Click here to return.
Maybe it's just unmistakably Early Beatles, and with that, I'm only being whimsical in part. FMTY was their third single, recorded during the charmed period between the recording and the release of the "Please Please Me" album. Those tight vocal harmonies with their flashes of passionate falsetto, the drum fills, the harmonica hook phrase, the personal pronouns, and so many other details were becoming both trend-setting and a bit formulaic by that point, and who could really blame them, given the roll they were so obviously on ?
We've already seen in our earlier studies of the likes of "Love Me Do", "Thank You Girl", "Please Please Me", and "I Saw Her Standing There" most, if not all, of the specific techniques that come into play in FMTY. If unique coverage of such techniques per se were our main interest in this series, we could just as well have skipped this one.
But, if anything, the fact that the songs in this first crop of their originals are still so different from each other in mood and manner, in spite of the relatively restricted compositional vocabulary with which they were written makes them all the more extraordinary. The image comes to mind of master chefs, capable of producing an astonishing variety of dishes from a small, fixed list of ingredients.
So come 'head; this one's "got (almost) everything that you want"!
Intro -> Verse -> Verse -> Bridge -> Verse -> Verse (solo) -> Bridge -> Verse -> Outro (w/complete ending)The irony of the short length versus long form will seem sharper if you recall that in form, FMTY is identical to ISHST.
The song is among the very first of their officially released originals to feature a modulation to an alternate key during the bridge section. In spite of its brevity, the excursis to F Major we'll see below creates an expansive sense of harmonic space which belies the compressed time scale of the song.
Also unique is the clever surprise ending on the vi chord.
- The vocal part features a duet virtually throughout. Granted, the many flashes of 2-part harmony are separated by long stretches of the same line sung in unison by Paul and John, but there is no vocal *solo* part here.
- Those flashes of vocal harmony, make frequent use of open fifths and falsetto singing.
- Drum fills are carefully deployed at special, structural or dramatic points in the song, not at liberty.
- An overdubbed harmonica is used to introduce the hook phrase.
- And what sounds like it might be a simple oom-pah bass part actually features a snapped rhythm of dotted quarters and eighth notes in alternation.
Note the complete reliance in this intro on just the I and vi chords. Also note the scoring for harmonica and scat-singing voices, and the way the drum fill seems to both articulate the border between the intro and following verse section, as well as effecting a neat transition between the two.
|C |a |C |G ||F7 |a |C G |C a| C: I vi I G IV vi I G I viThe diagram above is of the first verse. Note how the use of the vi chord in the second half of the last measure keeps the harmony open just enough to allow the music to continue at this point with verse #2. See for yourself just how lame that transition would sound if you eliminate the vi chord. The fact that this detail is missing in "take 2" of the song (there, they stay with the C chord for the entire measure) indicates clearly just how careful they were in the studio to revise at the last minute even relatively small details for the better.
At the end of the second verse the change to the 'a' minor chord in measure 8 is eliminated and in its place, the C chord has a dominant 7th added to it in the second half of the measure. This sustaining of the C root provides an added sense of closure at that point and the addition of the 7th to it more effectively sets up the coming bridge.
The hook phrase as it appears in the first part of this verse is presented with quite a bit more bouncy syncopation in comparison to its rather more four-square appearance in the intro. The melody of the song in general, is shot through with gentle syncopations which play off effectively against the even, skiffle-like shuffle of the instrumental accompaniment.
The little snippets of vocal harmony include an open fifth in the first case ("... that you want") and a surprising and suddenly passionate burst of falsetto from John in the second ("... I can do"). I believe it is John who sings the lead part here with Paul singing harmony. This results in Paul singing above John in the first phrase and then crossing over him to sing below in the second phrase; a variation on a similar trick seen earlier in both "Love Me Do" and ISHST.
While we're on the topic of vocal parts, chalk up in verse 2 yet another of those infamous word collisions between John and Paul on the phrase "Just/so call on me ...". It only goes to show that nobody who was there at the time was thinking in terms of people going over this stuff as carefully as some now do, so many years after the fact. Either that, or perhaps this "mistake" was on purpose; i.e., a *very* early clue :-).
|g |C7 |F |- ||D7 |- |G |#5(aug) |
F: ii V I
C: IV V-of-V V
We have what is called a pivot modulation to the key of F. The common chord
between the home key of C and this new key is the C Major chord at the end of
the previous verse. One hears that chord at the time it's first played as
the I of the home key. But once the bridge begins, the ear retrospectively
reinterprets it as though it were the V of the key of F. Such common chords
are not strictly required in order to effect a change of key, but their
utilization makes such shifts smoother, and less abrupt. It's somehow
analogous to the variety of means by which you might change the topic of
conversation.
This bridge provides quite a bit of contrast to the verse sections. Right off the bat the melody suddenly becomes much less syncopated. And in live versions, the drumming, especially the cymbal bashing, may be noted to suddenly become quite muted at this point.
