Yes another McLennon analysis where Paul is warm and flawless and John is a reclusive bastard who couldn’t relate to the world. I’m so bored of this now. They were both geniuses. Would it kill anyone on this platform to acknowledge this?
Preface: The following is an extremely self-indulgent deep-dive into one of my favourite moments of harmonization in musical history. It is both a relatively music theory-heavy analysis (though relevant concepts are explained with visual as well as audio examples) as well as a free-form riffing on what distinguishes Lennon from McCartney as a composer on the one hand, and what distinguishes Paul from John as a person on the other. Of course, like the duo's melodies intertwine, so did their lives.
DISCLAIMER: I think it's lovely how the music reflects their lives but that doesn't mean I think the music was created because it reflects their live (irrespective of artistic intention).
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" forms the beginning of the bridge of "I'm Only Sleeping". John, the main songwriter and lead vocalist of the track, sings a tight melody, which is sprinkled with several dissonances.
For those who don't know, dissonances occur either due to a dissonant interval – that is, when two or more notes that don't "go together" are played at once – or when a note that is not part of the current key is played.
In this example, the dissonant interval (on the left) is a second, that is the two simultaneously played notes are very close – so close that stacking their notes on sheet music becomes awkward, as seen above. The dissonant note is a B note (on the right), which has been elevated up a half-step from B♭ (in the middle), through usage of the ♮ symbol, preceding the note. B is not part of the usual 7 notes of the key, and thus adds a feeling of displacement within this harmonic context. You can listen to the interval as well as the transition from B♭ to B in the following file and notice the sense of discord these note combinations tend to invoke in a listener.
Now, back to John's melody:
Just looking at the score, we can see how close together John keeps everything; there are no larger jumps. He favours small intervals, even using dissonances to reduce the distance his voice has to travel to a minimum. The dissonances give a feeling of strangeness to the overall melody.*
*(arguably it isn't that strange, since he is following a blues scale, which includes notes considered "dissonant" in classical music theory; that being said I would argue that the frequency of the note-usage in this particular line is still of note in the context of this song and The Beatles' general discography.)
This is, in my opinion, one of the staples of John's melodies. Think of the intro to If I Fell, or even the siren-inspired wail of the I Am The Walrus verses. These are all close melodies that have at least somewhat dissonant qualities.
It is also an interesting reflection of him and his mid-60s situation. With his early-twenties behind him, John was known to have become more reclusive during this time; going out less often, preferring the comfort of his private home. Simultaneously, his interests became more eccentric and he began finding it more difficult to relate to "ordinary" people, for reasons ranging from disillusionment with society as a whole to mental health and addiction issues. Just like his melodic lines, he built a strange surreal world for himself, without stepping too far out his comfort zone.
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window" is also the moment in the song where Paul, who up until this point was a mere co-background vocalist, is briefly promoted to co-lead. For the first part of the line – up until the word "world" – he joins John in unison, before breaking off to find his way to the highest note of "I'm Only Sleeping".
Unlike John's melody, Paul's unique part is much warmer and features no dissonances. This doesn't make it less complex though; for one, it covers a range that is two half-steps wider than John's melody and features the largest interval jump: a perfect fourth ("my win-[dow]").
Paul's songwriting is known for its wide tonal palette, his outstanding vocal range making melodic climbs and leaps second nature to him when compositing. At the same time, his tunes have over the years, it seems, almost been faulted for how intrinsically pleasing they are to the ear.
This, in turn, contains traces of Paul's personality; a constant thirst for life, a great skill of adaptability, an ambition that verges on destructive over-zealousness – he has risen too high, where no one can follow, perhaps inadvertently left someone behind. Yet, through it all, he maintains a pleasant sweet nature.
Both of these aforementioned melodic lines combine to form a whole in the song (note that because they begin in unison at first only one note is played at a time – that's how pianos work sadly :-( ):
Now before we take a closer look at what happens in the score when these two melodies are united, I'm gonna need to give some background on harmonic arrangement.
Typically, when harmonizing, the most common interval between two melodies is a third (minor or major). The third is considered to be a very pleasant-sounding interval; the notes are as close to each other as possible without sounding dissonant and overall the tone is warm.
See above two melodies set exactly a third apart at each note. It's an adaptation of a Mozart piece I played a few years ago and can be listened here:
The second most typical interval for harmonies is the perfect fifth. It's a bit more "hollow"-sounding, one might say, less warm generally, but does not, as such, sound "wrong" to the Western ear.
(asterisk elaborated further down)
The above sequence can be heard here:
You may be wondering why the two notes in the middle are not a fifth a part. This is because, for hundreds of years, Western music theoreticians have discouraged the use of parallel fifths. This is when two melodic lines maintain a perfect fifth interval between each other over multiple consecutive notes. It's considered to have a harsh and slightly strange sound, and also dilutes the wanted distinction between both melodies.
Here's the same arrangement as above, only this time utilizing parallel fifths.
Again, an audio example – however, this may not sound especially harsh or strange to an untrained ear. (Just know that if Johann Sebastian Bach saw any of this, he would tear the score to pieces!)
Now with all this acquired knowledge, how do the John and Paul's individual melodies in fact form a whole?
(grey highlight denotes unison)
Look at that.
Paul, once mirroring his partner flawlessly, suddenly stubbornly refusing to follow John – whether it be to Surrey, Greece or that natural D-note. Instead, he lingers on the E♭ for a few more beats, as if contemplating. John, on the other hand, repeats the first half's walk-down, marinading in his strange claustrophobic world. Together, they create a dissonant second, two notes in a row, a disturbance.
