Music and Magic

Singing harmony can be very straightforward. Handel’s Messiah – which I’m sure you could hear any night around Christmas week in every small city in the US, is so popular simply because it’s great fun to sing and it isn’t difficult to get a hundred or so reasonably experienced church choir members together for a couple practices and a performance or two. The vocal harmonies in the Messiah and in most church music are very easy to sing and very regular. Almost anyone who sings at all can easily do them right. Other types of musical harmonies, much old folk music for instance, are not as easy to sing and require more practice and more experienced singers. On a standard keyboard if you strike 3 keys, leaving 2 black or white keys between, you will get a pleasant minor harmony.  If you strike 3 keys, leaving 3 black or white keys between, you will get a pleasant major harmony.  By striking 2 keys side-by-side you will get a dissonance, a sound that is less pleasant to the ear.

There are a great many chords and therefore vocal harmonies. Actually there are more vocal harmonies as the human voice can hit notes between the keys. (Most stringed instruments, some brass, some wind are also able to do this although some would have to be specially tuned. Even pianos and other keyboard instruments can, with some trouble, be adapted to do this.  An agreement on a specific scale allows quite different instruments to play together and makes written music possible.) Keys are divided into Major, which are most easily recognized as those used in hymns, marches and the like, and Minor, which are found in folk music and sad songs. Chords are further divided into a number of “sets” that go well together such as C Major or B Flat Minor. Most songs are based on one of these sets of chords. One last word, accidentals are notes that vary from the standard ones for a certain chord. [For more detailed information on these subjects I suggest you start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Musical_terminology. ]

Why am I putting you through all this weird technical stuff? Because the Beatles frequently do some odd things with their vocal harmony. Their harmonies, particularly in the first two years of their fame, were based on those of the Everly Brothers who were born in the mountains of East Tennessee and whose harmonies were based on songs that had originally been sung to a different scale from that common today. Of course, to play their songs on modern instruments they had to be brought into our scale and this tends to put them into a Minor key. In addition to the Everly’s cross-over pop-from-Country, the Beatles loved the harmonies used by the “girl groups” recording primarily for Motown.

I don’t have a music library that would allow me to listen to several of the girl groups or even the Everly’s but my memory is that for the most part the harmonies for both were kept pretty much within the usual chord structure. The Beatles couldn’t resist giving their own harmonies a bit of a tweak. Listen closely to the harmony in Love Me Do, hear the chord at “please” (love me do) because one of the three voices is not only singing an accidental but a note that is a dissonance. Dissonance is not particularly rare in music but it certainly was rare in the sort of rock/pop the Beatles were singing at that time. This dissonance gives a signature sound of the Beatles at that time and is repeated in many of the songs. It acts like highlighting text to emphasize the word and the note.

Now that I’ve covered music I need to talk about magic for a paragraph or two. Magic is one of those words that doesn’t define easily and I really only used it for shock value. Part of the religious lore, and healing lore as well, of India is a symbolic construct called the Chakra system.* It identifies various energy “nodes” in the human body reaching from the top of the head to the crotch. Each node handles energy of a particular sort that affects emotion, health, and energy flow in the body in general.

I attended a weekend workshop some years ago led by professional musicians in which we studied, among other musical things, the effect of music on the charkas and therefore one of the ways music can affect our thoughts and emotions. We also worked individually with a musician to identify the note that seemed to resonate each chakra for us personally. Unsurprisingly, deep, bass notes tend to resonate with the base chakra at the groin and as the Chakra node points move up the body, the tones resonating with each tend to be higher in pitch.

One of these is called the throat chakra; “related to communication and creativity. Here we experience the world symbolically through vibration, such as the vibration of sound representing language.” I’m certainly not a young girl but I must say that the note sung at that point in the song definitely can be felt in my throat and the dissonance may well help release the particular scream you hear in their early appearances. I suspect that if I heard it live even at my age I’d have the urge to vocalize, i.e. scream.

