Quiz: Beatles Songs - 8 Questions to Test Your Knowledge

[SpaceTiger]

I love John's vocals. There was a terrible fight between Paul and John, because Paul wrote almost all the lyrics and music for their early songs, and John contributed very little, but John insisted in getting equal credit. It was a huge thing back in the late 60's.

To the best of my knowledge, they both contributed approximately equally to the writing load throughout the run of the Beatles. In fact, John dominated the early years and his overall count is a bit higher (check out the book, Beatlesongs). On A Hard Day's Night (the album), for example, he was the dominant writer on all but three of the songs. As a general rule of thumb, the writer of the song would do the lead vocals. There are a few exceptions to this, but not very many, so it's a quick and easy way to determine the writer.

There was a recent dispute over the credit for a few of the songs that were solely McCartney numbers, such as "Yesterday". McCartney was upset because Yoko was getting a crapload of money for a song that neither she nor any of the Beatles had anything to do with. However, the dispute occurred long after Lennon was already dead and McCartney eventually decided to give up.

The decision for joint authorship was made in the early 60s because they were very frequently collaborating back then. The order was chosen to be alphabetical. At the time, it may even have been to McCartney's advantage to share authorship on all of their songs. As for the informal credits to the songs, there were only a few small disputes, most notably "In My Life" and "Eleanor Rigby". In the former, Paul claims to have written the entire melody, while John claims it was only the middle 8. The words are indisputably John's, but I don't think historians agree on who wrote most of the melody. In "Eleanor Rigby", John claimed to have helped with the lyrics, while Paul and a few others say he contributed nothing. I think it's generally accepted that Paul was right on that one.

 

[Evo]

To the best of my knowledge, they both contributed approximately equally to the writing load throughout the run of the Beatles. In fact, John dominated the early years and his overall count is a bit higher (check out the book, Beatlesongs). On A Hard Day's Night (the album), for example, he was the dominant writer on all but three of the songs. As a general rule of thumb, the writer of the song would do the lead vocals. There are a few exceptions to this, but not very many, so it's a quick and easy way to determine the writer.

There was a recent dispute over the credit for a few of the songs that were solely McCartney numbers, such as "Yesterday". McCartney was upset because Yoko was getting a crapload of money for a song that neither she nor any of the Beatles had anything to do with. However, the dispute occurred long after Lennon was already dead and McCartney eventually decided to give up.

The decision for split authorship was made in the early 60s because they were very frequently collaborating back then. The order was chosen to be alphabetical. At the time, it may even have been to McCartney's advantage to share authorship on all of their songs. As for the informal credits to the songs, there were only a few small disputes, most notably "In My Life" and "Eleanor Rigby". In the former, Paul claims to have written the entire melody, while John claims it was only the middle 8. The words are indisputably John's, but I don't think historians agree on who wrote most of the melody. In "Eleanor Rigby", John claimed to have helped with the lyrics, while Paul and a few others say he contributed nothing. I think it's generally accepted that Paul was right on that one.

Yeah, I just remember a huge animosity between Paul and John.

George, the least "public" of the Beatles really had talent. I love his songs in the movie "Time Bandits".

His son is the spitting image of him.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Yeah, I just remember a huge animosity between Paul and John.

There was a lot of animosity right after the Beatles broke up, not so much because of writing credits, but mainly because of legal issues and petty bickering concerning the group's split. In the later years of the Beatles, Paul had grown increasingly bossy (as the others grew increasingly distant), so he managed piss all three of them off at various points. You can even see him arguing with George in "Let It Be" (the movie).

During the 90s there was a lot of friction between Paul and Yoko, mainly because of the issues you mentioned. Paul may not have been so bold had John still been alive.

George, the least "public" of the Beatles really had talent. I love his songs in the movie "Time Bandits".

Yeah, George was very cool. My ex insists that I look just like him (when he was young), though I really don't see it.

 

[JamesU]

Iron Butterfly.

So someone else HAS heard of them!


they're okay

 

[George Jones]

So someone else HAS heard of them!

In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida

 

[JamesU]

name another song of theirs..


NOBODY CAN!

