Paul and John couldn't read or write music?

[tralon4242]

I watched Paul McCartney and his new bride on Larry King on CNN the other night and Paul said that when he was a Beatle he and John could never read or write music, but had someone else do that for them? Wow! I thought they WROTE all their own music? I just thought I pass that on to you all.

[pauldil]

They DID write their own music. They just didn't know how to transcribe it into musical notation.

 

Paul

[jlh]

When they needed transcription or arrangements they had George Martin. Often called the 5th Beatle he had more than enough formal music education and experience.

JLH

[pauldil]

Originally posted by jlh:

...George Martin. Often called the 5th Beatle ...

I though Apu was the 5th Beatle??

[jlh]

Oops... you are so right! I guess George M. was only sometimes called the 5th Beatle when Apu wasn't around.

[Rim]

I guess that would make Stu Sutcliffe the -1th Beatle?

[whitefang]

Tralon, a LOT of them '60's singer/songwriters couldn't read or write music. It wasn't like you see it today. Most folks getting into guitar playing learned by ear! To them, it was an ART form, not the intricate science it seems to be becoming lately!

 

Whitefang

[Nollykin]

Originally posted by whitefang:

Tralon, a LOT of them '60's singer/songwriters couldn't read or write music. It wasn't like you see it today. Most folks getting into guitar playing learned by ear! To them, it was an ART form, not the intricate science it seems to be becoming lately!

 

Whitefang

true, whitey, but it also seems to me that there are a lot who cant read and write notation, NOW... yanno? It wasnt only just back then.

[whitefang]

Well, Nolly, I come from back then, and STILL can't read. So, if you mean ME, right you are!

 

But my referrence was to what I've been picking up lately. After a too LOOOONG haitus, I picked up my axe, got it fixed right and set about getting my chops back. I thought I'd buy a few copies of Guitar Player and Guitar World (or metal world, if you will...)to see what the terrain was like now. And outside of the overwhelming cornucopia of boxes, pedals and other soundshaping devices, I found a particular pre-occupation with technicality. Not technique, mind you, but the obsession with at least KNOWING different areas of musical phraseology, even if knowing what to do with it

wasn't a consideration. Songs transcribed using chords the songs didn't originally use, different chord arrangements, dallying into all the "V's", y'know, Vl, Vll, Vlll, V7 etc., etc.,

And all of them designations most of the "old timers" never knew or cared about.

 

And there is nothing wrong with any of this, really. Don't get me wrong. All education is a good thing. But I feel too much concentration on this sort of thing can inhibit artistic creation in SOME. I've seen this happen.

 

That's why some of them singer songwriters of yore were successful at coming up with tunes that everyone seemed to like, I guess. They thought more of the appeal of their creation rather than the creation of their appeal.

 

Even now, I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. Only example I can think of is Paul Simon. When writing songs for him and Garfunkle, they were musically, ingeniously simple. And lyrically mesmerizing. As Simon progressed as a guitarist (he aggressively studied after making it big), he concentrated more on the complexity of his songs construction, and less on the poeticism of his lyrics. At least to my reckoning. This worked OK for a while, but eventually, he started simplifying his compositions, and paying attention to his lyrics to be able to hold onto an audience.

 

It's a dicey game, to be sure. Others may take all this wrong, so criticism won't offend. I know what I mean, just not sure I came across!

 

Whitefang

[g.]

I don't know what if any statistical evidence {contradiction in terms? ; } there is to say a lesser percentage people read now, or then. But anecdotally, I know there were tons of musicans reading -- and writing music when I first started paying attention many years ago. And I also know interviews that I've read indicate that lots of world class musicians in various genres could deal with notation. Last, historically it is rather obvious that many have used notation as a tool and a communication device.

 

Perhaps it isn't too wise to justify one's own stance on this matter based on only local observations. No offense intended.

[Tedly Nightshade]

"Songs transcribed using chords the songs didn't originally use, different chord arrangements, dallying into all the "V's", y'know, Vl, Vll, Vlll, V7 etc., etc.,

And all of them designations most of the "old timers" never knew or cared about.

