Composing in the style of the Fab Four...

[John Sayers]

EMI studios in Sydney had a console identical to the Abbey Rd desks, even had the EMI compressors - but I swear nothing out of that studio sounded anything like the Beatles and those upside/down quadrant faders were a pain

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Angelo, my dear friend, I would like to humbly request that, since you have the formula down, that you please compose and produce the next Beatle album that we have been so desirous of for the last 35 years. And don't worry if it's only as good as A Hard Day's Night, even if it's not as good as Rubber Soul. We'd be okay with that - really! nat whilk ii

 

 

Okay Nat,

 

so at last someone who half way believes it could be done. If I just could remember the quality differences between "A Hard Day's Night" and "Rubber Soul" you mention, but otherwise an excellent idea you have there, even thus it may manifests the insalubrious idea, that one period of pop music is better then any other, or maybe you are a very musical person who hears that it could be possible to continue where the Beatles left.

 

In the past, I thought a couple of times about composing, or emulating on the base of existing music, not only the Beatles, but also Mozart or Beethoven. I do not believe there is a formula behind any of the three who is worth to be repeatet, but simply invent something who has similarities and would introduce a healthy portion of novelty in addition. If I would ever decide to do that, and if it would be only for the fun of it, or to prove to the world that it can be done, then I would go for the symphonic genre, eventually in a neoclassical format.

 

Several other composers already emulated, or composed "in the style off," for example Sergei S. Prokofjew with his first "Sinfonie Nr. 1 op. 25, where he emulated Joseph Haydn's composing style, or Arvo P

[Gus Lozada]

The audio demos are LAME.

[jive4005]

Two things I always enjoyed and the Beatles... you could always hear the lyrics (good arranging) and for the first few years, wrote exclusively about love.... presumably a topic that would sell! I think they hit upon something.

[GeorgeG3]

As Doug Rogers says on page 15 of the manual for this product "I don

[amplayer]

just makes me think of my neighbour who sold his company, he build up in five years, for seven billions, but he just told me yesterday, that he never had time to listen to music. .

 

If that's the kind of neighbors you have, then I suspect you have done OK in the music biz.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

To me it seems that composing as the Beatles did, consists of nothing more then taking a popular chord progression in use since several centuries, sing the words in exact the rhythm as you speak them, and derive the melody from the spoken sing sang. Then worldwide everybody can memorize the song instantly

 

 

Yes, if we are discussing everything up until Rubber Soul or Revolver. Listen to Magical Mystery Tour and beyond... lots of creative and artsy stuff going on lyrically and harmonically.

 

Someone also commented that the Beatles are overrated... I happen to agree with that. We tend to look at them as gods... they had an amazing run in the 8 years of their existence but Martin really molded them. They wrote some excellent stuff, they also wrote some crap.... Just MO.

 

Peace,

EB

[amplayer]

Most of us woud be THRILLED to write as good as the worst stuff the Beatles recorded. The Beatles are NOT overrated.

 

I'd say more than half of pop music today is at least as bad or worse than the absolute worst music the Beatles recorded.

 

I agree that George Martin was a huge part of the Beatles success. Particularly, I think all the orchestral sweetening he did was just incredible.

However, what I don't see is how anyone can deny is that the Beatles were ridiculously prolific songwriters.

 

How many of the artists of today will have people listening and analyzing their music in 40 years?

[Ernest Buckley]

 

Most of us woud be THRILLED to write as good as the worst stuff the Beatles recorded. The Beatles are NOT overrated. I'd say more than half of pop music today is at least as bad or worse than the absolute worst music the Beatles recorded. I agree that George Martin was a huge part of the Beatles success. Particularly, I think all the orchestral sweetening he did was just incredible. However, what I don't see is how anyone can deny is that the Beatles were ridiculously prolific songwriters. How many of the artists of today will have people listening and analyzing their music in 40 years?

 

 

The Beatles were the first band during their time to really write music that was more than just silly pop. Their first albums were nothing different than what was already out but there were hints of something different in some of those early songs like Yesterday that would eventually come to fruition on an entire album but even with that said, "The White Album" and "Yellow Submarine" had some lousy material on there. Some call it art... its just not that good. Even Harrison later said that half of the The White Album should have been trashed...