 

[George Jones]

name another song of theirs..NOBODY CAN!

You're right - off the top of my head I can't. I have heard other songs by Iron Butterfly, though. I was never really into them, but I had a couple of friends who listened to their albums over and over.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby's Quetion : I haven't got a clue (there were all kinds of different pieces snuck in there), but I'm going for the most likely wrong "duh" guess: Symphony No. 9

Sooooooo close! What piece is most like the Symphony #9 without being the Symphony #9?

 

[Astronuc]

So someone else HAS heard of them!

Ron Bushy's drum solo inspired a lot of percussionists/drummers.

Other songs from Side 1 of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida,

Most Anything You Want, Flowers and Beads, My Mirage, Termination, Are You Happy. I like the last three, as well as the title track.

I collected all of their albums. Heavy, Ball, and Metamorphasis never approached the level of the IAGDV.

In addition to playing bass guitar, I did take piano lessons and had started getting into the electric organ, so I appreciate Doug Ingle's keyboard playing.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I had the album Let it Be, and I ejoyed Revolution from the album Hey Jude.

That's a shame, those were both kinda lame albums, IMO. The former was an overproduced, disorganized mess and the latter was simply a compilation album used as an excuse to put "Hey Jude" onto a long-player.

I would say the most musically important Beatles albums (in chronological order) were:

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper
White Album
Abbey Road

Each one is a different experience and each one broadened my musical horizons. I don't listen to a lot of music pre-90s, but the Beatles (along with Zeppelin and Floyd, of course) laid much of the groundwork for modern rock and pop. I think anyone interested in rock music should listen to them.

 

[Wishbone]

I would say with a good bit of confidence that Paul was the best "musician" out of the bunch. He was a competent (to put it mildly) bassist, drummer, guitarist, and pianist during his time with the Beatles. However, I think both John and George were better "artists".

George's guitar parts were good for the purpose that they served, but I think even he would admit that his technical abilities were nothing compared to, for example, his friend, Eric Clapton.

none of them were as good as eric clapton was at guitar of course, but george great. but if harrison was by lightyears the best guitar player out of any of them, any guitarist can tell you that. John and paul were just like you mentioned, competent, but nothing more than that.

 

[SpaceTiger]

none of them were as good as eric clapton was at guitar of course, but george great. but if harrison was by lightyears the best guitar player out of any of them, any guitarist can tell you that. John and paul were just like you mentioned, competent, but nothing more than that.

Well, I am a guitarist (11 years now) and I wouldn't agree that George was lightyears ahead of the other two. He was better, yes, but not all that much better. Take, for example, Paul's guitar solo on "Taxman"...certainly nothing to scoff at.

George had a great ear for pop riffs, though, and I think that's what really sets him apart. His technical abilities may not have been so great, but his use of the instrument (including those carefully constructed guitar solos in the early work) really helped define the Beatles sound. In this sense, I might even say he was better than Clapton.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, we strayed off-topic, but I guess the quiz is over. Good one by the way! Good job, George!

That's a shame, those were both kinda lame albums, IMO. The former was an overproduced, disorganized mess and the latter was simply a compilation album used as an excuse to put "Hey Jude" onto a long-player.

Well you had to have been then there in that time.

I really didn't get into the Beatles that much - too Top40ish - like the Hollies, The Monkees, Gerry & the Pacemakers, etc. That was fine when I was 10 or younger.

I was more into so-called acid or psychedelic rock.

I would say the most musically important Beatles albums (in chronological order) were:

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt. Pepper
White Album
Abbey Road

Each one is a different experience and each one broadened my musical horizons.

Yeah, 1965 was a pivotal year. Those albums were more like The Beatles II.

I don't listen to a lot of music pre-90s, but the Beatles (along with Zeppelin and Floyd, of course) laid much of the groundwork for modern rock and pop. I think anyone interested in rock music should listen to them.

I don't listen to much post-90's rock. In fact I don't listen to much post 70's rock. Don't get me wrong, there was good stuff after about 1975, but really good stuff was less frequent.

We had Blue Öyster Cult from 1972-1975 (first 4 albums). After that, they detriorated into commercial rock. So for me, the cutoff for Classic Rock is about 1975.

