There's a wonderful openness to the recording: there's the aural space, and within that the placement of the instruments, in relation to each other. It is all intelligent. They wrote from feel for the ear. They were more about the sound of the words than the meaning of the words. The feeling is profound, regardless whether the lyrics are.
On this song (and many lead Lennon vocals) I hear a melancholy backdrop that juxtaposes with the sweet love lyrics. As if John really really wants to believe that “for I know love will never die” but knows that is not quite so. He and Paul knew the pain of loss and it runs through their music from the beginning.
This is a crucial point: both Paul and John lost their mothers at especially vulnerable ages, and for John on top of having been abandoned by both his father and mother. And John was again devastated when Stu Sutcliffe, who was something of a big brother, died. That was a unique one-on-one bond between John and Paul which will ever be unfathomed. It's no wonder they had a taste for blues but avoided going over the emotional line in that direction -- in a real sense, John in particular was running away from all that pain. But note their use of dissonance, especially by Lennon, as an expression of aggression. Even "She's a Woman," which is upbeat and written by "sunny" Paul, is centrally driven by 7th chords, which are endemic to blues. I can't help but wonder if the Hamburg experience facilitated the "rough" taste for the edginess of dissonance, which certainly suited expression of John's anger and latent violence.
In his "3-2-1" interview with Rick Rubin, Paul said that at different times George Martin asked which line was the melody and which was the harmony - John and Paul told him they were both singing lead. Sometimes parallel thirds, sometimes quite nearly counterpoint. "If I Fell" is a well-recognized example.
the wide stereo spread is because a) the recording was made on a four-track equipment and there weren't enough tracks to mix a proper stereo picture from; b) in 1964 stereo was new and not yet the main format, rather a gimmick that no one yet knew what to do with. mono mixes were given primary attention. but because today stereo is king, the stereo mixes are more common.
@@squibbly_mcgrink7689 There was no "center". They couldn't "pan" because it requires the same sound be recorded on two or more tracks. INSTEAD, as was the STANDARD, all music was recorded on one track, and all vocals were recorded on the other track -- then the two tracks were mixed to the market standard MONO. And still the misinformation: The unmixed two -tracks are NOT STEREO -- which is why the "hole in the middle"; the are premixed MONO. George Martin explains all that in his _All You Need is Ears_ .
@@VolodyaVolodenka1981 It isn't complicated: in order to "pan" a sound, the sound must be recorded on two or more tracks. There was NONE of that in these early recordings.
This is one of those Paul songs that gave him the reputation early on as being the primary melody maker of the band, whereas John had the reputation of being more proficient with lyrics. Later on, they both showed that either could write great melodies and great lyrics. I like how John sang this song by Paul, which was unusual in their career. Just for interest’s sake, John said he was disappointed that Paul hadn’t asked him to sing Paul’s “Oh, Darling” from the “Abbey Road” album, because he thought it better suited his style of singing. He was also disappointed that Paul had asked everybody to pitch in with lyric ideas for “Elenore Rigby” instead of just asking him, alone, to help.
The Beatles released 229 self-composed songs on their official Discography. However they wrote more for other artists and of course more that they couldn't find a place for on their albums.
It was originally reported as a kettle drum. With this LP they were bringing in different instruments. And the newbie falsely believe the experimentation began with "Revolver" or those who are a little more willing to learn, "Rubber Soul". Perhaps they'll come to know enough to realize that "Beatles for Sale" is a great album.
@@fredneecher1746 If you listen, the lower piano register links to the tone or register of the kettle drum/timpani. The musical invention was always there, from the beginning. They wrote from feel, for the ear, and matched chords to the feel. Sometimes they had to make up chords in doing that, though those same chords probably already existed, though they didn't know their names. The point being is that their innovations didn't suddenly begin with "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver". As George Martin said, "The Beatles" got bored quickly." As result they were constantly looking for change and variety. "Beatles for Sale" is "criminally" underrated by the uninformed and superficial. Look at the leap from the single "I Feel Fine" (including the feedback WASN'T experimentation/innovation? -- that didn't begin until "Revolver"!?]/"She's a Woman" to "Beatles for Sale". The LP showed BOTH where they came from -- the covers -- and where they were in the present and where headed (the openness of the songwriting reflected in the "soundscape") even though the future was unpredictable and when it happened an unexpected surprise. According to Martin (see his _All You Need is Ears_), the "Help!" LP was the first time they actually recorded in stereo -- which confounded the four of them: why TWO speakers!? He also said the mix was "a mess" because by a first-timer -- himself.