Once the screaming started, well, the screaming started. With the assiduous help from the newspapers, within days every girl knew that she was SUPPOSED to scream at a Beatles performance. In another post I will write about Beatlemania that manifested more widely then just at concerts and deserves separate coverage.

* For more information on chakras, I suggest you begin at http://www.sacredcenters.com/chakras.html partly because that’s the particular interpretation we used in the workshop.

McCartney Album

McCartney Album
I’ve spent weeks attempting to figure out why Paul’s first solo album was not merely criticized but seriously slammed by so many. Of course, each person must have had his or her own particular set of motivations as well as their personal reaction to any music but when so universal an opinion is expressed it seems likely that much of the motivation will be alike.

To begin with, listening to it for the very first time, prepared to find it a less then perfect first effort, I was quite simply blown away! Not that every cut is a perfect example of song writing or arrangement or whatever. I’m sure that I could find reasonably legitimate criticism of most, if not all, the songs. I can find criticism of Mozart, after all! But separately and as a whole, it’s certainly not anything like disastrously bad. In fact, without prejudice, it‘s simply great to listen to. Variety, subtlety, beat, it’s all there.

What thoughts or emotions lead people to seek out reasons to criticize another’s work; anger, hatred, jealousy, bribery, perhaps desire to please others? All these things definitely played a real part (well, I don’t actually know about bribery but anytime Allen Klein not to mention Yoko Ono are involved I don’t think you can count it out) in the reviews of Paul’s first solo album. However, I don’t think that they were the only things nor really the most important. I think the real problem, and it continues at least up to the release of Chaos and Confusion in the Back Yard, is that Paul didn’t produce the album they expect because McCartney simply wasn’t a “Beatles album.”

John had released 4 albums, George 2 and Ringo one before Paul’s was released. McCartney looked to people like the last chance to have a real Beatles album, post Beatles. Instead they got the news that, as everyone had certainly known, the Beatles really were over and McCartney wasn’t at all a Beatles album.
The Swinging Sixties were gone and the Beatles were too. People were disappointed and a lot of people react to disappointment with anger. John had made it clear that Paul was on his shit list as had George and even Ringo said a couple of unkind things; Paul had been the one who publicly implied that there would never be another real Beatles album and there was this album review to write. You’re a reporter, the Beatles will be news more then ever for the next little while and John was always good for something quotable, so who do you want to be happy with your review? Three Beatles or one; it’s a pretty easy equation to solve.
Besides, McCartney is soft! It’s about love and marriage, not the proper subject of rock; girls, heart-break, drugs, acid trips and angst, that’s what rock is about these days. There are all these instrumental bits, you can understand all the lyrics and then there’s that weird rhythm in Momma Miss America and what kind of a song title is that? So it was easy to ignore it as it played through only once and slam it real good. Obviously, none of the other Beatles could really be Beatles alone but surely Paul was the least Beatle of them all. So it really didn’t matter how lovely some of the melodies Paul was doing sounded, didn’t matter how he played, how exciting the rhythms were, what great songs he wrote about finding love and happiness; it wasn’t the Beatles and it must be his fault.

After that, people got in a habit, sure the reviewers may like John, George or Ringo’s releases or not, but they were invariably grudging at best when it came to Paul’s. I’m not going to go dig up sales figures, I do know that the public in general did like Paul’s after Beatles (hereinafter “AB”) work because they bought records. By the end of the 70s a lot of Paul fans didn’t even know he’d been in some other band before Wings! Then John was shot dead and nothing can ever change the things he said, not even the things he said later.