Then, Paul jumps, and they are both singing in opposite directions; Paul upward and John downward. Only suddenly, it's almost like they've created a healthy distance, a perfect fifth apart.
Next, they start moving in tandem again, both rising, utilizing a dreaded parallel fifth. But it works here – and, notably, sounds a lot better in the song than on my piano recording. As mentioned, one of the problems with parallel fifths is that they keep the melodic lines too similar; however, these lines are not being played by perfectly tuned instruments. These are two men with voices sometimes so distinct from each other, they're described as polar opposites. They bend their notes and the rules of composition to create an otherworldly beauty. The harmonies seem to accentuate the contrast between their vocal styles, but this doesn't worsen the sound in the least. Instead, it seems that it is in their opposite nature that they find each other.
And then, as if coming down from a high, Paul jumps down to join John, a beautiful, warm third above him.
They are one; they are so close they bring out the worst in each other; they drive each other apart; they reach for each other even when distant; and then, when all is said and done, they fall back together in the end.
To finish off I recorded a slower version of the harmony. Come bask in the infinite glory of every single note with me!
"Keeping an eye on the world going by my window."
Ah yes the typical tumblr experience. Thousands of posts where John is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his faults…crickets. One article about Paul that throws a few softball shots (in a sea of articles defending Paul’s every action as being completely justified) and the comments are full of essays defending Paul. And yet people around here keep saying that Paul is a victim that needs defending because of what happened back in the 80s when John had just been murdered and people in their horror may have gone too far one way. It’s kind of silly when you think about it.
Paul liked to keep his options open and this applied to friendship. Just when you thought you were getting to know him, to feel a commitment from him, he'd slip behind a smiling mask. Finally I came to accept this aspect of his nature and we worked together, travelled together in a relaxed fashion, but never with any developed contact.
Paul had a real appetite for life -- an exuberant optimism and a buoyant enthusiasm that was admirable even if at times it overwhelmed his sceptical partner, John.
...He lived in his head to create music or lived to create music in his head. This process or activity could account for a certain distance in his contact with people, however pleasant and engaging he might appear.
Robert Freeman, The Beatles: A Private View
I’m Sylvia wanting a lock of John’s hair. Also I’m Donna because I would totally buy Beatles records even without a record player just to have everything they ever produced. Yes I’m sad
tag yourself: beatles fan mail edition
(exert from “150 glimpses of the beatles” by craig brown)
John and Jane would be great but I also wouldn’t mind Paul and Stu lol. You could cut the tension with a knife lol
If you could be a fly on the wall in a broken lift for an hour, which one of the following pairs would you want to be trapped in a lift with and why?
John and Jane Asher
Paul and Brian Epstein
George and Magic Alex
Ringo and Pete Best
Is there another pairing not listed above that you would want to be trapped in a lift with? If so, which pairing and why?
The Beatles being menaces in Ireland, 7th November 1963 - part 1 (part 2)
Just look at Paul’s life flash before his eyes…
what a time to be alive and a beatlemaniac.
BEATLES ARE FOREVER! ✌️💗
September 2, 1980 ..
★ John with a cat at Reed Pigman Ranch in Missouri, 19 september 1964
This is such a weird take. Why would Julian not love having these memories of his dad? Why, even if John was an imperfect father, is he not worthy of his son’s love? I’m relieved Julian has chosen to let any bitterness go. I’m also even more excited for Get Back as some truly beautiful aspects of John’s personality are clearly on display given Julian’s reactions.
sidenote: julian is such a good person i admire him a lot because if it was me i think i'd be bitter as fuck
Yes!! Beautiful Johnny led via the fact that he inspired deep love in his friends
[THE BEATLES: GET BACK] John Lennon sharing his opinion on Martin Luther King Jr's most famous speech to George Harrison and Paul McCartney. S1.E2.
100 percent agree. People aren’t even allowed to change. That’s the sad part
i know you're done with this topic, but i just want to get some things out of my system: you're right in saying that kids don't care about women/victims and i bet they have no idea about what cynthia, may or yoko etc have had to say about that subject and they wouldn't care to find out anyway. plus: what happened to the concept of restorative justice? i guess the kids aren't aware of it, but the whole "cancelling" philosophy is pretty silly anyway. i don't think kids on twitter/tik tok have the right to destroy someone's life and/or legacy forever because of colossal mistakes they made in the past, no matter how big and serious they were... kids seem to believe they do have that right nowadays, but that only serves to stroke their ego, to make them believe in their moral superiority. but is that behavior actually changing the fucking world? is that feminist activism? is that helping change men's systemic treatment of us? no, it isn't, but if kids want to continue to be self-indulgent and childish, so be it.
I am done with this topic but this was a nice ask so I’m posting it :)
I’m also so immune to internet activism thinking that calling a dead guy a wifebeater makes them woke or that disliking his annoying ass wife is misogynistic or whatever. When you’re actually doing things to try and help disenfranchised women, like I was doing before the pandemic, you’re just open to a whole new reality. It’s insane how whole movements have been reduced to jokes bc of this type of """activism""". Like, my 15yo tiktok addicted sister genuinely can’t hear the word feminism without laughing and tbh, I’m pretty close to that as well. How activism, instead of actively and practically trying to improve people’s lives, became a fucking punchline. Like yeah, this guy was violent to women decades ago. He was shot dead in front of his house. There, misogyny solved, except for the fifteen thousand jokes about his abuse (making fun of the victims!) and the fact he died from gun violence.