And there is nothing wrong with any of this, really. Don't get me wrong. All education is a good thing. But I feel too much concentration on this sort of thing can inhibit artistic creation in SOME. I've seen this happen. "

 

Good call for the Beatles to make hay while the sun shone instead of getting distracted by all that. Still, maybe if they had learnt that later on, we would have heard some interesting things we never got to hear.

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Whitefang,

 

We know what you mean but you're so old now it doesn't matter any more. Just kidding!!!

 

If you can recall up to early last century music was distributed soley through written music. Drug stores; the five and Dime Stores used to sell sheet music. This was before radio and 78s. This was before my time but surely you remember this Fang. If you wanted music you often went to the store and sampled the tune by PLAYING it from the WRITTEN music or you gave it to the salesman and he played it. Just try doing that in a drug store today.

 

Most everybody learned to play AND READ some music. Pianos were in most middle class homes and lessons were common. We've only recently become dumb and dumber.

 

I hate to say it, being a guitar player and all, but the guitar has been a contributng factor to the dumbing of music. I mean it's also been the reason a LOT of great music was born and more than anything defines music in the 2nd half of the 20th century. But the folkish nature of the guitar, meaning it's the PEOPLES INSTRUMENT makes it also something that went with less to no formal training required. Meant that many felt they no longer had to KNOW music in order to play it, which, while liberating on one end, has ultimately been harmful to the *music as an art* form side of things.

 

Hey! This is my opinion, don't bother!!

[Tedly Nightshade]

My mom learned music singing it around the piano at the farm, with the family, from popular sheet music of the day. She has this warbly soprano that is completely classic. What a great thing that was, nice to have it be part of my heritage.

With this whole DIY thing snowballing so big, I wonder if there's any chance that people making music themselves will once again become a major form of entertainment, like it was in the day?

One can hope?

[Nollykin]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

My mom learned music singing it around the piano at the farm, with the family, from popular sheet music of the day. She has this warbly soprano that is completely classic. What a great thing that was, nice to have it be part of my heritage.

With this whole DIY thing snowballing so big, I wonder if there's any chance that people making music themselves will once again become a major form of entertainment, like it was in the day?

One can hope?

...they say history repeats itself... dont they? Dont worry

[whitefang]

Henry, I'm gonna try to type this out before the alzhiemer's kicks in!

 

When I hit the "send reply" button on my reply, I thought there would be more misunderstanding then there apparently was. And I DID say there would be no offense. It was all kind of cryptic to begin with.

 

All I was trying to say was, that I don't believe ALL the singer/songwriters of days gone by even THOUGHT in terms of ionian scales, mixolydian scales, diatonic bass lines or whatever. But the "guitar rags" on the shelves lately might lead one to believe that if they have no idea what all that means, then you're SOL

as far as their articles are concerned. I dare say that if modern transcribers find all of those elements in the old timer's work, it was probably by coincedence. In most cases, anyway.

A lot of guitar players starting out then relied on the what is now called E-Z guitar method and culled what they could from four page chord primers from Mel Bay or Ed Sale. That up and coming guitarists are striving to learn more is a GOOD thing. But for publications to blithely assume they are all on the same level is a grave misservice.

 

Now, if you whippersnappers will excuse me, it's time for my colonic!

 

Whitefang

[SoundWrangler]

For the record, though, guys: Paul, John & George definitely knew the names of notes, fairly complex chords, scales, etc. Listen to studio chatter on the Anthology CDs, Let it Be, etc. Whether conventional notation was a strong point is a separate issue - I'm sure we've all known folks who were crappy readers, but could handle flat-5 sharp-9 type functional harmony all day long.

 

If you can find this book in your local library:

"The complete Beatles recording sessions : the official story of the Abbey Road years"

(it's sadly out of print)

You will find a wealth of interesting info, incl. how they speeded up (for brightness on analog decks, among other things) AND SLOWED down recorded parts, even playing entire songs faster during rhythm section takes, to get that nice smunchy Ringo h.h. sound during normal speed playback. Abbey Road actually gave Mark Lewisohn access to the paper studio logs - even tracks from the BBC sound FX lib. are clearly identified!