Two great artists from the 1980's were Stevie Ray Vaughn (the only one who could match Hendrix) and Jon Butcher (his tune 'Holy War' has some unique guitar). Since then, Joe Satriani is about the best creatively with the guitar.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I really didn't get much to the Beatles that much - too Top40ish - like the Hollies, The Monkees, Gerry & the Pacemakers, etc. That was fine when I was 10 or younger.

I was more into so-called acid or psychedelic rock.

Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and the singles during the 1966-1967 period were part of what defined acid rock and brought it to the fore. Have you never heard Strawberry Fields Forever or Tomorrow Never Knows?

Yeah, 1965 was a pivotal year. Those albums were more like The Beatles II.

"The Beatles II" were the Beatles that really influenced modern music. If you stopped listening after "I Want to Hold Your Hand", I think you really missed the Beatles.

I don't listen to much post-90's rock. In fact I don't listen to much post 70's rock. Don't get me wrong, there was good stuff after about 1975, but really good stuff was less frequent.

The 80's, in particular, seemed like a real drag. It isn't until the grunge movement in the early 90's that the density of my record collection starts to pick up again. Post-90's, I've been kind of disappointed by much of the mainstream, but some of the retro stuff (White Stripes, Strokes, Jet) is pretty good. In my opinion, the best band of the last 15 years is Radiohead. It'll be interesting to see how their music influences the direction of rock in the next 10 or 20 years.

 

[Astronuc]

Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and the singles during the 1966-1967 period were part of what defined acid rock and brought it to the fore. Have you never heard Strawberry Fields Forever or Tomorrow Never Knows?

I've heard those tunes. I'm sorry, but the Beatles didn't really appeal to me, once I heard the other groups that I listed.

For me, the Beatles II was psychedelic rock lite. They just couldn't compare to Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Robin Trower and the others. And I left out Jeff Beck and his work after the Yardbirds, and Journey (with their first album).

I was also into Jazz and Blues. A couple of really excellent guitarists are John McLaughlin and Al Dimeola - both have very quick fingers.

 

[SpaceTiger]

For me, the Beatles II was psychedelic rock lite. They just couldn't compare to Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Robin Trower and the others.

I'm not sure I would call Zeppelin or the Who psychedelic rock (maybe the latter is mildly so, though more like mod rock), but they're both fantastic bands. To my ears, the Who always sounded just as poppy as the later Beatles, if not more so with their simplistic chord progressions. Same with the Doors. Perhaps that's a consequence of growing up on grunge and heavy metal.

It looks to me like you're big on guitar-driven rock. In the cases of Zeppelin, Hendrix, and Floyd, I think this was used to great effect and brought the music to a new level. Much of the time, however, I just felt that it was distracting and ostentatious, especially with guitarists like Stevie Ray Vaughn.

 

[Astronuc]

It looks to me like you're big on guitar-driven rock. In the cases of Zeppelin, Hendrix, and Floyd, I think this was used to great effect and brought the music to a new level. Much of the time, however, I just felt that it was distracting and ostentatious, especially with guitarists like Stevie Ray Vaughn.

Actually, I really like band that incorporate the electric organ and Mellotron, which is one reason I like Emerson, Lake and Palmer. And I like really good, strong base lines - another reason I like EL&P.

Most rock is guitar driven.

I also like what I would call really technical guitar, like MacLaughlin and Dimeola. I forgot to mention Michael Hedges. Listen to Aerial Boundaries if you haven't heard it.

I heard some really good music by California Guitar Trio today. They did interesting adaptations of the 4th Movement from Bethoven's 9th Symphony, Toccata (with fugue) in D minor by JSBach, and "Bohmenian Rhapsody" by Queen.

 

[Wishbone]

Take, for example, Paul's guitar solo on "Taxman"...certainly nothing to scoff at./QUOTE]


taxman, srsly? compared to some of the **** harrison did? not even close. And Zeppelin is a great case of where you can argue the guitar player was the worst at his instrument and still better than almost anyone else at his time. SRV was of course fantastic also though.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Actually, I really like band that incorporate the electric organ and Mellotron

Ah yes, the latter an instrument used to great effect on Strawberry Fields Forever.