Review, Lennon In His Own Words; Lawrence

John Lennon: In His Own Words:by Ken Lawrence: Andrews McMeel Publishing: October 1, 2005. Beautifully produced, This Gospel of St. John the Rocker is a remarkable example of the highest quality of the printer’s art. The size is neat, economical and friendly to the hand. The binding is firm and colors definite and appealing. The dust jacket is well designed with a competently computer abstracted photo of the saint. The typeface is attractive and graceful while retaining perfect clarity and the layout well satisfies the eye. The paper is thick, creamy and lovely.
The introductory text is particularly to be noted for the even spread of inaccuracies – between one and three errors in every paragraph. It provides to the aficionado the unparalleled pleasure of exclaiming “Wrong, that was so and so at such and such a place at least eight months earlier” frequently enough to produce satiation. What more can one ask?

Beatles Christmas Albums

Since I’m sure many of us have taken time to play one or more of the Beatles Christmas records recently, I thought I might comment that it is a lot harder then you’d think for someone who sings professionally to sing consistently out of tune, off-key, for more then a couple of notes. I remember a lovely recording, from before the Beatles time, in which Jo Stafford (I think), a popular pop singer, did an out of tune album. There was also around that time a very rich society woman who mistakenly thought she was a great singer (Florence Foster Jenkins). She was accustomed to rent Carnegie hall once a year and invite all the top of society to a concert. She was obviously very socially powerful because they came.

I also much enjoy John’s ability to do great imitations – indeed all the boys were very good at it – when he does Scots or Irish folk-type songs or sings what I suspect is German-sounding nonsense I feel admiration for his skill and ear. John’s Tiny Tim doing Nowhere Man sounds more like Tiny Tim then the original does and I do remember him well. (While Tiny Tim was a supremely silly celeb, I suspect I have to award Paris Hilton the all time award for it as Tiny Tim was actually entertaining at least the first time you saw him.)

Despite how good John was about accents and I think counter to his personal desire, he did lose most of his Liverpool accent except when he was singing. Paul also lost much of his although I suspect this was at least partly deliberate. But some of it remains as in the emphasis on the final “G” in words like “sing”.

In any case, the Christmas records, made exclusively for members of the fan club, are a lot of fun, at least until the last one about which the less said the better. I’ve been wishing everyone “Merry Crimble” but most people don’t, of course, know where it comes from. Just a bit of childish one-upmanship I suppose. I didn’t post yesterday because I needed a musician to check some terms I used. I hope to post that one tomorrow. Meanwhile be well and a Merry Crimble to you all.

Beatles LOVE Album

Finally heard the LOVE album, as opposed to hearing a couple of the songs off it. Now I realize that the real innovations are in the bridges between the songs and they are quite wonderful! It seemed rather shocking to hear the announcement and screams introducing I Want to Hold Your Hand. We’re too used to listening to albums without the crowd sounds. Good move. There’s a surreal touch to some of these bridges too. I suspect Paul likes a couple of them a lot. The Sun King was lovely backwards!

IMPORTANT NOTE: Make sure that “shuffle” is off. Although the CD is divided into tracks, the entire disk seems to me to have been conceived as a single program. When the tracks are shuffled you miss the bridging that ties each track to the next and therefore a good deal of the true charm of the album.

I can’t say I’m surprised to find out that key, chords and accompaniment of several of their songs fit together so nicely; there’s a thriftyness about it that appeals to me a lot. I, like the Beatles, remember “the War” and using things up and then using what’s left. No point in throwing away a good chord progression after only one use!

“IS the really a new album?” is a good question. Yes, I really think it isn’t unfair to call it that. The Beatles and George Martin paid a lot of attention to the order of songs on an album when they were new. I haven’t run into anyone so far who really seems to have a clear idea of just what they attempting in this. I’m sure it was some sort of building, wave, incoming/outgoing tide effect at least in part. The great thing about LOVE is that Martin had their whole catalog from which to select. I still couldn’t really say precisely what the effect he was seeking was, but it certainly builds excitement – particularly when Mr. Kite bleeds into She’s So Heavy AND Helter-Skelter!! Guaranteed to get your heart moving. Help! seemed the perfect song to follow that!

