Hardest Beatles Song To Play

stubby · Post by **stubby** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:26 pm

sweet...

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:36 pm

Yeah back in the old days I remember the traveling Cavalcade of Stars. No body played a long set.
So some think that Clapton is the best guitar player in the Beatles?

webhead · Post by **webhead** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:06 am

I think the hardest Beatles song to play is Revolution #9.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:49 am

No Dan,

Clapton obviously was not a member of the Beatles. He just happend to play some memorable riffs on WMGGW. The best guitar player in my books was George. I loved his Carl Perkins type riffs and his finger picking styles. In the early days of modern rock George was easily one of the best guitarists around.

But every threshold is meant to be stepped over by someone. Clapton, Page Hendrix et al, did just that in a very public way and helped to revolutionize how people play guitar.

.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:57 am

I meant to add that in terms of difficulty and getting it just right on a recording Michelle was a nice piece of work. I am still amazed by that song. I mean it was so original and complex for its time. I find it easy to play once you know the chord structure. But let's face it how many of us could have had such vivid inspiration and come up with that song or something as good? Amazing! At least it was to me back then.

stormy · Post by **stormy** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:28 am

I find that same head-shaking amazement when I learn Beatle songs. They were true song-craftsmen from the beginning to the end breaking new ground at nearly every turn. That's why the almost universal hatred of Revolution #9 always surprises me. As with other highly original Beatle compositions, this one went places no one else was going. I understand why people who love 'Good Day Sunshine' might hate #9, but I think it's an amazing sound collage. I see it in the same light as Frank Zappa's 'Lumpy Gravy'. An incredibly creative and innovative experiment in sound.

Dennis

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:01 am

Well said, Dennis...I like 'songs' as much as anyone does, but they're a small part of what I like to listen to...

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:03 am

Ah Love Frank Zappa's stuff. He owned a Ric 12 string I understand. I saw it on e-bath a while back. Anyone care to comment on the validity of that?

My favourite Zappa album was Joe's Garage.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 9:58 am

IMHO, Revolution #9 is NOT a "song".

Interesting, yes... song, no.

stormy · Post by **stormy** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:58 pm

That brings up an interesting point...what is the definition of a "song" and why would #9 not be considered one?

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:40 pm

Here's Mirriam - Webster's definition.

Main Entry: song
Pronunciation: 'so[ng]
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sang; akin to Old English singan to sing
1 : the act or art of singing
2 : poetical composition
3 a : a short musical composition of words and music b : a collection of such compositions
4 : a distinctive or characteristic sound or series of sounds (as of a bird or insect)
5 a : a melody for a lyric poem or ballad b : a poem easily set to music

eggman · Post by **eggman** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:36 pm

Howdy,

Part of what made the Beatles unique was that they were..unique! They didn't use 3-4 chords in a song. Sheesh, what about "There's a Place" ?
That's got at least as many chords as "I'm Happy just to dance with you" or "All my loving"! No, the Beatles were great; they're my all-time favorite.
But when I was learning guitar as a teen, I quickly learned to appreciate Buddy Holly, CCR and Rod Stewart! I learned "Yesterday" when i was 16. Not so simple as "As Tears go by", now is it? Heh-heh.
I must admit, being able to sing "Yesterday" ( I did it pretty well, If i brag a little myself)got me alot of attention from girls at parties; it paid off

46 chords though it may have been Heh-heh.

Larry

stormy · Post by **stormy** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 6:29 am

I'd say Revolution#9 falls under song definition #3: there's a lot of words and music in there, some even backwards and inside out

Definition #4 seems to cover things like "Musique Concrete", John Cage's 4'33", etc. Zappa once said: "If John Cage, for instance, says, "I'm putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I'm going to drink carrot juice, and that's my composition," then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so."

I guess I define a "song" as any recorded or performed sound (or non-sound) which occupies a space in time.

Dennis

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:58 pm

The book of Psalms are songs. Although no one today can definitively say that they know the original music score. They are still considered songs and thus they fall within definition #2

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 6:40 am

In response to the Zappa quote, I think there's a reason why Frank used the term composition rather than song...and composing is something that also happens in painting, sculpture, photography, etc.

Lots of Classical Symphonic compositions contain 'songs' from particular cultural or 'folk' traditions, but the term 'song' is not then stretched to describe the entire work...

I prefer not to think of John Cage's 4'33" as a song...otherwise I'd feel I had to send him royalties every time I meditated...