Most rock is guitar driven.

I also like what I would call really technical guitar, like MacLaughlin and Dimeola. I forgot to mention Michael Hedges. Listen to Aerial Boundaries if you haven't heard it.

What you call technical guitar is what I had in mind when I said "guitar-driven". I'll give Aerial Boundaries a listen if I get the chance.

 

[SpaceTiger]

taxman, srsly? compared to some of the **** harrison did?

What did you have in mind? I think my favorite Harrison solo is on the album version of Let It Be.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yeah, 1965 was a pivotal year.

Yeah, that would be right after Dylan introduced them to pot!

Ironically, Dylan thought I Wanna Hold Your Hand was about getting high on pot.

 

[George Jones]

Yeah, that would be right after Dylan introduced them to pot!

And they then introduced the Stones to pot!

 

[SpaceTiger]

Ironically, Dylan thought I Wanna Hold Your Hand was about getting high on pot.

Yeah, that cracked me up when I first heard about it. He thought that, instead of "I can't hide", they were shouting, "I get high".

 

[Tojen]

George had a great ear for pop riffs, though, and I think that's what really sets him apart.

Good point, and a good example is the bridge to the middle part of Cream's "Badge" (co-written by Clapton-Harrison). Simple but great sound. When Harrison wrote it down, he scrawled "Bridge" near the top; Clapton thought it said "Badge", and that's how the song got it's name. So the story goes, anyway.

John never aspired to be a great guitarist. After the break up, he was invited to play onstage with a bunch of other musicians but he declined because he "didn't know all the chords those guys know", and suggested George.

I always liked Paul's bass lines. Very melodic, just like his songs. But right from the beginning on the Ed Sullivan Show, I was drawn to John's raw edge and tended to prefer his songs. When they were still in the Beatlemania stage, his lyrics could be embarrassing ("I'm going to love you till the cows come home" ), but later, when he started putting some effort into it (by trying to emulate Dylan), he came out with some masterpieces--Hide Your Love Away, Norwegian Wood, Girl...

Was she told when she was young
That pain would lead to pleasure?
Did she understand it when they said
That a man must break his back
To earn his day of leisure.
Will she still believe it when he's dead?​

Has Ringo been mentioned yet? I thought his most inspired drumming was almost hidden in Baby You're A Rich Man. You have listen for it in the first lines of the verses but it's worth the effort.

It's great reminiscing about the Beatles. I got here too late for the quiz, but good thread.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Agreed on all counts, Tojen. I've always preferred John's songwriting. Were Paul not a member of the Beatles, I probably would never have listened to his music and I found much of his post-Beatles work downright repulsive. However, I have to acknowledge his gift for pop, as well as what it did for the Beatles' sound. He even had his moments of creative genius during those years when he was more drugged up and less eager to please.

 

[Tojen]

Post Beatles, George became an amazing and much in demand slide player. George played some great slide on John's Imagine album, including on How Do You Sleep.

George's mate Eric often commented on George's abilities on slide.

Orignially, George didn't play slide because he got too much of the rattling and buzzing sound, until someone (I forget who, maybe Clapton) told him to raise the strings on his guitar. After that, he really took to it.

 

[George Jones]

Orignially, George didn't play slide because he got too much of the rattling and buzzing sound, until someone (I forget who, maybe Clapton) told him to raise the strings on his guitar. After that, he really took to it.

His slide playing really took off after he got a few lessons from Delaney Bramlett (Delaney and Bonnie).

 

[Astronuc]

Chriss Bliss juggles to the sound of "Golden Slumbers, Carry That Weight, and The End".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4776181634656145640&pr=goog-sl

Pretty cool!

"And in the end,

The love you take -

is equal to the love you make"

 

[Wishbone]

Who said that? John was a great musician because his lyrics, music, and presence were so great.

I don't think lyric writing and presence, whatever that means, are good gauges of the musical ability of someone.

 

[Teecher]

I don't think lyric writing and presence, whatever that means, are good gauges of the musical ability of someone.

