Saturday, January 22, 2005
COMMENTARY: THE FIRST (ROCK) WALTZ? BABY'S IN BLACK 'N BEATLES
AHEAD OF THEIR 3/4 TIME
by Don Rose
Hard to think of many rock songs that use 3/4 time; the vast majority, to my ears, use the more common 4/4. But leave it to the Beatles to experiment, even back in their 1964 breakout year, with the waltz meter on the catchy, tight-harmony toetapper "Baby's In Black" (Lennon apparently described the delectable ditty as a waltz, in a lead-in comment to the song while on tour).
"B.I.B." is one of very few Beatles songs that ever used 3/4 time. Certainly the early Beatles numbers stuck pretty religiously to the 4/4 meter, as most rockers of that era did. However, when experimentation became the order of the day, circa '66, time signatures were no exception. By '67, "Henry the horse dances the waltz" in the middle break of Lennon's "...Mr. Kite"; '68 brings George Harrison's "Long Long Long" in 3/4 time (too slow to really be a waltz, right?), and '70 brings another Harrison 3/4 number in "I Me Mine" (although its middle section rocks out in 4/4, giving double the contrast to the more subdued 3/4 beginning and end sections).
But back to "Baby's In Black". It was not just ahead of its time due to its time signature; the structure feels unique as well. For one thing, there appears to be no repeat of an "A" section at the beginning of an "A-B-A" structure. This was unusual for that era, since most pop numbers repeat an "A" part twice at the start, then go to a "B" section for variation, then return to "A", with solos and/or choruses sprinkled in. The "B.I.B." formula does not feel like this at all, it's more like:
A-B--A-B--C-A-solo-C--A-B--A.
But wait. Some of you may be saying, "Don, I think there IS an A-B-A structure hidden in there". What, something hidden in a Beatles song? Doesn't that come later in the sixties?
Well perhaps you are right. If we redefine the "A-B" above as a larger kind of A section -- call it A' -- and redefine "C-A-solo-C" as a larger kind of B section -- call it B' -- then we have:
A'--A'--B'--A'--A.
Okay, so maybe the Beatles were (subconsciously, perhaps) using A-B-A after all, but if so, it is a clever and unique variation thereof. Waltz time + tweaked structure = very innovative!
Even "B.I.B."'s guitar solo by George seems a bit more rough-edged than usual, but somehow that enhances its charm. (My friend and bandmate Ray Mahoney -- we were in an O.C. band together called The Blend way back when -- used to say that all of George's solos seemed a bit rough, sometimes a bit simple, yet always just perfect for the song it was in).
For a lengthy commentary on "Baby's In Black" -- perhaps everything you'd ever want to know about the song's structure and theory -- see the fine song analysis by Alan W. Pollack.
To HEAR "Baby's In Black", in stereo and mono, well... go get the boss Beatles boxset "The Capitol Albums - Vol. 1" (reviewed in TRR:MUSIC).
by Don Rose
Hard to think of many rock songs that use 3/4 time; the vast majority, to my ears, use the more common 4/4. But leave it to the Beatles to experiment, even back in their 1964 breakout year, with the waltz meter on the catchy, tight-harmony toetapper "Baby's In Black" (Lennon apparently described the delectable ditty as a waltz, in a lead-in comment to the song while on tour).
"B.I.B." is one of very few Beatles songs that ever used 3/4 time. Certainly the early Beatles numbers stuck pretty religiously to the 4/4 meter, as most rockers of that era did. However, when experimentation became the order of the day, circa '66, time signatures were no exception. By '67, "Henry the horse dances the waltz" in the middle break of Lennon's "...Mr. Kite"; '68 brings George Harrison's "Long Long Long" in 3/4 time (too slow to really be a waltz, right?), and '70 brings another Harrison 3/4 number in "I Me Mine" (although its middle section rocks out in 4/4, giving double the contrast to the more subdued 3/4 beginning and end sections).
But back to "Baby's In Black". It was not just ahead of its time due to its time signature; the structure feels unique as well. For one thing, there appears to be no repeat of an "A" section at the beginning of an "A-B-A" structure. This was unusual for that era, since most pop numbers repeat an "A" part twice at the start, then go to a "B" section for variation, then return to "A", with solos and/or choruses sprinkled in. The "B.I.B." formula does not feel like this at all, it's more like:
A-B--A-B--C-A-solo-C--A-B--A.
But wait. Some of you may be saying, "Don, I think there IS an A-B-A structure hidden in there". What, something hidden in a Beatles song? Doesn't that come later in the sixties?