@@johnbyrnes7912 I know very well how many there are because I have every U.K. original Single, Album and EP, Xmas record along with the Charity record. I know Beatle Bible very well as I see it every day. The only way there are over 300 songs is by YOU-including every BBC recording listed on that site as well as all the Anthology songs n and Decca audition. If you only add up the songs that the band recorded for record when they were a going concern 1962-1970 it is 213. If you want to add all those other songs they recorded for radio The Anthology and the Decca audition then that is up to you. The band recorded 213 songs while they were a going concern. No more.
@@johnbyrnes7912 1962-1970 when they had a recording contract. All those songs do not count. The Beatles as a band from the day they got a contract until they disbanded. Not the songs they wrote for others that they did not play on. Nothing else. Move on man.
@@johnbyrnes7912 Various publications will give you various answers. But the real point is the Beatles recorded and performed and wrote many songs in a relatively short period of time.
Another thing I've wondered about. At 1:28 into the original song (not your video, bar 22 I think?), there is another little guitar solo that - for whatever reason - makes me think of Bach, but I don't know if that's just me.
The Beatles wrote about love better than any group. "P.S I love You," "I Want To Hold Your Hand," "Thank You, Girl," "If I Fell," I'll Be Back," "For No One," "Here, There and Everywhere" --- these are powerful, heartfelt and somewhat erotic lyrics. The hurt and pleasure of love is made fresh and alive. When I first heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in January 1964, I felt that the song was describing exactly, precisely what I wanted to do. This song, "Every Little Thing," is my favorite of all their love songs. Many boys do not have Moms. Walking down the street, the boy knows that he is seen by others as not having a woman to look after him, and do anything for him. To have someone to care for you is so important to self esteem. I think this is what the Beatles are tapping into: the feeling of being 10 feet tall. Instead of saying, as they do in "She's A Woman," I know my woman loves me, which is kinda boring, this song is very explicit about the rush of emotions when you're in love and the utter certainty that you are the center of her world. It is profound and beautiful, and painful at the same time.
Not my favorite Beatles song, but as always you found many interesting things to comment on. That is definitely a timpani you are hearing. Whenever you think it's a timpani, it is fairly safe to assume it is one with its very distinct resonant tone that you won't find on a standard drum kit. Ringo plays the timpani, which he would have had to do on a separate track since he wouldn't have been able to play his drum kit at the same time. The same with Paul who is credited with both piano and bass. The mixolydian and dorian modes are two of the more common modes in rock music, along with the minor pentatonic scale. All of which have a flat 7, which is more common in rock than the Major 7. Reflecting the blues influence on rock. Maybe the timpani sounds funny since Ringo is a funny guy. It may have been his commentary on what he thought about the song. I enjoyed your reaction and music lesson at the end.
@@nickcowell4744it’s not very different in regards to the chords, melody and harmonies, but pretty different in the overall sound and feel, it’s much more hard rocking and with a faster tempo.
I was never a big Yes fan (nothing against them, just not my cup of tea), so I never listened to it. I just played it on my smart speaker, and I loved the taste of Day Tripper at the end of the intro.
I'd say the contrast between the timpani and the lyrics is deliberate, the implication being that these little things she does have a big impact. On the earlier songs, the "ooohs" were frequently used to hint at exciting things that couldn't be mentioned ("I've got lips that long to kiss you, _and_ keep you _satisfied_ - ooooh!"). I think the timpani is just a more refined "oooh!" While Paul and John are both harmonising in the chorus, Paul's higher line would make far more sense on its own than John's lower line would; it's certainly closer to being the melody. The pair sing in unison quite a lot on this album and John's voice always dominates. That's partly because their voices blended unexpectedly well. But it's probably also just because John sang louder. I really don't think it's true to say he's singing lead vocal on the verses; Paul's voice is clearly there singing the same melody and they were almost certainly standing side-by-side singing into the same mic.
Since I only hear with one ear I have to set everything to mono. I miss all the fun of stereo. It's nice to hear someone explain what's going on in that aspect.
The Beatles were the best band of the 1960s. Ringo on tympani, heavy in thebackground. Every Little Thing has a deep bassy resonance, especially in the piano.
"The Beatles" also toured the US in 1965 and 1966. In 1964 they briefly toured during their first visit, and then a second time later in the year. That kind of fundamental error is what happens when you rely a guy to tell you the "facts" who himself barely has his toes in the actual history.