And you would use what ... a thermometer?

 

[George Jones]

I remember reading a few years ago a webpage that excerpted comment by Eric Clapton about George Harrison. It took a while, but I found it http://www.12bar.de/ftp/text_info/ec-george_harrison.txt" .

Here are some excerpts from the excerpts.

When Eric Clapton was asked about his favourite British guitarists in 1966 by Beat Instrumental, he said, almost apologetically,

"Strangely enough. I like some of the things George Harrison does, although I don't know how much of that is off his own bat, and how much is planned by the whole lot of them."

Now Clapton, at the time, took his music very, very seriously, and this comment shows that, even before he knew George well, Clapton had high regard for the abilities of George in particular and the Beatles in general. I suspect that Clapton's comment is related to the last paragraph of post #62 by Space Tiger.

Clapton commented again about the Beatles in Guitar Player in 1985:

"It was just that he was in a powerhouse band where everyone was
fighting to get to the front - and they really did fight."

Clapton about John's guitar playing (Rolling Stone, 1985):

"There seemed to be a game going on between John and George, partly, I
suppose, because John was a pretty good guitar player himself."

Clapton on George's Slide playing (Rock Lives, 1989):

"He got into Robert Johnson and the other blues slide players through collaboration with me and Delaney; we were listening to that stuff a lot. He took what he wanted from that and used his own melodic sense. He came up with something totally unique. Since then, I've heard a lot of people trying to imitate *George's* style."

Clapton, when asked if his (Clapton's) slide playing is similar to Duane Allman's (Guitar Player, 1976):

"No, not a great amount, because I approach it more like George Harrison. Duane would play strictly blues lines; they were always innovative, but they were always in the blues vein. I'm somewhere in between him and George, who invents melodic lines often on the scales."

I have seen elsewhere comments by Clapton that praise George's slide playing. I recently recently purchased "the dark horse years 1976-1992" DVD, which shows George playing slide live (Cheer Down, Cloud 9) in-concert in Japan in the early 90's. Clapton and his band "backed up" George there.

 

[Tojen]

Agreed on all counts, Tojen. I've always preferred John's songwriting. Were Paul not a member of the Beatles, I probably would never have listened to his music and I found much of his post-Beatles work downright repulsive. However, I have to acknowledge his gift for pop, as well as what it did for the Beatles' sound. He even had his moments of creative genius during those years when he was more drugged up and less eager to please.

I thought Paul's creative genius with the Beatles was more than occasional, but I preferred John's style. But I agree completely about Paul's post-Beatles confections. I'd have to say the same about John's solo stuff, too. The Beatles were more than the sum of their parts, but they had to be those particular parts. Take Paul away and you wouldn't have his and John's exquisite harmonizing, as on If I Fell (compare that to Paul/Linda and John/Yoko). It would be like Crosby without Nash, or Steve Lawrence without Edie Gorme (okay, I admit it, I like Steve and Edie's sound).

And Pope John Paul would have been just Pope John (rumour has it that his papal name was a compromise with the Vatican over his first submission: Pope Lennon McCartney).

 

[Tojen]

His slide playing really took off after he got a few lessons from Delaney Bramlett (Delaney and Bonnie).

Delaney and Bonnie...There's a group I haven't heard of in a long time. I only know of them through Never Ending Love, but if Delaney could teach George Harrison something, there must be more to him than one forgettable pop song.

 

[SpaceTiger]

I thought Paul's creative genius with the Beatles was more than occasional, but I preferred John's style. But I agree completely about Paul's post-Beatles confections. I'd have to say the same about John's solo stuff, too.

I quite liked the stuff he did immediately post-Beatles (Imagine, Plastic Ono, and Double Fantasy), as well as right before he died. The mid-70s work, however, was often really lazy and shoddily put together.

Take Paul away and you wouldn't have his and John's exquisite harmonizing, as on If I Fell (compare that to Paul/Linda and John/Yoko).

Not really a fair comparison, as neither Linda nor Yoko were musicians in the usual sense of the word. I do agree, though, that the Beatles were more than the sum of their parts. It's kind of a shame that they either didn't recognize this or didn't care.