Well perhaps you are right. If we redefine the "A-B" above as a larger kind of A section -- call it A' -- and redefine "C-A-solo-C" as a larger kind of B section -- call it B' -- then we have:
A'--A'--B'--A'--A.
Okay, so maybe the Beatles were (subconsciously, perhaps) using A-B-A after all, but if so, it is a clever and unique variation thereof. Waltz time + tweaked structure = very innovative!
Even "B.I.B."'s guitar solo by George seems a bit more rough-edged than usual, but somehow that enhances its charm. (My friend and bandmate Ray Mahoney -- we were in an O.C. band together called The Blend way back when -- used to say that all of George's solos seemed a bit rough, sometimes a bit simple, yet always just perfect for the song it was in).
For a lengthy commentary on "Baby's In Black" -- perhaps everything you'd ever want to know about the song's structure and theory -- see the fine song analysis by Alan W. Pollack.
To HEAR "Baby's In Black", in stereo and mono, well... go get the boss Beatles boxset "The Capitol Albums - Vol. 1" (reviewed in TRR:MUSIC).
Monday, January 17, 2005
MEET THE FAQ-ERS: SITES FOR MUSIC FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
A great BEATLES FAQ: http://www.triskelion-ltd.com/beatfaq.html
Best Selling Albums FAQ: http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/faq.html
Early Music FAQ - "The web's largest reference for European Medieval and Renaissance music since 1994": http://www.medieval.org/emfaq
Sample CD Sampling and Making Music FAQs by sounduser.com
Best Selling Albums FAQ: http://www.neosoul.com/riaa/faq.html
Early Music FAQ - "The web's largest reference for European Medieval and Renaissance music since 1994": http://www.medieval.org/emfaq
Sample CD Sampling and Making Music FAQs by sounduser.com
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Idolatry? No... I--Daltrey
So I go to this teeny place with a cool art space -- Froden Gallery, on Pico in West L.A. -- and Who do I bump into? Roger Daltrey! I'm stoked to meet the bloke, who couldn't be more friendly, so I couldn't resist asking one of the greatest singers ever about the state of his band. He tells me Who-mate Pete has written 14 new songs, he's really really excited about them, and Rog estimates they may be out by May.
Wow, new Who. Who knew?
Which got me daydreaming: 2 ex-quartets (Beatles, Who) are down to 2 rockers each, each band missing what the other can offer. Why not merge, in order to form a more perfect union? Imagine! A beatific Brady Bunch with Townsend on vocal and lead axe, Daltrey on vocal and rhythm guitar, Sir Paul on vocal/bass, Ringo on skins. The name? Who knows -- but wouldn't The Beatwhos or Whootles do? Woo hoo!
Now back to reality and flushed with excitement -- and being ever the blogger -- I ask for Rog's email instead of an autograph; he cleverly offers his manager's info instead.
Dang. I guess I haven't made the Who's Who yet.
Wow, new Who. Who knew?
Which got me daydreaming: 2 ex-quartets (Beatles, Who) are down to 2 rockers each, each band missing what the other can offer. Why not merge, in order to form a more perfect union? Imagine! A beatific Brady Bunch with Townsend on vocal and lead axe, Daltrey on vocal and rhythm guitar, Sir Paul on vocal/bass, Ringo on skins. The name? Who knows -- but wouldn't The Beatwhos or Whootles do? Woo hoo!
Now back to reality and flushed with excitement -- and being ever the blogger -- I ask for Rog's email instead of an autograph; he cleverly offers his manager's info instead.
Dang. I guess I haven't made the Who's Who yet.
Friday, January 14, 2005
JOHNNY RAMONE, ALONE IN STONE
January 14 at 3 p.m., there will be an unnerving unveiling: a new statue in honor of famous (or is it infamous?) punk guitar legend Johnny Ramone, near the grave of bandmate Dee Dee Ramone (Johnny's widow owns the ashes of the cremated rockstar) . Location: the Hollywood Forever Cemetery, 6000 Santa Monica Blvd.
Punk Forever!
But wait. Wasn't punk all about being alive... and loud... and free.... about breaking down stiff establishment conventions, and rejecting old idols? And yet now, a low-decibel ceremony, for a statue, to memorialize an American Punk Idol, my friends.
I guess all movements eventually solidify.
I almost can't believe it.
I almost can't believe it.
Then again, maybe Ashton Kutcher will show up, and tell us we've all been Punk'd.
