Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
These are a couple of my favorite Beatles blues songs. One thing I admire about the Beatles (among many other things I admire about them) is that their blues didn't sound like cliched copies of Chicago styled blues. They were more inventive than that.
I read in the BeatlesBible that John Lennon played the offbeat rhythm guitar stabs (in "She's A Woman") - sort of like a snare drum does the backbeat. They always came up with interesting arrangements. My versions don't have the benefit of a "band" to arrange - they're more conventional blues piano oriented. I'm trying to find my vocal (singing) identity. I recently tried doing a little quavery vibrato at the end of vocal phrases. I like it better than without.
I'm a great Beatles fan myself too...at least of their early career. And even though I often hear/see references to their so called country influences etc., there's nothing from my listening to make me hear that. Their interpretation and style was so different that it obscured any of that.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. One thing that I'm thinking about now though: They never sounded like they were playing from a lead sheet. They always projected the song itself to their ability, always making a statement. It was they themselves that performed the song. This is something a listener hear or senses immediately.
Will do some R&B for a while. Give the classical a break. You can spend the rest of your life looking for music on a sheet of paper. You'll never find it, because it just ain't there. - Me Myself
I'm a great Beatles fan myself too...at least of their early career. And even though I often hear/see references to their so called country influences etc., there's nothing from my listening to make me hear that. Their interpretation and style was so different that it obscured any of that.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. One thing that I'm thinking about now though: They never sounded like they were playing from a lead sheet. They always projected the song itself to their ability, always making a statement. It was they themselves that performed the song. This is something a listener hear or senses immediately.
You're not quite sure what I was trying to say. And I'm not quite sure quite sure what you're trying to say. The Beatles had plenty of blues influence. It was in the R&B they loved. What I admire about the Beatles is that when they did a blues, it rarely sounded like simply an imitation of an old Chicago blues tune. Their bluesy stuff included these 2 songs I posted. Also things like: I'm Down, Everybody's Got Something To Hide... , Oh Darling.
Check out a YouTube video of that British skiffle style. You'll see the difference - that is, you'll see (hear) the blues influence in their blues influence vs things like the influence of skiffle.
And BTW, I'm a huge Beatle fan all the way through their career. Not much of a post-Beatles.
My very close friend, originally from London , music producer and a rock composer; met the Beatles when they were recording simultaneously in two studios Abby Road. They talked among themselves during a break , and also about musical influences. The first and most powerful influence, which was noted by Lennon was Rhythm and Blues , as pointed out by Dave .
I'm a great Beatles fan myself too...at least of their early career. And even though I often hear/see references to their so called country influences etc., there's nothing from my listening to make me hear that. Their interpretation and style was so different that it obscured any of that.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here. One thing that I'm thinking about now though: They never sounded like they were playing from a lead sheet. They always projected the song itself to their ability, always making a statement. It was they themselves that performed the song. This is something a listener hear or senses immediately.
You're not quite sure what I was trying to say. And I'm not quite sure quite sure what you're trying to say. The Beatles had plenty of blues influence. It was in the R&B they loved. What I admire about the Beatles is that when they did a blues, it rarely sounded like simply an imitation of an old Chicago blues tune. Their bluesy stuff included these 2 songs I posted. Also things like: I'm Down, Everybody's Got Something To Hide... , Oh Darling.
Check out a YouTube video of that British skiffle style. You'll see the difference - that is, you'll see (hear) the blues influence in their blues influence vs things like the influence of skiffle.
And BTW, I'm a huge Beatle fan all the way through their career. Not much of a post-Beatles.
I know what you mean by influences, but somehow I've never wanted to hear them that way. I've always listened to them as being completely unique. In my mind, they were made in Hamburg, Germany where they worked many hours a day, and it's there that they really paid their dues. I even have a bootleg record from recordings made in the StarClub there. There are even some odd songs backing Tony Sheridan on there. They also played some compositions made by other people, but soon made their own songs and developed a sound that was totally their own and was based heavily on great vocals and harmony. Whenever one heard a new song by them, there was never a doubt for me anyway who it was. I've never heard a skiffle group, or a blues band that was based on vocal harmonies in that way. It's actually puzzled me for a long time, why people seemed to have a need for that comparison. They also freed themselves early on from route chord progressions...except for some songs built on a standard blues progression. But it was always their own interpretation. = liberated.
I went through my teenage years listening to them on vinyl records, and they made a big impression on me as well! Sometimes I line up a few songs on YouTube and sing with it. Not in my range mostly though, and is tough to do. And they themselves liked to push the upper register, is my impression.
Will do some R&B for a while. Give the classical a break. You can spend the rest of your life looking for music on a sheet of paper. You'll never find it, because it just ain't there. - Me Myself
My very close friend, originally from London , music producer and a rock composer; met the Beatles when they were recording simultaneously in two studios Abby Road. They talked among themselves during a break , and also about musical influences. The first and most powerful influence, which was noted by Lennon was Rhythm and Blues , as pointed out by Dave .
Yes, I know about all those influences they talked about and listened to. But they never sounded like clones themselves...they were totally their own. On recordings anyway...but not necessarily when clowning away having fun with other stuff.
Will do some R&B for a while. Give the classical a break. You can spend the rest of your life looking for music on a sheet of paper. You'll never find it, because it just ain't there. - Me Myself
Just for clarification, here are 2 examples. Lonnie Donegan doing Skiffle and Little Richard doing R&B. Some might say Little Richard is doing Rock & Roll. But in 1957 he was coming from the style known as Rhythm & Blues.
I've listened to quite a bit of Lonnie Donegan starting from way back in time.
Re: Long Tall Sally, It's hard to quantify the difference between Little Richard's approach and the Beatles approach. I would say LR approach was a little more laid back, even allowing to swing with the groove, and "rounder".
The Beatles approach, more energy and excitement, a hint of rock into it, more of "in-your-face", brazen. They were really well trained with endurance from their Hamburg days.
Both impress a totally different atmosphere on me, even if the material is the same.
Will do some R&B for a while. Give the classical a break. You can spend the rest of your life looking for music on a sheet of paper. You'll never find it, because it just ain't there. - Me Myself
Based on what I've seen and read, it seems indeed that the months of long nights performing in Hamburg sharpened their performing chops. There was also their intellectual curiosity. There was the amazing resource in the form of George Martin. GM seems to have had important input regarding things like their vocal harmonies - Paul did also. I think the musically curious Paul soaked up knowledge from exposure to GMartin. And they all grew musically in their years working in the studio.
The Beatles seemed over their studio years to be a perfect storm: raw talent, ambition, GMartin as a musical and technical facilitator, creative spirit.
There is a documentary on Netflix right now called "How the Beatles Changed the World". Good stuff.
Growing up I had listened to other artist. I grew up in the 70s with a Beatles fan mother. I enjoyed and was influenced by the other greats, and a variety of them. One day my Mom bought me the Red greatest hits double album for my new record player. The music, not the player or her influence or anything else made the difference for me. It was something I can’t explain but I quickly got a guitar.
The family would have tossed me into the streets to live but folks would have gossiped. Raised in a southern small town.
Alesis Coda Pro PianoVideoLessons.com Currently unit 4 Faber All In One -Level 2 Grateful Dead fan since 1987