 

I also think most musicians 50 and over are really the ones still carrying the Beatles torch and once their gone, so will this godly image of the Beatles. Younger musicians today know about The Beatles but the band does not carry that much weight as it does with the older crowd. Younger musicians grew up listening to bands that did it for them much like the Beatles did it for you. In my case, that band would be U2. Today, bands/artists like Linkin Park, Jay-Z and Timbaland will have a profound affect on future musicians. It doesn`t mean the younger generation doesn`t know quality but thats what most older folk will say. Each generation manifests its own artists and defines itself accordingly.

 

The Beatles came along at the right time technologically speaking as well. Technological recording breakthroughs were on the horizon and the Beatles were able to capitalize and "revolutionize" the way music was recorded and performed. If it wasn`t them, it would have been another band and again, w/o Sir Martin, I`m not sure those 4 lads would have gotten very far much like many of todays artists. Great producers can make good artists great and vice versa.

 

Coming along at the time that they did is also the reason I believe why so many musicians study their music. The Beatles music is not that "scholarly" but we have this concept that somewhere in the notes resides the magic much like a J.S. Bach cello suite. Its the passion in the music that has lasted. Thats what made The Beatles so popular to me.

 

I`ve heard many people perform their music and it did not have the same impact as when they performed it themselves.

 

Much like a Bach cello suite come to think of it. Its not the notes folks...

 

EB

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I`ve heard many people perform their music and it did not have the same impact as when they performed it themselves. Much like a Bach cello suite come to think of it. Its not the notes folks... EB

 

don't forget all this people who play Bach's cello suite, who's first name does not starts with 'Jo'

 

[chipmcdonald]

 

consists of nothing more then taking a popular chord progression in use since several centuries, sing the words in exact the rhythm as you speak them, and derive the melody from the spoken sing sang. Then worldwide everybody can memorize the song instantly .

 

 

Just like:

 

 

2/3 cups all-purpose flour

1 1/2 cups white sugar

2/3 cup unsweetened cocoa powder

1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda

1 teaspoon salt

1/2 cup shortening

2 eggs

1 1/2 cups (butter-) milk

1 teaspoon vanilla

1/2 cup Schwarzwaelder Kirschwasser

 

1 cup sugar powder

1 pinch salt

1 can (0.5 liter) pitted cherries, drained

1 cup heavy whipping cream

1/2 teaspoon vanilla

1 tablespoon kirschwasser

 

or...:

 

1 cup kabuli chana soaked overnight

1 large tomato chopped

1 large onion chopped fine

1 small onion sliced into rings

1 tsp. garlic grated

1 tsp. ginger grated

3 green chillies chopped

1 tbsp. coriander chopped

1/2 tsp.each cumin & mustard seeds

1/2 tsp. dhania powder

1 tsp. red chilli powder

1/2 tsp. garam masala

1/4 tsp. turmeric powder

1/4 tsp. cinnamon clove powder

3-4 pinches asafoetida

2 tbsp. tamarind extract

2 tbsp. oil

1 tbsp. ghee

 

or...:

 

4 boneless skinless chicken breasts

1/4 cup spicy mustard

2 tablespoon lemon juice

2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce

1/2 teaspoon tarragon

1/4 teaspoon black pepper

 

 

or...:

 

* 4 cups sushi rice

* 4 sheets of nori

* 1 tbsp sesame seed

* 1/2 pound fresh raw tuna

* 1 tbsp mayonnaise

* 1/2 tsp togarashi

 

 

?

[kurdy]

 

Someone also commented that the Beatles are overrated... I happen to agree with that. We tend to look at them as gods... they had an amazing run in the 8 years of their existence but Martin really molded them. They wrote some excellent stuff, they also wrote some crap.... Just MO.

 

 

As every artist has. But I think it is impossible for anyone to be objective about the Beatles nowadays. Back when they were around, there was nothing else like them at the time. They did things that were unprecedented in pop music. And if you're growing up in an era where rock 'n roll is still quite new, it's gonna have a profound effect on you. Nowadays, people such as myself are growing up with the music having always existed. It's easy to say the Beatles were over-rated now, because rock music has been around for so long, that everyone's just about heard it all. There are no surprises anymore. Even I listened to Sgt. Pepper recently, and apart from a few select moments on the album, I just couldn't hear what was so extraordinary about it. But if I had been a teen growing up in the '60s, my view would've probably been much different.

