear at folk festivals. Even someone as talented as Ani DiFranco can fall into this trap, though at least her emphasis on rhythm keeps things lively. (By contrast, someone like Aimee Mann writes like a guy, IMO).

I was thinking the other day that there are probably two kinds of music listeners -- people who hear music more emotionally, and people who hear it more structurally. Kind of a female vs. male dichotomy, but it might have more to do with whether you are more of a feeling vs. thinking person (as measured by the Meyers-Briggs test for example).