Did the Beatles know Music Theory?

[Mileslong 4728]

After watching the Beatles “Get Back” doc I’ve gone down a number of rabbit holes about them on YouTube.

 

This is one of the most interesting videos I’ve seen regarding their music. They obviously had very sophisticated key and tempo changes but as it turns out, they couldn’t read or write sheet music and didn’t know the terms for what they were composing.

 

Everything was instinctual with them and they needed George Martin, who was proficient in music theory, to put a label on what they were hearing in their head.

 

Great video and includes clips of the Beatles talking about this subject and what they did and didn’t know.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52548]

I recall on get back, George is at the piano, composing and playing well, and he keeps asking billy what chord he is playing. And the answer was always like 4 words long- F sharp with b diminished- or whatever. 

[atomheartbevo 89771]

Even though they didn't always have the names/chords, the fact that they were playing 6-8 hours at a time in the late 50s in Germany, covering a shit-ton of music from a lot of different artists, gave them one helluva musical education.  I think Rick Beato has talked about how that was better than any formal education they could have ever had.

[Chad Fuck 17712]

58 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Even though they didn't always have the names/chords, the fact that they were playing 6-8 hours at a time in the late 50s in Germany, covering a shit-ton of music from a lot of different artists, gave them one helluva musical education.  I think Rick Beato has talked about how that was better than any formal education they could have ever had.

Yup.  Nothing like getting up there on stage and trying shit out. 

[Go Pokes 979]

Subscribed. Not sure where this thread is going but it’s The Beatles.

[tigol 2399]

My opinion prior to watching the link having watched "Get Back" at least twice and the fact that Beatles music has been part of my entire life:

Paul knew theory and piano and could pick up any instrument and master it.  John knew music theory and played some hand aching chords effortlessly.  Ringo is an incredible drummer and his subtle grooves were just that and perfect.

I was taught piano, cello, french horn, trombone (not the rusty variety), and trumpet growing up.  I mastered nothing, but when I first picked up a guitar as an adult I couldn't figure it out at all.  I posted on this board several times about my frustrations in trying to relate a guitar fret board to a piano keyboard.  The answer I received several times is that they are completely different animals from that point of view.  So, I think George undoubtedly knew complex guitar theory.  It's just a mind fuck to translate to a piano keyboard.  Easier to ask Billy to translate.

Now, I'll watch this shit and see if my opinion changes.

[tigol 2399]

I'm 4 minutes in and done.  They knew bars, rests, notes, counting in.  They were always spot on.  You can't get four people to play that well together without basic music theory.  I'm out.

[Go Pokes 979]

I'm 4 minutes in and done.  They knew bars, rests, notes, counting in.  They were always spot on.  You can't get four people to play that well together without basic music theory.  I'm out.

I'm 4 minutes in and done.  They knew bars, rests, notes, counting in.  They were always spot on.  You can't get four people to play that well together without basic music theory.  I'm out.

Let’s talk about something else then. I’d like to hear more from you. And this topic seems like a dead end.

[tigol 2399]

11 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:

 

 

Let’s talk about something else then. I’d like to hear more from you. And this topic seems like a dead end.

 

 

Nah, good topic.  The "Get Back" thread is really great for any music fan that admires innovation and historical relevance.  

[Go Pokes 979]

Nah, good topic.  The "Get Back" thread is really great for any music fan that admires innovation and historical relevance.  

Ah. I was thinking more that’s a Get Back thread and this could be the general Beatles thread. I mean, really. Where are we going with this thread topic?

[tigol 2399]

1 minute ago, Go Pokes said:

Ah. I was thinking more that’s a Get Back thread and this could be the general Beatles thread. I mean, really. Where are we going with this thread topic?

No idea.  But, don't let me down.  

 

[Go Pokes 979]

No idea.  But, don't let me down.  
 

Man I got chills during Get Back when it was just Lennon/McCartney in the shot on the roof top. Fucking chills watching two geniuses fill the screen.

[tigol 2399]

This is a fucking Texas jam with a Beatle.  

 

[DougO 5254]

Most great pop artists probably don't know music theory, like the Beatles. But they have musical instincts they have used that music theory dissects and explains how it works.

[Scooter Monzingo 821]

Uh? I’m guessing some still don’t understand George Martins role, aka “the fifth Beatle”. 