 

That said, I was totally spooked when I first remember hearing I Am the Walrus. It was around '90, I was about 11 years old. I had never heard anything like it. If the song could have that effect on me 33 years after the fact, I can imagine what it must have been like when it first came out.

 

I don't think it's accurate to say Martin molded them, though. From the accounts I've read, he was just trying his best to keep up with them--although he did so brilliantly, along with Geoff Emerick.

 

 

I also think most musicians 50 and over are really the ones still carrying the Beatles torch and once their gone, so will this godly image of the Beatles. Younger musicians today know about The Beatles but the band does not carry that much weight as it does with the older crowd. Younger musicians grew up listening to bands that did it for them much like the Beatles did it for you. In my case, that band would be U2. Today, bands/artists like Linkin Park, Jay-Z and Timbaland will have a profound affect on future musicians. It doesn`t mean the younger generation doesn`t know quality but thats what most older folk will say. Each generation manifests its own artists and defines itself accordingly.

 

 

I think that's somewhat true, although I don't think Linkin Park and Jay-Z, or music in general will ever have as much of a profound effect on this generation as the Beatles did in previous generations. Pop music has been around too long, and there are too many other entertainment options to occupy kids' attention. Music has basically become background noise now. Also, part of the appeal of popular music was that it wasn't what your parents were listening to. That really isn't the case anymore.

[chipmcdonald]

 

A music in general will ever have as much of a profound effect on this generation as the Beatles did in previous generations.

 

 

That's true in one sense, but not another.

 

The Bomb is not the mysterious thing it was to the present generation that it was before 1945. That doesn't remove the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, that's the most profoundly monolithic thing (for better or worse) that humans have done on the planet.

 

The Beatles in a musical context, are/were the same thing. There won't ever be a time in history again where "that" can happen and have the same impact - we're now jaded, history has already occured and that is the watershed event.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

Just like: 2/3 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 cups white sugar 2/3 cup unsweetened cocoa powder 1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda 1 teaspoon salt 1/2 cup shortening 2 eggs 1 1/2 cups (butter-) milk 1 teaspoon vanilla 1/2 cup Schwarzwaelder Kirschwasser 1 cup sugar powder 1 pinch salt 1 can (0.5 liter) pitted cherries, drained 1 cup heavy whipping cream 1/2 teaspoon vanilla 1 tablespoon kirschwasser or...: 1 cup kabuli chana soaked overnight 1 large tomato chopped 1 large onion chopped fine 1 small onion sliced into rings 1 tsp. garlic grated 1 tsp. ginger grated 3 green chillies chopped 1 tbsp. coriander chopped 1/2 tsp.each cumin & mustard seeds 1/2 tsp. dhania powder 1 tsp. red chilli powder 1/2 tsp. garam masala 1/4 tsp. turmeric powder 1/4 tsp. cinnamon clove powder 3-4 pinches asafoetida 2 tbsp. tamarind extract 2 tbsp. oil 1 tbsp. ghee or...: 4 boneless skinless chicken breasts 1/4 cup spicy mustard 2 tablespoon lemon juice 2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce 1/2 teaspoon tarragon 1/4 teaspoon black pepper or...: * 4 cups sushi rice * 4 sheets of nori * 1 tbsp sesame seed * 1/2 pound fresh raw tuna * 1 tbsp mayonnaise * 1/2 tsp togarashi ?

 

 

No, more like that you arrive at airport Mount Hagen in PNG, and the first local native you see sings a Beatles song, then you ask him if he knows what he is singing...

 

.

 

.

[amplayer]

 

I also think most musicians 50 and over are really the ones still carrying the Beatles torch and once their gone, so will this godly image of the Beatles. Younger musicians today know about The Beatles but the band does not carry that much weight as it does with the older crowd. Younger musicians grew up listening to bands that did it for them much like the Beatles did it for you. In my case, that band would be U2. Today, bands/artists like Linkin Park, Jay-Z and Timbaland will have a profound affect on future musicians. It doesn`t mean the younger generation doesn`t know quality but thats what most older folk will say. Each generation manifests its own artists and defines itself accordingly. EB

 

 

Other than the very last line quoted above, I couldn't disagree more. I do agree that music is generational. Also, people tend to appreciate mostly the music that is/was popular when they were in their teens.