I think some of the lyricism is a function of the music industry at the time. I'm sure their handlers and the record company are saying, "Can you guys write something like "She Loves You" or "A Hard Day's Night" again?" It's somewhat remarkable that they were able to get away from that, "Write another hit like the last one" mentality. Other bands of the early British invasion, like the Dave Clark Five, for example, didn't negotiate the 1960's as well because they didn't change with the times as successfully. A catchy chorus, and their intros and outros are always good, but I miss it not having a bridge. Like you noticed too, it's like "If I Fell" and other songs, where they seem to sort of unconsciously take turns singing the melody, and John seems to oftentimes sing a lower harmony part while singing with Paul.
I'm surprised you guys chose to explore this one. It's not considered one of the Beatles' more significant songs. Progressive rock band Yes recorded a steamroller cover of it for their 1969 debut album.
@@jnagarya519 Then they should stick to the Music only and not dole out incorrect `factual` detail. Telling everyone it was on the `Beatles For Sale` album is incorrect and I'll call that out-whether you like it or not!
@@alansmith1989 Actually it's rather rude to be watching a video about a "Beatles" song and amid that suggesting a version of the song by some other band. Perhaps you should first know what the person making the video is doing as a larger project. Not quite as rude as those who suggest entirely different songs by other bands. But rude nonetheless. And -- yes -- the song is from "Beatles for Sale".
@@VirginRock it didn’t show up for me until 5 min after I posted this btw that is tympani you hear. On the American album this was released on, Beatle ‘65 there is a pic of Ringo playing the tympanis
On chorus Paul takes the low harmony, while John sings the higher part ie. The melody . That’s unusual for the Beatles , and the fact that Paul basically let John sing his song for all intents .
I don't know which mixes Vladimir choses for you to listen to. The early Beatles recorded on only four tracks and in those days only cared for their mono releases. In the early sixties, they hadn't discovered yet how to mix a proper stereo mix, so the early Beatle records were hard panned: most instruments left, vocals right (or the other way around). This often rubs people the wrong way nowadays. The placement of all the instruments and vocals left and right and everywhere in the sound spectrrum - this is what all the recent remixes are all about.
Could not finish this.The lady's method of speaking is torturous.There's nothing she or anyone else can tell me about this song or the group.I thought it was an under rated song.Majestic to me.
It's incorrect to say - as so many sources do - that Lennon sings lead. Many people, it seems, don't hear Paul at all. The source you quote at least qualifies the statement by conceding that it's Lennon and McCartney in unison, but still seems to consider it a Lennon lead because his voice is "more prominent". But what is prominent, as usual, is Lennon's nasal *timbre.* Once you listen for Paul and get attuned to his softer timbre you will hear him perfectly clearly. This is especially so in verse two, where his vocal is actually slightly dominant in terms of volume, but you still can't help being drawn to Lennon's vocal sound.
It's 1964, who was writing deep lyrics in rock music then? Why you holding them to that expectation? The use of the timpani is them showing rock how to stretch out, be expansive. No one else in rock was as diverse, creative, inventive as The Beatles ever, let alone in 1964. Rock music grew so fast in the 60's, every month was like a year. Every year like a decade, before it leveled off in the 70's. Keep in mind The Beatles were rushed, on demand to create songs by contract. This is their 2nd album, not to mention singles, tours and a movie in '64. They've already grew rock music up dramatically by then in just 18 months and you want every song to be magic. As a song hidden in the back of an album, this tune is great.
It's time for you to hear another Yes song, so why not listen to their cover of this Beatles song? ☺ It was one of the band's earliest work and so is much more approachable than Close to the Edge.
Your finding the "space" because you're finally beginning to actually LISTEN to the arrangements and recording. Though the recording technology at EMI wasn't quite up-to-date, George Martin had been at it as a producer/recording engineer for 25 years when "The Beatles" first walked into the studlo.
@@Bassman2353 Read his book _All You Need is Ears_ -- much of it is a history of the evolution of recording technology during those 25 years. Then "The Beatles" walk into the studio for their last-chance audition.
@@jnagarya519 I have it, as well as his memoir "All You Need is Friends" about the making of Sgt. Pepper. And Kenneth Womack has an excellent two volume biography
I love your contents, but I live in Argentina and every dollar here is an arm and a leg. We can't afford Patreon, so we sadly miss your Beatles full videos. You eventualy posted some full ones on VIMEO (which was great!), but not anymore 😢
Every Little Thing is a great tune- George Harrison said as much on the Get Back sessions. I actually think it was co-written: Paul said as much at the time. The verses sound very John (so it makes sense that he sings them) and the chorus sounds more Paul.