But the greater source of contrast is the way this section builds toward an ultimate climax as opposed to the arch-like, closed shape of the verse. Particularly in the last two measures we have a pile-up of intensification based on several musical factors -- the augmented inflection of the V chord by literally stretching the D in the melody to a D#, the cross rhythm of slow triplets in the rhythm guitar (must be John, right ?), the patented Ringo drum frills, and of course, that crowd pleasing falsetto moan for two-part hamony on the word (ahem) "whooo".
For the sake of variation (and avoidance of foolish consistency), they add in the second bridge a novel touch of two-part harmony at the very beginning of the section. Note how, true to form, Paul's backing part yet again starts off beneath John's lead, only to jump over it a few notes into the phrase.
The musical framework is identical to all the other verses, yet what starts out as an instrumental solo merely "based on" the same old chord progression, degenerates in the second half, to a refrain-like *verbatim repeat* of that part of the verse.
There are two other cute little twists in the front half. First is the way that the instrumental first half of the section presents the hook figure in its alternate incarnation from the intro. This momentary retreat into the realm of the more-square makes the syncopated second half of the section sound all the more bouncy when it returns. Second, is the responsive, mockingbird-like interjection of the singers here which almost subliminally broadcasts the title of the song at you.
This section did not yet exist as of that early "take 2" mentioned above, and based on the impression made by that otherwise pleasing performance, I assume that they belatedly added this because the song felt a tad too short.
The rhetoric of the lyrics is ably abetted by the antiphonal accompaniment, which includes a descending bassline which in turn, is nicely reinforced by heavy syncopation and vigorous drum fills. As that bassline moves from C -> A -> A-flat, it incidentally creates yet another **augmented chord, one that is more suspenseful and harmonically ambiguous than the one seen earlier in the bridge.
[** I'll acknowledge that after many listenings, I still have a sufficient shadow of a doubt that this chord may be A flat Major instead of an augmented triad. It sounds to me that the rhythm guitar, otherwise quite a visible presence in the rest of the song, suddenly sits out this crucial measure. In any event, the mechanics described in the following paragraph roughly work the same in either case.]
This second augmented chord, spelled from bottom up, A-flat/C/E, could move in one of two directions. Either the A-flat can resolve downward, making for a move to C Major, or else, the A-flat can behave as though it were a G#, resolving upward, making for a move to 'a' minor.
What we get is quite enigmatically ingenious: the very next chord following the augmented one turns out, indeed, to be C Major, the I chord of our home key, yet the music immediately procedes with one final statement of the hook phrase before terminating abruptly on the 'a' minor chord. The musical logic of bringing down the curtain on the hook phrase is so subtly persuasive, that you barely note the ironic fact that the song has ended off-center from the home key; actually on the chord of the home key's relative minor.
Note by the way how, for virtually for the only time in the song, the voices are silent in this little coda; in contrast, even the intro at least included scat singing as part of the instrumental texture.
Paul with rather unwonted candor, in the interview which appears as a preface to Lewisohn's "Recording Sessions", allows that they had gotten themselves into a bit of a rut in the early songs with their repeated wordplay on personal pronouns, but he adds that this started out being motivated by a desire to "play to the market." He mentions our song by name in this context, but even so, I think it would be unfair to under-rate it as a mere exploitational pandering to what Brian Matthews on BBC radio might call "the little darlin's."
In FMTY, a particular immediacy is achieved by the use of direct address. How else could this group of four fabulous gentlemen manage, in the midst of a crowded concert hall or across the incorporeal airwaves, to establish such a direct connection to their audience ? If you think not, try for comparison the very different feel that this song takes on when the lyrics are just slightly changed as they were in order to use it as the title jingle for their series of BBC radio holiday specials. "From *Us* To You", for my money, is much more impersonal because the change of 'me' to the plural "us" subconsciously leads one to hear the 'you' which follows in the plural as well.
I bring this whole thing up because in the context of a plethora of songs about you&I;, this one is still rare, if not entirely unique in the way that its message so simply and starkly describes what the lover longs to give to the beloved without condition or expectation of anything in return.
The other pronoun-bound songs which come to mind are otherwise embroidered with details which, though they add context and color, also skew the focus and complicate the message. We find such things as the drama of pursuit ("Please Please Me") or blind faith in its successful outcome ("I'll Get You"); a polite request ("I Want to Hold Your Hand") or a raw pleading ("Love Me Do") that love be requited; an expression of gratitude for love received ("Thank You Girl") or a prayer that it be not harmed by absence or separation ("P.S. I Love You", "All My Loving", et al.) The list goes on. As usual, I haven't done my homework as exhaustively as I should, but I hope the point is made.
"From Me To You" is all the more potent because its expression of love that is ready and willing to be given is so completely unencumbered and unobscured. We're not even told in this instance what it is within or about the other person that motivates such love, but the combination of words and music leaves no room for doubt that it most certainly must exist.
Regards,
Alan ([email protected] *OR* uunet!huxley!awp)
---
"When was the last time you gave a girl a pink-edged daisy ? When did you
last embarass a sheila wid your cool appraising stare ?" 072291#28
---
This article may be reproduced, retransmitted, redistributed and
otherwise propagated at will, provided that this notice remains
intact and in place.
Click here to return.
Click here to return to AWP's index.