 

However, I think if the Beatles came out today with nobody ever having heard of them, the songs would still be WAY better than most of the stuff out now. Don't get me wrong. I think there's some great stuff out now, but most of it has nowhere near the songwriting craftsmanship that Lennon and McCartney had. And, FWIW, I am way under 50. I never even heard the Beatles until after they were no longer a band.

[Ernest Buckley]

Amplayer,

 

I`m 34 and I love the Beatles. I "studied" their music and read all about them, have their session notes, etc...

 

Not sure The Beatles would survive todays market and it has nothing to do with their music. Just like I do not believe an Elton John or a Billy Joel would cut through todays market either.

 

I firmly believe that talent is still out there, it has not dried up but the market has changed dramatically and its no longer about the music.

 

We`re getting way off topic here so... maybe we should start another thread?

[jive4005]

If it's so E-Z why ain't we all doin' it?

Heh heh heh

[Ernest Buckley]

Who said it was easy?

[Michaelfla]

Angelo & Philbo...

 

Wunderkids I assume... (You know what they say about the word ass-u & me) ...but seriously... I'm "assuming" that both are either teens with no understanding of what is was like to be "brought up" in the very "eye of the hurricane" when Beatlemania hit...

 

...First, and you entitled to your opinion even if you're wrong... the samples for the Fab Four Virtual Instruments are ...well... FAB!...hehe... I've always dreamed of having a company like East-West overhear smirking at a demonstration at an Electronic's Show, say in Vegas, tap you on the shoulder... ask your names, grab a mike and announce... Ladies & Gentlemen! Your attention please: Angelo & Philbo are going to put that last demo to shame! Here they are! (not that you would want to do it either)

 

Talk is cheap my friends... For someone to sit down and even compose those demos took some darn hard work... Of coursre The Maroon 5 and Nickleback generation wouldn't even begin to comprehend that concept... (Have you heard the two Nickleback songs played back-to-back that sound exactly the same...? Unless it's some Pro-Tools wizardry, it sure speaks volumnes)... anywho...

 

If East-West spent two years and bUkU bucks to give us musicians a chance, not to attempt to recreate JPG&R's music... something totally impossible, at least they're giving us a chance to infuse our recordings with echoes of greatness... Something, once again, I doubt you'd understand based on your hollow comments...

 

Hey guys I love you... really I do... but next time think twice before simply flipping a project that you, in your wildest dreams, couldn't even come up with the first note for... Walk in Ken Scott's shoes for 10 yards b4 you judge a "Hard Day's Night".... Peace & Love

 

Michaelfla ;-)

[chipmcdonald]

It's rhetorical to make supposition about "if the Beatles came out today". What the Beatles did to music and culture drastically altered everything tha t followed.

 

Beatles critics do not see the forest. They see as many trees as the forest they're accustomed to; they are not willing to believe that the trees they see could only be a small portion of what is a vastly larger forest. That concept is unfathomable to them.

 

The problem with trying to "convert" a non-fan is that the gestalt of the Beatles comprises many subtle elements coming together, and a lot of those elements are not even present in other musics. Likewise, trying to make analogies are fruitless: for instance, how to you relate to classical music the vibe resulting from the Beatles use of the *sound* of a Mellotron, versus the string section that is played back on the Mellotron?

 

You don't.

 

It's very evident in most of their music, and it takes a certain amount of maturity and awareness of context to comprehend. Putting it on paper and comparing it to Bach - "look - it's nowhere near as complex as the Brandenburg Concertos!" is vapid.

 

As far as some of their stuff being "junk", I have to say that I didn't always appreciate their early stuff. It seemed simplistic; it seemed too conventional. The beauty of their early stuff was that they were all about learning at that point; "learning" every one of their songs has some oddball unconventional quirk about it that most musicians would love to be able to call their own "trick" - except they did it in every song.

 

A pair of guys from a poor part of England with no real education EXCEPT - a true love of music, and their own motivation to learn from it and do their own thing with it.