No need to explain or apologize for why you find this song somewhat ordinary or not one of their best, because it isn't. The Beatles didn't have many truly bad songs, musically (lyrically they had a few which you'll come across soon enough), but not all of their songs were standouts. There's certainly some filler there, especially in their earlier albums when they only had a few months to compose, arrange, record and publish each new one per the way the pop and rock music industry worked back then. And this was one of them. Pleasant, not too bad, but certainly not as good as even their early classics like I Saw Her Standing There or Please Please Me. Most of their early covers were clearly better, as you'll see.
Agreed. For late '64 this was a very safe composition, the kind of thing they could make modest progress with but wouldn't freak anyone out. Paul was in a mode at the time with this kind of song, most given to others -- "That Means A Lot", "A World Without Love", "I'll Be On My Way", etc.
@@yes_head I don't know if it was safe or just filler, but they worked under a time crunch and had to crank out originals to fulfill their contract and stay current what with all these other bands following on their heels and breathing down their backs. They were the Beatles but they weren't yet The Beatles and the fear of falling off the map must have weighed on them. It wasn't until Help! if not Rubber Soul that they could finally rest easy, slow down and focus on consistently putting out top quality material.
@@johnbyrnes7912 I have `all` their original Singles, E.Ps and Albums (UK Originals) 1962-70, and that is what I get. How on Earth do you get to over 300?
@@BigSky1 I did a careful double check- and not counting tracks twice (If both on album and single) Using my full original UK Vinyl collection 1962-70; I have 169 album tracks. Plus 10 from the `Magical Mystery Tour `and `Yellow Submarine` sets. Then there is another Four from the `Long Tall Sally` E.P We now reach 183. Now add those single `A` & `B` sides `not` on original albums - I get another 27. Grand total is 210. This is from their original UK Vinyl releases 1962-70.
I could not possibly agree with you less. The Timpani motif is the most distinctive hook in the song. The sum total of two notes played on a drum hardly qualifies as "overproduced"
There's a wonderful openness to the recording: there's the aural space, and within that the placement of the instruments, in relation to each other. It is all intelligent.
They wrote from feel for the ear. They were more about the sound of the words than the meaning of the words. The feeling is profound, regardless whether the lyrics are.
Another of those wonderful, early songs... glorious songs were pouring out of them!
YES does an excellent cover of "Every Little Thing ".
They do. But boy does it take a while before the vocal comes in.
Btw, say hello to Mr Bond for me.
On this song (and many lead Lennon vocals) I hear a melancholy backdrop that juxtaposes with the sweet love lyrics. As if John really really wants to believe that “for I know love will never die” but knows that is not quite so. He and Paul knew the pain of loss and it runs through their music from the beginning.
This is a crucial point: both Paul and John lost their mothers at especially vulnerable ages, and for John on top of having been abandoned by both his father and mother.
And John was again devastated when Stu Sutcliffe, who was something of a big brother, died.
That was a unique one-on-one bond between John and Paul which will ever be unfathomed. It's no wonder they had a taste for blues but avoided going over the emotional line in that direction -- in a real sense, John in particular was running away from all that pain.
But note their use of dissonance, especially by Lennon, as an expression of aggression. Even "She's a Woman," which is upbeat and written by "sunny" Paul, is centrally driven by 7th chords, which are endemic to blues. I can't help but wonder if the Hamburg experience facilitated the "rough" taste for the edginess of dissonance, which certainly suited expression of John's anger and latent violence.
@@jnagarya519maybe so
In his "3-2-1" interview with Rick Rubin, Paul said that at different times George Martin asked which line was the melody and which was the harmony - John and Paul told him they were both singing lead. Sometimes parallel thirds, sometimes quite nearly counterpoint. "If I Fell" is a well-recognized example.
Actually the harmony is only on the chorus which are not thirds. The harmonies are fourths on first four bars, and parallel fifths on the last four.
the wide stereo spread is because a) the recording was made on a four-track equipment and there weren't enough tracks to mix a proper stereo picture from; b) in 1964 stereo was new and not yet the main format, rather a gimmick that no one yet knew what to do with. mono mixes were given primary attention. but because today stereo is king, the stereo mixes are more common.
The stereo for this album is nice imo. They also could not pan a track with their mixing desk. It was L, R, or Center.
@@squibbly_mcgrink7689 both mixes sound great, just two different beasts. didn't know about the absence of a panning option, thanks!
@@squibbly_mcgrink7689 There was no "center". They couldn't "pan" because it requires the same sound be recorded on two or more tracks. INSTEAD, as was the STANDARD, all music was recorded on one track, and all vocals were recorded on the other track -- then the two tracks were mixed to the market standard MONO.