Yes, it is a new album. Of course, many of us have made up our own playlists of Beatles songs creating albums to suit ourselves, but only a few of us have the equipment and talent (and master tapes) with which to really make it work! While the song selection does include some of my least favorites, I have to say that I’m definitely going to be playing this as an album for that very reason.

Obviously many Beatle fans have had a wonderful time identifying the almost momentary bits of one song cut with another – I’m probably not going to be one of the world champions of that, but most of it is creating something I’m enjoying a lot! Somehow things like the segue from Strawberry Fields into Piggies and then Hello, Goodbye is not only amusing but makes sense on some unused level.

I did catch the snippits of the Cirque de Solil on TV and wasn’t much impressed or entertained although I did try to allow for the lack of their usual equipment in the TV studio. Since there’s no chance I’ll ever pay for a ticket to the live show, much less spend the kind of money it takes to go to Las Vegas (where there would be very little to do that I’d particularly enjoy) I am resigned to wait the movie or TV show in a few years on this. I’m awfully glad to have the soundtrack though. Partly because few of the songs chosen were on singles and partly because of the changes, they don’t tend to invoke surprise moments of nostalgic regret but are far more likely to tease out a smile even if you’re doing dishes. Oops, the close managed to make me tear up! Damn you anyway George Martin! (and Giles too) Not fair!

Paul Is Dead Clue

I don’t for a moment think that Paul really is dead although I do derive a good bit of amusement reading about the whole episode and the clues. I love how someone you know nothing about can say that “the walrus is a (fill in the blank) symbol of death” a lot of people simply assume that it is accurate. There is one point in all the clues that for me doesn’t have a satisfactory answer. That is Paul’s wearing of a black carnation for the “Your Mother Should Know” portion of Magical Mystery Tour. Paul’s explanation: that they had run out of red ones, isn’t unlikely on it’s face. It’s just the sort of thing that does happen. However, if a florist runs out of red carnations, is he likely to throw in a black one instead? My experience is that there would be a pink one or just possibly a white put in to make up the numbers — or in the US, in March, possibly one dyed green.

Yesterday I had occasion to visit the oldest, best and most experienced florist shop in my small town and spoke to the owner, whose connection with this particular shop began at least 4 years before Magical Mystery Tour was filmed. When I asked him about black carnations he replied that there was no such thing as a natural black flower. There were a few species, roses, peonies and orchids primarily, that had been bred to very dark shades of blue, purple, red or brown but not black. To provide a black carnation the florist must have dyed, spray-painted or otherwise transformed a carnation of ordinary color — or the black carnation must have been artificial. (Remember, this was well before the general availability of silk flowers.) In other words, no florist would have thrown in a black carnation (even should he (or she) have such on hand,) for the same price as the red ones.

Since the majority of the other “clues” that Paul is dead are far from convincing when examined, we’re left with the question “Why on earth did Paul (or someone connected with the movie) decide that Paul, or one of the four, should wear a black flower? At this point, we’re probably going to be left with the same answer given for all the strange references in Glass Onion: they did it just for fun.

Review of Magic Circles; The Beatles in Dream and History

I”m sorry for not keeping up with a daily post for those few of you who have found this blog. I’ve been trying to set up the little bit of code that would let you request updates by email. Unfortunately, the softwear is doing something strange and I’ve asked support to see if they can fix it. Meanwhile, I’m going to stop frustrating myself and shall attempt to begin publicizing this blog a bit. There’s an incomplete subscription opportunity in the margin that is the trouble maker. I’m leaving it as it is for the moment in the hope that support will be able to find the glitch. Certainly I’ll do my best to get that and the feeds installed as soon as I can figure out the FAQs while I keep reminding myself that programmers aren’t writers.

I gave myself a few Beatles books this month and have read one of them: Magic Circles, The Beatles in Dream and History by Devin McKinney;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003. I looked Mr.McKinney up and the only biographical information I found is that he is “an independant scholar living in Brookelyn.” Google’s results indicate that he frequently reviews books, movies and music.