 

Maybe Bach would have made a great pop musician. Maybe Mozart (probably?). Beethoven probably. But here's some heresy: pop music is the most superior form of music -, because it allows for the integration of all other forms of music: classical, jazz, whatever. Because of that it draws on a much larger palette than all that it encompasses.

 

Likewise, the expression allowed for pop music is much greater than anything else. Looking for complexity in form without context has nothing to do with the end result of what a piece of music means to non-musician people. Ignoring the complexity of the entire package is missing out on appreciating something that is very rich.

[Magpel]

It is possible--just possible, not even likely, but possible--that someday in the future William Shakespeare will not be generally regarded as the greatest English language writer ever.

 

Why DON'T Successive generations keep redeiscovering Ben Jonson, John Dryden, or even other upper tier heavies like Pope, Milton, or Worsdworth? Is it JUST a big historical PR machine that keeps Shakespeare in the fore or is it truly the "evergreen" quality of the work? Is there a reason why the plays of Wesbster or Goldsmith or Marlow are never reset on Mars in the year 2025 or performed in Nazi garb and German accents? Could it be that Shakespeare is the ONLY writer whose plays are so amenable to redaction, as they call it?

 

The Beatles occupy the same space. You can raise a lot of valid questions of how and why their unique reputation is perpetuated, and why they are not so much definitive of their time as seemingly beyond time and historical process altogether.

 

For me the answer, with both Willy Shakes and the Beatles is: yes, they were that good, that special, that important.

[Ernest Buckley]

This topic of the beatles greatness is taking place over at the Mackie d8b forum. The Beatles came around at just the right time. Brian Wilson would have accomplished something of the beatles nature as well but even he said, "They got there first." This was after Sgt. Pepper was released.

 

EB

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

 

Angelo & Philbo... Wunderkids I assume... (You know what they say about the word ass-u & me) ...but seriously... I'm "assuming" that both are either teens with no understanding of what is was like to be "brought up" in the very "eye of the hurricane" when Beatlemania hit...

 

 

If you remember the sixties you were not there!

 

.

[Michaelfla]

Ok... ;-) ...wink big boy...lol

 

... Read ChipMcDonald's post (just a bit further back) and you'll get the gist of it all... Someday it'll smack ya right between your baby-blues and you'll wake up and say: "Oh...NOW I get it"... hehe... Later guys and remember... there's always hope ;-)

 

MichaelFla

[Michaelfla]

It's rhetorical to make supposition about "if the Beatles came out today". What the Beatles did to music and culture drastically altered everything tha t followed. Beatles critics do not see the forest. They see as many trees as the forest they're accustomed to; they are not willing to believe that the trees they see could only be a small portion of what is a vastly larger forest. That concept is unfathomable to them. The problem with trying to "convert" a non-fan is that the gestalt of the Beatles comprises many subtle elements coming together, and a lot of those elements are not even present in other musics. Likewise, trying to make analogies are fruitless: for instance, how to you relate to classical music the vibe resulting from the Beatles use of the *sound* of a Mellotron, versus the string section that is played back on the Mellotron? You don't. It's very evident in most of their music, and it takes a certain amount of maturity and awareness of context to comprehend. Putting it on paper and comparing it to Bach - "look - it's nowhere near as complex as the Brandenburg Concertos!" is vapid. As far as some of their stuff being "junk", I have to say that I didn't always appreciate their early stuff. It seemed simplistic; it seemed too conventional. The beauty of their early stuff was that they were all about learning at that point; "learning" every one of their songs has some oddball unconventional quirk about it that most musicians would love to be able to call their own "trick" - except they did it in every song. A pair of guys from a poor part of England with no real education EXCEPT - a true love of music, and their own motivation to learn from it and do their own thing with it. Maybe Bach would have made a great pop musician. Maybe Mozart (probably?). Beethoven probably. But here's some heresy: pop music is the most superior form of music -, because it allows for the integration of all other forms of music: classical, jazz, whatever. Because of that it draws on a much larger palette than all that it encompasses. Likewise, the expression allowed for pop music is much greater than anything else. Looking for complexity in form without context has nothing to do with the end result of what a piece of music means to non-musician people. Ignoring the complexity of the entire package is missing out on appreciating something that is very rich.

ChipMcDonald... You hit the nail right on the head... I couldn't have said it better myself... Thanks!