And still the misinformation:
The unmixed two -tracks are NOT STEREO -- which is why the "hole in the middle"; the are premixed MONO. George Martin explains all that in his _All You Need is Ears_ .
@@VolodyaVolodenka1981 It isn't complicated: in order to "pan" a sound, the sound must be recorded on two or more tracks. There was NONE of that in these early recordings.
I'm old and I thought I have heard all the Beatles songs. Don't remember ever hearing this one. LOL.
This is one of those Paul songs that gave him the reputation early on as being the primary melody maker of the band, whereas John had the reputation of being more proficient with lyrics. Later on, they both showed that either could write great melodies and great lyrics. I like how John sang this song by Paul, which was unusual in their career. Just for interest’s sake, John said he was disappointed that Paul hadn’t asked him to sing Paul’s “Oh, Darling” from the “Abbey Road” album, because he thought it better suited his style of singing. He was also disappointed that Paul had asked everybody to pitch in with lyric ideas for “Elenore Rigby” instead of just asking him, alone, to help.
They ARE timpani - first time they were used in a rock song, I've heard. As I recall, Ringo saw them at the studio and thought he would experiment.
At thetime of the release of these recordings it was reported that they were experimenting with different instruments.
This might be my favorite review yet... love love it!
The Beatles released 229 self-composed songs on their official Discography. However they wrote more for other artists and of course more that they couldn't find a place for on their albums.
213.
One of my faves
This song is one of many album cut gems that easily could have been released as a single.
My Favorite Channel and Favorite Group. Peace
It was originally reported as a kettle drum. With this LP they were bringing in different instruments. And the newbie falsely believe the experimentation began with "Revolver" or those who are a little more willing to learn, "Rubber Soul". Perhaps they'll come to know enough to realize that "Beatles for Sale" is a great album.
For eclectic instruments yes, but not for musical invention. Still above average for pop songs of the time, though.
@@fredneecher1746 If you listen, the lower piano register links to the tone or register of the kettle drum/timpani.
The musical invention was always there, from the beginning. They wrote from feel, for the ear, and matched chords to the feel. Sometimes they had to make up chords in doing that, though those same chords probably already existed, though they didn't know their names.
The point being is that their innovations didn't suddenly begin with "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver". As George Martin said, "The Beatles" got bored quickly." As result they were constantly looking for change and variety. "Beatles for Sale" is "criminally" underrated by the uninformed and superficial.
Look at the leap from the single "I Feel Fine" (including the feedback WASN'T experimentation/innovation? -- that didn't begin until "Revolver"!?]/"She's a Woman" to "Beatles for Sale". The LP showed BOTH where they came from -- the covers -- and where they were in the present and where headed (the openness of the songwriting reflected in the "soundscape") even though the future was unpredictable and when it happened an unexpected surprise.
According to Martin (see his _All You Need is Ears_), the "Help!" LP was the first time they actually recorded in stereo -- which confounded the four of them: why TWO speakers!? He also said the mix was "a mess" because by a first-timer -- himself.
"The Beatles" ALWAYS had fun, ALWAYS had a sense of humor -- juggled the music on slightly bruised fingers.
The Beatles recorded about 213 songs 25 of which were covers.
@@johnbyrnes7912Stop saying this man. It was 213 exactly.
It was 213.
@@johnbyrnes7912 I know very well how many there are because I have every U.K. original Single, Album and EP, Xmas record along with the Charity record.
I know Beatle Bible very well as I see it every day.
The only way there are over 300 songs is by YOU-including every BBC recording listed on that site as well as all the Anthology songs n and Decca audition.
If you only add up the songs that the band recorded for record when they were a going concern 1962-1970 it is 213.
If you want to add all those other songs they recorded for radio The Anthology and the Decca audition then that is up to you.
The band recorded 213 songs while they were a going concern. No more.
@@johnbyrnes7912 1962-1970 when they had a recording contract. All those songs do not count. The Beatles as a band from the day they got a contract until they disbanded. Not the songs they wrote for others that they did not play on. Nothing else. Move on man.
@@johnbyrnes7912 Various publications will give you various answers. But the real point is the Beatles recorded and performed and wrote many songs in a relatively short period of time.
My fave Beatles tune
Another thing I've wondered about. At 1:28 into the original song (not your video, bar 22 I think?), there is another little guitar solo that - for whatever reason - makes me think of Bach, but I don't know if that's just me.