The book is driven by long, hard-hitting adjectives and surely crashes by faster than most tomes produced by the presses of a great universitiy. One problem with Freudians is that they become so relentlessly Freudian. Why is it that phallic symbols are always tall, straight things pointing at the sky? Seems to me the last four or five inches of a sun-warmed garden hose hanging off the edge of the porch looks at least as much like a penis as the Washington Monument does. But no, it’s always something tall, slim and straight like the middle finger pointing at the heavens.

One very strange chapter intercuts an account of the Paul Is Dead madness with the Manson murders, separated by quotes from a book titled Holes and Other Superficialities, a book by two philosophers managing to discuss the history of philosophy in terms of holes in things. Goes with all the phallic stuff at any rate! The reason for mixing up these two situations appears to be the author’s desire to call attention to the fact that both aberations were fantasies others have about the Beatles, not something the Beatles had anything to do with. Seems to me there really are less confusing ways to accomplish this. Paragraphs on some Beatle imitation songs got in there also.

This book is in very little danger of being ravaged by us fan-addicts for mistakes in the Beatlesl history as it relates almost none of it. The book is an attempt to find how much of the relationship between the Beatles and the events of the later 60s were matters of cause and effect and if so, which way it flowed. There are some good ideas in it although most of the best are in the first chapter where they tend to get covered by the author’s purile enjoyment of toilet references.

He makes a very valliant attempt to understand the 60s. but as he says, it’s impossible to recreate the feelings if you weren’t there. Unfortunately, he concentrates on the 60s types that got in the news a lot and the everyday lives of most people floats under his radar. Less excusable is his almost total avoidance of the feminist movement which is left off the the lists of ‘what was going on’ in almost every instance. That’s rather a sad omission as it and integration are just about the only movements that were successful in the long run.

I’m not going to recommend this book to anyone; it’s very difficult reading and information isn’t all that thick on the ground. He does have a few ideas and interpretations and I’m not at all sorry to have read it. It’s quite possible in the end I’ll decide it’s the funniest book ever written about the Beatles. Only time will tell that though. I’m still sorting through his suggestions to see if any of them ring true for me.

Ringo Again

It seems to me that Ringo is underestimated and overlooked not only by fans but by the Beatles and their support people as well. I’m sure it began because Ringo had missed so much school and he certainly hadn’t been as much exposed to literature and ideas as even what George may have absorbed by being in a classroom. More important, Ringo simply isn’t the competitor the others are. While he clearly was as fast with a quip as the others, between being the newcomer and not needing to be in the spotlight he seems to have participated a lot less in their discussions. Then, too, I wouldn’t want to discuss philosophy, literature or things of that sort with John. I’ve known a number of quite intelligent people who just never needed to ask the sorts of questions philosophy doesn’t answer and I suspect that Ringo is simply one of them without being in the least simple.

Ringo seems to be and have been rather well in touch with himself and to be very intuitive. Reading Lewishon’s accounts of the first years recording sessions, I’m wondering if Ringo didn’t somehow have a lot to do with the ability to almost ‘read each others’ minds’ that they developed. When you listen to his drumming, just between his first session and the sessions for Meet The Beatles, the changes in the band as a whole seem to me to be inexplicable in terms of practice – besides the only practice they really got was on stage or just before recording! Whatever did it, the band was getting to that phenomenal point where they didn’t seem to be able to do anything wrong.

Ringo is the author of a number of lines upon which songs later hung. John was pleased to call them “Ringo’s malapropisms”. (“A Long Day’s Night” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” etc.) I’m not at all sure about that. They are too apt, too deep – I think he had a visceral understanding of the world we live in now where such statements might be made by Stephen Hawking. Do you suppose that he knew exactly what he was saying? I noted particularly his comment “you can’t try to be married, you just have to be married” as probably the best comment on an attempt at reconciliation I’ve ever heard. Not only are his news conference witticisms very apt, they also don’t put anyone down.