You couldn't get a better musical education at Juilliard. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

It's been said (allegedly) Mozart could play the piano without formal lessons.  Some people are savant like with their skills.  Tadeo Ando is a world famous architect who never went to college.  Frank Loyd Wright never graduated college.

Formal training is less important than innate talent, and potential genius in my opinion.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

Just anecdotally from listening to podcasts, reading books and articles about lots of rock bands I love, it seems that MOST don’t know “music theory”, are able to read music, etc.

The vast majority seem to just learn by picking up a guitar or sitting down at a piano and just playing and playing and playing. 

[Chad Fuck 17712]

24 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Just anecdotally from listening to podcasts, reading books and articles about lots of rock bands I love, it seems that MOST don’t know “music theory”, are able to read music, etc.

The vast majority seem to just learn by picking up a guitar or sitting down at a piano and just playing and playing and playing. 

I liken it to aural/oral traditions in language.  After all, music theory is a language of sorts.  

I have tons of friends who speak Spanish because their parents spoke it.  They have no idea of the formal rules laid out by the Real Academia that govern Spanish.  Yet they know Spanish far better than I, and yet I know all the formal rules.  Practice is much more important than rules.  

Music is the same.  Can they explain why they play things the way they do in the formal language of theory?  No.  But can they make music that people know and love and will spend 8 hours watching them create...even if that watching was delayed 50 years?  Hellz to the yeah.  There are plenty of people who know the rules of music, but then again, maybe they didn't spend many hours each night for years playing on stage and listening to how the notes actually fit together to form music.  

This is separate and apart from the natural gifts some people have for music.  I have buddies who can pick up any instrument you like, and play it the first time.  I've spent many thousands of hours on the guitar to realize that no matter what happens, I'll never tap like Eddie Van Halen.  It's just how I'm made.  

 

 

[Sbbruin 21865]

I saw an interview with Paul where he flat out said he had no ability to read or write music.  It was all just improv musical development.  They had people around though who could take the concepts and write the music.

[jimmyjazz 46006]

3 hours ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Just anecdotally from listening to podcasts, reading books and articles about lots of rock bands I love, it seems that MOST don’t know “music theory”, are able to read music, etc.

MOST rock bands don't write in anything but the most rudimental manner, though.  I mean, I-IV-V-VIm isn't exactly challenging stuff.  Some of those who expand into more complex theory (Sting, etc.) know what they're doing, at least to some degree.  Some may not (allegedly The Beatles, Nirvana, etc.).  Even so, that ear is hard to deny.  Any port in a storm.

The ones who blow my mind are the jazz guys, because they KNOW theory and they exploit it to great effect.

[Gil Bang 25985]

2 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I saw an interview with Paul where he flat out said he had no ability to read or write music.  It was all just improv musical development.  They had people around though who could take the concepts and write the music.

He's said that George Martin could translate his concepts into written sheet music the way a good secretary can take dictation.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

On 12/11/2021 at 7:48 AM, Onboard 2.0 said:

It's been said (allegedly) Mozart could play the piano without formal lessons.  Some people are savant like with their skills.  Tadeo Ando is a world famous architect who never went to college.  Frank Loyd Wright never graduated college.

Formal training is less important than innate talent, and potential genius in my opinion.

Yeah, I think this is particularly true of music.

I say this as a person with zero musical talent.

People made music for centuries before anyone began to theorize about it, or even develop musical notation.

Some fields need some technical/theoretical education to refine innate talent.  Engineering comes to mind.  I don't think music is one of them.

I think some middlingly talented musicians are able to learn and apply musical theory to great effect to amplify their talent.

And, like jimmy said, some really talented musicians are also able to apply music theory to great effect.

I think writing, painting, drawing, and most forms of art are this way.  They may benefit from education as to theory, but it is far from necessary.

Edited December 13, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46006]

 . . . and then there are the dilettantes who say they don't need lessons or theory because they don't want all that technical stuff to inhibit their "art". 

[Chad Fuck 17712]

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

MOST rock bands don't write in anything but the most rudimental manner, though.  I mean, I-IV-V-VIm isn't exactly challenging stuff.  Some of those who expand into more complex theory (Sting, etc.) know what they're doing, at least to some degree.  Some may not (allegedly The Beatles, Nirvana, etc.).  Even so, that ear is hard to deny.  Any port in a storm.

The ones who blow my mind are the jazz guys, because they KNOW theory and they exploit it to great effect.