The Beatles wrote about love better than any group. "P.S I love You," "I Want To Hold Your Hand," "Thank You, Girl," "If I Fell," I'll Be Back," "For No One," "Here, There and Everywhere" --- these are powerful, heartfelt and somewhat erotic lyrics. The hurt and pleasure of love is made fresh and alive. When I first heard "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in January 1964, I felt that the song was describing exactly, precisely what I wanted to do. This song, "Every Little Thing," is my favorite of all their love songs. Many boys do not have Moms. Walking down the street, the boy knows that he is seen by others as not having a woman to look after him, and do anything for him. To have someone to care for you is so important to self esteem. I think this is what the Beatles are tapping into: the feeling of being 10 feet tall. Instead of saying, as they do in "She's A Woman," I know my woman loves me, which is kinda boring, this song is very explicit about the rush of emotions when you're in love and the utter certainty that you are the center of her world. It is profound and beautiful, and painful at the same time.
Some great choices there.
That was one of the nice things about the early Beatles - John and Paul would sometimes switch off melody and harmony parts within a song.
Another call for the song "Travel" by The Gathering, the TG25 live version. "I wish you knew your music was to stay forever".
Not my favorite Beatles song, but as always you found many interesting things to comment on. That is definitely a timpani you are hearing. Whenever you think it's a timpani, it is fairly safe to assume it is one with its very distinct resonant tone that you won't find on a standard drum kit. Ringo plays the timpani, which he would have had to do on a separate track since he wouldn't have been able to play his drum kit at the same time. The same with Paul who is credited with both piano and bass. The mixolydian and dorian modes are two of the more common modes in rock music, along with the minor pentatonic scale. All of which have a flat 7, which is more common in rock than the Major 7. Reflecting the blues influence on rock. Maybe the timpani sounds funny since Ringo is a funny guy. It may have been his commentary on what he thought about the song. I enjoyed your reaction and music lesson at the end.
Yes did a great version of this - slightly different intro.
Totally different!
@@mikes9305 You might have to be a professional musician to spot the difference, though. Maybe.
@@nickcowell4744it’s not very different in regards to the chords, melody and harmonies, but pretty different in the overall sound and feel, it’s much more hard rocking and with a faster tempo.
I was never a big Yes fan (nothing against them, just not my cup of tea), so I never listened to it. I just played it on my smart speaker, and I loved the taste of Day Tripper at the end of the intro.
@@EriktheG248 Yes, although Amy hasn't yet heard Day Tripper, so it would be lost on her at this time. ☺
👍🏻 I'm happy to watch this reaction 😀 ... btw, there are more than 200 Beatles songs ...
If one discounts covers, I believe there are just under 200, but there may be some songs that slipped my net. Does anyone have a complete discography?
@@fredneecher1746 To my understanding there are more than 200 original Beatles songs, but I need to check
@@fredneecher1746213 in Total
@@richardfehlmann4593213
Great reaction, I’m reliving my original delight with this minor but intriguing song. According to wiki they released 188 originals and 25 covers.
I'd say the contrast between the timpani and the lyrics is deliberate, the implication being that these little things she does have a big impact. On the earlier songs, the "ooohs" were frequently used to hint at exciting things that couldn't be mentioned ("I've got lips that long to kiss you, _and_ keep you _satisfied_ - ooooh!"). I think the timpani is just a more refined "oooh!"
While Paul and John are both harmonising in the chorus, Paul's higher line would make far more sense on its own than John's lower line would; it's certainly closer to being the melody. The pair sing in unison quite a lot on this album and John's voice always dominates. That's partly because their voices blended unexpectedly well. But it's probably also just because John sang louder. I really don't think it's true to say he's singing lead vocal on the verses; Paul's voice is clearly there singing the same melody and they were almost certainly standing side-by-side singing into the same mic.
Since you seem to be a bit reluctant listening to another song by YES, their early cover version of this piece might build a bridge for you.
Take it to the "Yes" channel.
Since I only hear with one ear I have to set everything to mono. I miss all the fun of stereo. It's nice to hear someone explain what's going on in that aspect.
The Beatles were the best band of the 1960s. Ringo on tympani, heavy in thebackground. Every Little Thing has a deep bassy resonance, especially in the piano.
A song with the strong influence of George’s 12 string Rickenbacker guitar. It has a distinct sound.
"The Beatles" also toured the US in 1965 and 1966.
In 1964 they briefly toured during their first visit, and then a second time later in the year.
That kind of fundamental error is what happens when you rely a guy to tell you the "facts" who himself barely has his toes in the actual history.
THEY USE THIS b7 CHORD IN MANY SONGS AND LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO THE NEIGBOURHOOD TONE OF D IN A MOMENT.THANK YOU AMY FOR YOUR COMMENTS!
I think some of the lyricism is a function of the music industry at the time. I'm sure their handlers and the record company are saying, "Can you guys write something like "She Loves You" or "A Hard Day's Night" again?" It's somewhat remarkable that they were able to get away from that, "Write another hit like the last one" mentality.
Other bands of the early British invasion, like the Dave Clark Five, for example, didn't negotiate the 1960's as well because they didn't change with the times as successfully.
A catchy chorus, and their intros and outros are always good, but I miss it not having a bridge. Like you noticed too, it's like "If I Fell" and other songs, where they seem to sort of unconsciously take turns singing the melody, and John seems to oftentimes sing a lower harmony part while singing with Paul.
George Martin was unique in the industry; outside his studio it was regimented.
I'm surprised you guys chose to explore this one. It's not considered one of the Beatles' more significant songs. Progressive rock band Yes recorded a steamroller cover of it for their 1969 debut album.
I'm just starting to watch the video but I had hoped she would hear the Yes cover after the original. She had done that in a previous video!
`Yes` did a version of this on their debut album `YES` in 1969.
Big deal. This video is about "The Beatles'" song.
@@jnagarya519 Then they should stick to the Music only and not dole out incorrect `factual` detail. Telling everyone it was on the `Beatles For Sale` album is incorrect and I'll call that out-whether you like it or not!
@@alansmith1989 Actually it's rather rude to be watching a video about a "Beatles" song and amid that suggesting a version of the song by some other band. Perhaps you should first know what the person making the video is doing as a larger project.
Not quite as rude as those who suggest entirely different songs by other bands. But rude nonetheless.
And -- yes -- the song is from "Beatles for Sale".
@@jnagarya519 Not on the original vinyl release it isn`t.
I’m patiently waiting for this on Patreon!
It has been there before it got here!
@@VirginRock it didn’t show up for me until 5 min after I posted this btw that is tympani you hear. On the American album this was released on, Beatle ‘65 there is a pic of Ringo playing the tympanis
On chorus Paul takes the low harmony, while John sings the higher part ie. The melody . That’s unusual for the Beatles , and the fact that Paul basically let John sing his song for all intents .
You can go 10 seconds of the Beatles canon without being demonized .
I don't believe you've done No Reply either. Which has no intro.
No Reply has a very "wide" sound too... Great song, very special, i miss it in this series.
Fear not! It is on Patreon and will be released here in two weeks, if I understand their schedule. "I Don't Want to Spoil the Party" is next week.
I don't know which mixes Vladimir choses for you to listen to. The early Beatles recorded on only four tracks and in those days only cared for their mono releases.
In the early sixties, they hadn't discovered yet how to mix a proper stereo mix, so the early Beatle records were hard panned: most instruments left, vocals right (or the other way around). This often rubs people the wrong way nowadays.
The placement of all the instruments and vocals left and right and everywhere in the sound spectrrum - this is what all the recent remixes are all about.
Yes the official video version on youtube I guess
Could not finish this.The lady's method of speaking is torturous.There's nothing she or anyone else can tell me about this song or the group.I thought it was an under rated song.Majestic to me.
It's incorrect to say - as so many sources do - that Lennon sings lead. Many people, it seems, don't hear Paul at all. The source you quote at least qualifies the statement by conceding that it's Lennon and McCartney in unison, but still seems to consider it a Lennon lead because his voice is "more prominent". But what is prominent, as usual, is Lennon's nasal *timbre.* Once you listen for Paul and get attuned to his softer timbre you will hear him perfectly clearly. This is especially so in verse two, where his vocal is actually slightly dominant in terms of volume, but you still can't help being drawn to Lennon's vocal sound.
It's 1964, who was writing deep lyrics in rock music then? Why you holding them to that expectation?
The use of the timpani is them showing rock how to stretch out, be expansive.
No one else in rock was as diverse, creative, inventive as The Beatles ever, let alone in 1964.
Rock music grew so fast in the 60's, every month was like a year. Every year like a decade, before it leveled off in the 70's.
Keep in mind The Beatles were rushed, on demand to create songs by contract. This is their 2nd album, not to mention singles, tours and a movie in '64. They've already grew rock music up dramatically by then in just 18 months and you want every song to be magic. As a song hidden in the back of an album, this tune is great.
Time to move forward to rubber soul and revolver. Cannot wait for Eleanor Rigby
The Mixolydian mode returns several times in later songs, notably at the end of Hey Jude (spoiler alert).
It's time for you to hear another Yes song, so why not listen to their cover of this Beatles song? ☺ It was one of the band's earliest work and so is much more approachable than Close to the Edge.