...even when that effect may be to diminish their own audience.  I say that only partly tongue in cheek.  There's a point where displaying all that knowledge winds up being not very appealing to listen to except for being in on some kind of musical country club-like exclusivity.  And I say this is a jazz lover.  Like Chuck Berry said, "...until they lose the rhythm of the melody and it sounds just like a symphony."

I do think this is true of all musicians though, not just jazz.  It just has a particular flavor in jazz.  Really, musicians want to learn the next skill/technique and then they want to show that off.  But the more technical you get, the less feel you have.  And people start to get up and leave. 

[Chad Fuck 17712]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

 . . . and then there are the dilettantes who say they don't need lessons or theory because they don't want all that technical stuff to inhibit their "art". 

As I kid I was one of those guys until I realized I was just hanging around with people who were using that as an excuse not to improve themselves.  I would never say, "Man, you're too rigid in your learning.  You should just learn math as you go through life letting it affect you."  I mean, you could do that, sure, but you'd take a lot of hard knocks along the way.  

[tbone_ 14140]

MOST rock bands don't write in anything but the most rudimental manner, though.  I mean, I-IV-V-VIm isn't exactly challenging stuff.  Some of those who expand into more complex theory (Sting, etc.) know what they're doing, at least to some degree.  Some may not (allegedly The Beatles, Nirvana, etc.).  Even so, that ear is hard to deny.  Any port in a storm.
The ones who blow my mind are the jazz guys, because they KNOW theory and they exploit it to great effect.

True jazz dudes are aliens.

[tbone_ 14140]

Maybe I’ll just leave this here. Can’t remember if we’ve discussed it or not…

[atomheartbevo 89771]

21 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

The ones who blow my mind are the jazz guys, because they KNOW theory and they exploit it to great effect.

Rick Wright received private instruction in music theory and composition, as well as Jazz, when he was young, and his piano pieces for Pink Floyd as well as other work, always stood out to me.  You'll hear bands use piano here and there, but Wright's playing/composition was just...different and much more complex/polished.

[Rip76 4946]

On 12/10/2021 at 2:25 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Even though they didn't always have the names/chords, the fact that they were playing 6-8 hours at a time in the late 50s in Germany, covering a shit-ton of music from a lot of different artists, gave them one helluva musical education.  I think Rick Beato has talked about how that was better than any formal education they could have ever had.

I believe it's in the video.  And if it's not, it's still a great video.  (NM) Starts at about the 16:30 mark.

 

[Paul Wesley 3287]

In that Beato video above, Rick says in passing, "Theory is just naming things," and I think that 5-word sentence pretty much sums it up.

My mother is one of the best pianists I've ever heard.  She was the pianist for whatever church she attended from age 14 until well into her 80's.  For decades, strangers would come up to her after a Sunday service and say, "That was the most beautiful offertory I've ever heard!"  It happened all the time.  She'd be visiting with family or friends after a church service, and I'd see a stranger a few steps away... just sort of waiting their turn to talk to her, and I could tell from their body language what they were waiting to say.  

She can't read music... except looking at the top left of the clef and counting sharps or flats.   She knows from the symbols what the root chord is - and that is all she needs to know.   When I was a kid, she might say to me after a service "I just hate when (musical director) starts singing that song in four sharps!"   I always thought that was a funny thing to say.  She would never say, "I don't like playing in E."

I never heard her practice.  She'd occasionally go to the piano before we left for church on Sunday morning, and she'd play the offertory one time beginning to end -- flawlessly.  But as far as hitting a bunch of wrong notes until she could figure it out... or struggling with a difficult passage over and over again until she got it right... I never heard that.  Not once.

Anyway, I don't know if it would be fair to say "She doesn't know musical theory."  She may not be able to articulate what she is doing, but (like Chad says) she absolutely can speak the language.  Theory is just naming things.

[tbone_ 14140]

That’s a cool story. I envy people like that.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Our family has 2 talent genes. One is being very artistic the other being very musically inclined.  I have several family members who can play musical instruments at a high skill level with very little formal training. I also have several relatives who can paint, draw, and design very well.  My grandfather was an architect, and fine artist.