I would say if you’re going to review a YES song it should be one of their own compositions ie “..And you and I” or “Turn of the Century”
@@lynby6231 I agree, but for some reason those aren't being done. She had listened to another cover after reviewing the original, so... 🤞
It probably took less time to record this whole song than this synopsis is taking......John would be amused, but not in a bad way. 😊
Beatles last toured the States in 66
Your finding the "space" because you're finally beginning to actually LISTEN to the arrangements and recording. Though the recording technology at EMI wasn't quite up-to-date, George Martin had been at it as a producer/recording engineer for 25 years when "The Beatles" first walked into the studlo.
Sir George Martin started with the Parlophone label at EMI on November 28, 1950 at the tender age of 24.
@@Bassman2353 Read his book _All You Need is Ears_ -- much of it is a history of the evolution of recording technology during those 25 years. Then "The Beatles" walk into the studio for their last-chance audition.
@@jnagarya519 I have it, as well as his memoir "All You Need is Friends" about the making of Sgt. Pepper. And Kenneth Womack has an excellent two volume biography
Please, react to other 1964 songs, like Long tall Sally
Please no. Covers are covers. Though "Anna" and "Please Mr. Postman" far exceed the originals.
Please go use your harp and your piano more in your videos.
Much more interesting.👍🏼
Perhaps, the discrepancy between the timpani sounds and the words "Every Little Thing" is just a joke.
I love your contents, but I live in Argentina and every dollar here is an arm and a leg. We can't afford Patreon, so we sadly miss your Beatles full videos. You eventualy posted some full ones on VIMEO (which was great!), but not anymore 😢
No, they toured the U.S. in 1964-65-66. This is not much of a tune. I'm waiting for you to react to I Don't Want To Spoil The Party.
Every Little Thing is a great tune- George Harrison said as much on the Get Back sessions. I actually think it was co-written: Paul said as much at the time. The verses sound very John (so it makes sense that he sings them) and the chorus sounds more Paul.
@@MOLLOYALLOYI agree. It's a charming song, and later in the day you tend to find it coming back to mind.
No need to explain or apologize for why you find this song somewhat ordinary or not one of their best, because it isn't. The Beatles didn't have many truly bad songs, musically (lyrically they had a few which you'll come across soon enough), but not all of their songs were standouts. There's certainly some filler there, especially in their earlier albums when they only had a few months to compose, arrange, record and publish each new one per the way the pop and rock music industry worked back then. And this was one of them. Pleasant, not too bad, but certainly not as good as even their early classics like I Saw Her Standing There or Please Please Me. Most of their early covers were clearly better, as you'll see.
I disagree with You.
@@lejoe48 Well that's good to know!
The thing that makes it extraordinary are the McCartney Lennon vocals. They were very gifted singers.
Agreed. For late '64 this was a very safe composition, the kind of thing they could make modest progress with but wouldn't freak anyone out. Paul was in a mode at the time with this kind of song, most given to others -- "That Means A Lot", "A World Without Love", "I'll Be On My Way", etc.
@@yes_head I don't know if it was safe or just filler, but they worked under a time crunch and had to crank out originals to fulfill their contract and stay current what with all these other bands following on their heels and breathing down their backs. They were the Beatles but they weren't yet The Beatles and the fear of falling off the map must have weighed on them. It wasn't until Help! if not Rubber Soul that they could finally rest easy, slow down and focus on consistently putting out top quality material.
I think they had either 219 or 220 tracks released. Depends whether you count `Revolution 9` as a song-or not!
@@johnbyrnes7912 I have `all` their original Singles, E.Ps and Albums (UK Originals) 1962-70, and that is what I get. How on Earth do you get to over 300?
@@johnbyrnes7912213 to be exact.
@@alansmith1989There were 213
@@johnbyrnes7912213 Mr Byrnes. Remember that number instead of exaggerating the facts all the time. 213.
@@BigSky1 I did a careful double check- and not counting tracks twice (If both on album and single) Using my full original UK Vinyl collection 1962-70; I have 169 album tracks. Plus 10 from the `Magical Mystery Tour `and `Yellow Submarine` sets. Then there is another Four from the `Long Tall Sally` E.P We now reach 183. Now add those single `A` & `B` sides `not` on original albums - I get another 27. Grand total is 210. This is from their original UK Vinyl releases 1962-70.
It's one of their weakest, I'm afraid. I would have skipped it.
I agree that the timpani seems out of place; the orchestration is over-produced.
I could not possibly agree with you less. The Timpani motif is the most distinctive hook in the song. The sum total of two notes played on a drum hardly qualifies as "overproduced"