Our 10-11 yr old (at the time) son would sit down to a piano, and just start banging out notes, and suddenly he would string together little melodies.  It was weird you'd hear him plinking away, and all of a sudden there would be strings of musical notes like some kind of jazz riff.  He taught himself guitar, but doesn't really play much anymore. I think there are people that just get music like it's a language they speak from just hearing it day to day.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Onboard 2.0

[jimmyjazz 46006]

It's a big world out there.  My sister is a world-class accompanist, meaning she specializes in accompanying solo singers (typically opera) on piano.  She studied under the best -- John Wustman at University of Illinois, who was Luciano Pavarotti's accompanist -- and when she finished her graduate program and did her last recital, he looked straight at my Mom & Dad and said "she is already one of the top 5 accompanists in the world".  She went on to work with Franco Iglesias in NYC (ironically, Julio's brother) for 12 years or so, accompanying him as he taught voice lessons.  One famous student was Placido Domingo, along with dozens of Metropolitan Opera singers.  We're talking major league music here.  His penthouse apartment looked down on Lincoln Center.

Every year, she accompanies the singers at Metropolitan Opera auditions.  No rehearsal.  The singers provide a score, typically orchestral, meaning about 8 measures per page, probably 12 staffs, each for a different instrument (violin, cello, trumpet, etc.) in its own natural key notation.  She has to translate all that information on the fly, meaning she has to decide which parts to play while transposing each different staff into whatever key the singer wants.  It's fucking unreal.  

Needless to say, she knows music theory inside and out, at least as far as the classical world goes.  No way could she function without that knowledge.

[hullabelew 3724]

6 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

 

She can't read music... except looking at the top left of the clef and counting sharps or flats.   She knows from the symbols what the root chord is - and that is all she needs to know.   When I was a kid, she might say to me after a service "I just hate when (musical director) starts singing that song in four sharps!"   I always thought that was a funny thing to say.  She would never say, "I don't like playing in E."

 

What a fantastic story.  I'm going to do this at practice this week.  "Let's try that again, but in 4 sharps".  I'm pretty sure our drummer will know what I mean and he doesn't play anything but the drums.  I had a wheel of 5ths with me one day and he made a copy of it because that stuff interests him.   We were working on Joe Jackson's "Is She Really Going Out With Him" and I mentioned that I was having trouble with the bridge.  He said, "I'm pretty sure if you just play the intro, it will make more sense" and he was spot on.  

[Paul Wesley 3287]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:The singers provide a score, typically orchestral, meaning about 8 measures per page, probably 12 staffs, each for a different instrument (violin, cello, trumpet, etc.) in its own natural key notation.  She has to translate all that information on the fly, meaning she has to decide which parts to play while transposing each different staff into whatever key the singer wants.  It's fucking unreal.  

I cannot even get my head around that level of reading.  It’s unreal that someone’s brain can digest written music that quickly AND have the hand-eye coordination to play and read simultaneously.  

[jimmyjazz 46006]

21 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

I cannot even get my head around that level of reading.  It’s unreal that someone’s brain can digest written music that quickly AND have the hand-eye coordination to play and read simultaneously.  

It's really something to see.  I mean, she's super smart -- she has a grad degree in performance and never got anything but A's from 5th grade on -- but there's something else almost savant-like required to process that much information in real time.  No way I could do it.

[retread 2951]

11 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

In that Beato video above, Rick says in passing, "Theory is just naming things," and I think that 5-word sentence pretty much sums it up....

Anyway, I don't know if it would be fair to say "She doesn't know musical theory."  She may not be able to articulate what she is doing, but (like Chad says) she absolutely can speak the language.  Theory is just naming things.

Always jealous of the feel that females (especially) have for sacred music. Seems so easy for them to throw little things into their playing that makes it great.

I'm sure the repetition and collaboration played a huge part in The Beatles developing their understanding of theory and in improving their ability to hear chords/harmonies/etc. Building their musical vocabulary. And a lot of it just came naturally for them.

Which Beatle(s) do you think had the most raw talent from a theory perspective -- apart from songwriting? Born with a good ear, ability to hear progressions & see chord relationships, etc.

Edited December 14, 2021 by retread

[atomheartbevo 89771]

36 minutes ago, retread said:

Which Beatle(s) do you think had the most raw talent from a theory perspective -- apart from songwriting? Born with a good ear, ability to hear progressions & see chord relationships, etc.

Billy Preston.

[jimmyjazz 46006]

Not Beatles related, but a good snapshot of a pop artist who clearly understands theory and who has to call on his training in a moments' notice: