Does everyone play Yesterday wrong?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- I, like anyone else who has performed Yesterday, previously had no doubt that I knew how the melody for Yesterday goes. However, when I finally listened to the record a bit closer, I realised that I had been performing it wrong my entire life! Whether this is a simple mistake or a prime example of the "Mandela effect" is unclear, but what is clear is that the first note of Yesterday by The Beatles is not a G, despite what the sheet music says!
COVERS USED IN THIS VIDEO:
Connie Talbot: • Yesterday - The Beatle...
Sam Tompkins: • the beatles - yesterda...
Himesh Patel: • Video
Boyce Avenue: • Yesterday - The Beatle...
Lewis Capaldi: • Lewis Capaldi - Yester...
The Beats: • The Beats - Yesterday
SOURCES:
McCartney performing Yesterday (1965): • Yesterday (With Spoken...
The Beatles performing Yesterday (1966): • The Beatles - "Yesterd...
Yesterday in 2004: • Paul McCartney - Yeste...
McCartney interview (2001): • Video
An extra special thanks goes to Vidad Flowers, Austin Russell, Christopher Ryan, Toot & Paul Peijzel, the channel’s Patreon saints! 😇
SUPPORT ME ON PATREON: / davidbennettpiano
suddenly it's not half the note it used to be
There’s a flat F sounding over G, and kind of A-ish in verse three.
hahahah
I predict this will be the top comment very, very soon.
Very good. Wish I'd thought of that!
Hahaha
My sister has perfect pitch and has pointed this out forever. Thanks for the analysis. She'll enjoy seeing this.
Oh how I wish I had perfect pitch!
@@DavidBennettPiano Having perfect pitch myself, this has eternally irritated me. I got berated by music teachers at school for singing it as sung, not how it is notated.
@@aeonvg oh, that’s so sad!
Sisterday
@@DavidBennettPiano I have perfect pitch too, and again: it's a slightly lower G. you're mistaken because of the decrescendo on the G.
The point you make at 3:33 nails it - people trust the sheet music more than their own ears... there are countless transcriptions out there that are obviously incorrect, yet every piano cover you see seems to play them as the sheet, not as the song - Bohemian Rhapsody is a classic example, there's at least two parts of that song that are not right in the sheet, yet everyone plays the incorrect transcription instead of trusting their ears...
This is why I like drumming in band class. If I feel like a part is incorrect I can usually change it
So true, and I thought the same when David Cameron hummed his ditty - it was not so straightforward to transcribe, and someone from Classic FM came up with [G - C - G - D#] - a dubious spelling of a C minor triad. Many musicians composed Cameron pieces on this motif, without questioning it, or thinking 'why does it have that quirky quality if it's just a common-or-garden C minor triad?
When top-notch pianist Gabriela Monteiro entered the fray (ruclips.net/video/APFSsFBw6a0/видео.html) she put the matter to rest.
Not everyone is able to hear notes and intervals this precisely. I have been practicing my relative pitch for a while now but still struggle to play by ear. Therefore, most people just have to rely on people who transcribe the sheet music.
I play several instruments including piano but I'm pretty much completely unable to play anything I haven't practised before without sheet music. I have some intuitive understanding of relative pitch when it comes to singing but that just doesn't translate to instruments for me. I can usually only tell if two notes are the same or different. If they're somewhat close together I even have trouble telling if the melody is going up or down. To play a simple melody just from hearing it I basically have to try out a whole octave for any pair of consecutive notes until I find the correct one. As soon as the music is polyphonic in any way I'm completely lost without the sheets.
Yes... and some people don't realize that pianos are purposely *not* tuned to perfect pitch on the grand staff; not all eighty-eight keys are in absolute tune. I guess that it is going to sound slightly off, when played on a "perfect-pitch" keyboard/synthesizer.
literally only like a minute and a half in and “yesterday” doesn’t even sound like a word anymore
"Yesterday doesn't exist anymore" sounds philosophical, doesn't it?
MWSin1 it really does, and it’s kinda messing with my brain
It’s weird isn’t it! This effect is called Jamais Vu (just if you want a weird fact to impress your nerdy friends)
@@TSutton Cool! I didn't know that.
I’m hearing “yes, daddy”.
When you realise you made a whole movie called “Yesterday” but you didn’t even play the song correctly
Lmao.
You're not half the man you used to be...
That movie is also one of the worst films I have ever seen. It just got worse and dumber as it went on. Horribly cheesy covers, awful acting, and a plot and character that fails to redeem itself over and over again. Sad that I can't get that portion of my life back. It's sad whoever owns the publishing rights stooped to the level of that movie and allowed them to use the Beatles' music.
@@ParhelionMedia the only saving grace was the music I guess, and this was how I started getting i. To the Beatles music culture fully so it wasn’t all bad
@@ParhelionMedia I liked it. To each their own.
I have literally NEVER thought "Yes" was a different note than "-ter-day" at the top of the song.
AND, it makes perfect sense for it to change over the course of the song the way it does.
I agree
Same for me. I always sing three F notes in the beginning line
Same here.
Sorry, but the musical logic (if not Paul's performance) strongly points to the G. Listen to the melody on "far away" and "over me": he repeats the idea of a melodic contour that begins on a suspension above a chord tone for a dotted beat, then sings the chord tone for the remaining syllables. On "far away" it's also the 2nd degree of the scale of the chord in question (A minor), and on "over me" it's the 4th degree for the C major chord.
Opening the phrase on the 2nd of the F major, in a similar (albeit faster) rhythm, unifies the melodic line.
The fact that he does sing it that way in other verses only underlines that this is a matter of performance (whether a "flaw" or an interpretive choice: singers can choose to sing slightly flat or sharp expressively), not of what the actual melody is.
I trust Paul McCartney as a writer of melodies more than the rest of us ;-)
I've ALWAYS heard it as the G...
i dont know about you guys but im starting to think that david likes the beatles a little bit
They’re alright I guess
@@DavidBennettPiano You cracked me up when you suggested the "Paul is Dead" theory as a reason why he's now singing the correct first note again 😂
Yeaaaahhh... just a li'l bit.
Kate your comment got so many likes!! Proud of you!!!
David Bennett Piano 😂
Paul was (is) a master at making slight variations in repeated lines. My personal favorite is at the end of Blackbird when he sings "you were only waiting for this moment to arise" three times and each time is slightly different. That subtlety adds so much to the song. Genius.
Sia Furler is the queen of variation. Not her new stuff, though. Give this a listen: ruclips.net/video/TCXOXgWnfVc/видео.html
Constantly changing his basslines within songs too. A bass riff in the first verse won't necessarily be repeated note for note in 2nd and 3rd verses. He was always tinkering with little things to add interest. My favourite musician/song writer of all time.
@@raindrops21_9 My favourite example of that is in Taxman. Around the second or third verse, the bass line doesn't play the iconic riff, but some really wild variation of it. Just great. Or, to pick another George song, Paul's bass fill after the first line of the third verse. Just exquisite.
It’s hard to know whether he does so more as a composer vs. as a singer/interpreter. Probably as both.
Nowhere Man bassline is a masterpiece as it's not the same every verse
Him: Did you hear it?
Me not really hearing any difference: sure
massive difference for me. i get quite irritated when things sound wrong.
😂😂😂
I mean , some people (mostly musicians) can tell the difference , i can but its not as massive as the other dude says it is
@@jenniferschmitzer299 I can also hear the difference but I do not get irritated nor think that its massive.
I could hear the difference, but only when it was played back to back. Would’ve never noticed otherwise.
He sang it in a more "spoken" style, that's why the pitch is not perfect but the fact that Melodyne recognizes two different notes shows that it's not the same note, he is flat, that's why everyone transcribed it as a G because F# would have been a Minor Second and if you play it in a piano it clashes more, it's an appoggiatura that happens so fast that your brain automatically tunes the note altough it's not perfectly in tune, to me it's just a "false note", a note that does not match any of the twelve pitches in equal temperament tuning but adds emotion to a Performance...Good Video
PlayTheGuitarra
that’s exactly what i thought, and you said it very well!
plus, the second note is flat too, so it sounds closer to a major second than anything else
te amo
Sos un genioooooo te admiro play the guitarra hace mas videos de teoria musical
@@inakiallende2118 Wajaja 🤣🤣🤣
Wuuuuuuooooooooo su crossover épico aguante play the guitarra me hiciste el día locoo te re amo
I prefer the F-F-F version because it has a sadder feeling, more akin to the song's theme.
True. Sounds more solemn as F-F-F
@@DeVibe. Wrong ! I'm a musician .. and I approve of triple F as the right way to begin this song .. mood wise. As I said it sounds solemn . Just that it's subtle.. and went under the radar of so many people .
@@DeVibe. ok.. visualise a person in a melancholic/sombre mood reflecting on a thought . He/she will not begin the song with a raised note . It will be a flat rendition of the word yesterday . It's ever so subtle a thing to notice .
I feel the same
To me - after so many listenings in life - it sounds same note thru the bar. The first stroke is 'accented' - some 'Musical Initial'. ;)
Forgive me if someone's pointed this out, but the reason he's doing the higher notes on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th times is because he's coming down from a higher note in the bit before those ones, and it's natural to do that. Thank you for the post.
it's quite possible that paul was just flat when he sang it.
quite a sharp observation
@@ricochetsixtyten It comes to him naturally
They should put him in the movies.
It is just a simple word said differently, nothing to examinate, it's natural
@@ftumschk He *accidental*ly thought of it
Yesterday doesn’t sound like a real word anymore
@Absolute Zero Gesundheit
"yes today..."
Yeah, its pretty weird isnt it?
Yes-ter-day... What even is "ter"?
Funny, I've never encountered this thing with English words including in this video since it's not my first language but I have it in my native language words many times. Is there anything to do with it?
@@Jajo372 :P
Unless you're serious, in whic case, it's because "yester" is one unit.
"What would you do if I sang out of tune..." indeed
...I'm going to make a video right now to check this out once and for all.
Paul : "Sings out of tune a bit"
Him : THIS IS CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!
PAUL IS DEAD
@@nmappraiser9926 No, he isn't...
@@experi-mentalproductions5358 he's joking
@@sean6992 Ok Mr. Psychic.....
@@experi-mentalproductions5358 😂
Was not expecting this to veer off into “Paul is Dead” territory there... 🤣🤣🤣
It's just a matter of time...
That bit was actually really funny !
It's easy: the note is "G", which sounds like "she". She is lovely Rita, and so Paul is awarning himself to take care on that crossing, and that's the reason of the name: "yesterday". Paul is speaking to his future Paul
@@Paul_VanGo sooner or later
Couldn't it just be that Paul sang a flat G on the recording as it is the opening bar and not necessarily the easiest note to hit?
I reckon Paul could hit pretty much any note he wanted to hit.
My guess as well
It’s not that he couldn’t hit the G. He just sang it the way that felt the most natural. In the same way that our ears don’t really notice that he’s off pitch, he probably didn’t notice he was off pitch at the time.
Finally someone with a brain makes a comment. Thank you. As they say, the simplest explanation is usually the right explanation.
Most likely this, Paul isn’t a theory nerd and probably doesn’t even know he did this
How do you even come up with topics like this!? Do you get tips about stuff like this? Very well made and very nerdy. Brilliant.
This one was discussed under a video, where he used Yesterday as an example.
Lucy Leesly Any idea which video this is? Would love to watch it!
I stumbled across this when transcribing Yesterday for my “melodic minor” video. I then used the “correct” transcription in that video and, of course, some people noticed 😂 Thanks for watching 🙏
It's just Paul's casual, semi-parlando intonation.
Yeah. I mean, just watch the analyzed waveform, the note is over in 1/10th of a second and a large chunk of it is the sharply bent onset. Using pitch detection to figure out what he intended is near useless in this case. Intuitively, it just sounds like he intended the first note to be higher than the following. The following verses confirm this.
Except it's not 'just' that. As the graph shows, he is singing pitches on those notes. His pitching isn't as fixed as, say, an organ - that's the expressive inflection of the voice you're referring to - but there's no doubt that his first note is not a G as given in sheet music.
That Paul sings this note inconsistently isn't a fault - as a solo singer you have more freedom than a choir, and melodies do have flexibility - what's remarkable is how it's been overlooked by so many musicians.
@Bob Schaaf: Exactly! In singing it can be surprisingly hard to "land" a pitch on exactly the note you want when starting from silence or leaping across an interval. It's easy to splatter onto the wrong pitch, and then on short-duration notes you don't have any time to correct. So I can easily imagine that Paul originally thought of this as a supertonic leading to the tonic (it leads strongly, after all), and then he was just a bit casual w/ intonation most of the times he sang it in this recording. In the example cited at 1:54 of this video, when he "slides in" to his target pitch (= much easier to stick), he ends up singing a supertonic to tonic, G to F.
I couldn't agree more. This whole video, frankly, seems to be overanalyzing plain old vocal sloppiness - even as it acknowledges about halfway through that this degree of sloppiness is a vital part of musical expression.
Bingo
Back in the early 90s, a bunch of little mini-studios popped up where for a nominal fee you could get a quasi-professional-sounding recording of your voice on cassette performing a popular tune. It was like karaoke, only instead of an audience there was just a guy in a booth recording you. My cousin and I did a rendition of "Yesterday," and it turns out that I sang the beginning note with the slightly sharp F just like Paul originally did, without even realizing it.
The way you described those mini studios totally reminded me of the episode of Nickelodeon's "Doug" where he goes and gets a recording of "Patti you're the mayonnaise for me"!
Moreover, the title is actually "Yes To Day (And No To Night)".
😳
underrated ☺
Bollocks
darn bri ish people
I always thought something was off. Glad you're the one to clear it up.
Hip details! Being one of these transcribers I‘d like to point out that notation choices and how the sheet music appears in the end is rather informed by who you’re writing for and what the music publisher asks for, e.g. easy arrangements or exact transcriptions - vs. being lazy or making mistakes (also there’s proofreading) Especially when it comes to vocals there’s more pitch variety and variation than it would be practical to reflect in the notation. Any notation, or graphic depiction of sound is always just a very rough translation. Naturally music fits the notation grid only to a degree so always use the original recording in conjunction with sheet music.
I’ve heard “ yesterday” too many times today
Bruh
@@stayskeptic3923 today
Amusingly this comment was posted one day ago when I’m viewing 😂
Same, hopefully i'll stop hearing it tomorrow
@@Wind-nj5xz Yeah, hopefully it sounds better _tonight_
News Alert: the beatles were sometimes flat
blasphemy!
Flat compared to what? Paul is under no obligation to hit a certain note just because it's the note on your music sheet.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as the entire thing still sounds amazing. A slightly flat but emotionally raw and powerful performance is way better than a robotic albeit pitch perfect one.
I know, right? This almost gets like arguments over the word of God. I don’t believe that Paul was thinking about microtonality. Sometimes you just don’t hit the intended note squarely.
@@koalabandit9166 He hits the note on the sheet in a live performance that same year. ruclips.net/video/wXTJBr9tt8Q/видео.html
“Paul” sang G instead of F#, he is obviously a clone
Never has a piece of evidence been so forceful.
nope hes the real. faul didnt show up til later. haha
yesterday
yes today
just today
yes, teddy
jester day
Jess the day
ye, study
yells today
Cake my way
@@mariobrenes4264 that sounds nothing like yesterday...
@@applehack97 but it sounds very much like "right now"
@@cvoque what...
A little bit of wobbly pitch is what gives common non-classical music it’s humanity. Same with the bent notes in “Can’t buy me love”. I’ll BUY you diamond rings my friend...
Exactly. A lot of the personality & expression of singers is in their slight-pitchiness. If you absolutely pitch-corrected Lennon or Robert Plant or Bowie or Reed or Debbie Harry or Amy Winehouse or Thom Yorke or... it wouldn't sound half as good. Recent pop music has blanded itself out with all of its pitch-correction on the vocals along with all the gridification of the instruments and beats. Unless pitch-perfection is your thing (you're Karen Carpenter or Alison Krauss or PC music say) then it's not your friend!
Excellent comment
I'm curious how modern autotune deals with blue notes, like in Soul and R&B of a few decades ago you had quite often the use of this note, which is a really really flat or wobbly tritone.
YEAH - listen to Jorma Kaukonen's solo on "Somebody to love" Hits every note in between the notes. Very indian sounding.
@@stoferb876 You can selectively autotune only certain parts of a vocal recording. And if you want to be really anal about it, you're able to tune vocals to an exact cent rather than the nearest note, so you could in theory still autotune that.
Or, My Theory: This guy has thought about this ALOT more than Paul McCartney ever did or any sane person ever should
We're talking about how to correctly sing (or play) one of the most recorded songs of all time. What's your problem?
I mean you're not wrong but the point of this video is to talk about the theory behind the songs, and no it isn't a crazy thing to think about because this is barely even getting into music theory or what is even argued at higher levels of theory
Don't know why you had to point out what was already obvious and still be snarky about it
Almost like that's how people learn things
Listen to at 7:32. David agrees it doesn’t matter whether one sings F or G. The point is about how our brains change what our ears hear and remember. I will use this lesson going forward to make me a better listener and to be less rigid with sheet music. Thanks David for your insightful videos.
Damn guys, he cracked the code for every song analysis 😂
he recorded Yesterday in the same day he recorded I'm Down, a totally different song
he gets a pass for been a bit out of tune
also, both F# and G works
I'm sorry, but F# doesn't work
@@julessedee8637 to be fair every 12 tone equal temperament normie here is calling it an F# when it's not. It really is just a ever so slightly sharp F, which the ear generally just interprets as the same note as the next couple Fs. It's sharp enough to be noticeable if you pay attention but most people would perceive that part where he sings that note as just the note F with a little more emotional emphasis.
@@bragtime1052 just say the word (microtonality) and you'll be free
@@julessedee8637 yes it does
And also "I've just seen a face" although I don't know in what order they were recorded.
The "ter" has a slight downward warble in pitch so the effect is heightened.
I'm not a musician, I'm just an amateur player. I listened to "Yesterday" many times. I was a small kid when it was first published back in the '60s so it's like it's part of my memory ever since. I feel the original version is still unsurpassed: that F# is in tune with the general sorrowful and dolente tone of the song. It could be accidental when it was recorded, but it witnesses the vibrant artistic mood McCarthy was living at the time
I am not a schooled musician. My, "I'm going to be a musician when I grow up" journey began in 1976. I was 8. I learned how to play several different instruments by "ear" alone, and practiced for (underestimating) thousands of hours (F U Maths!) I still practice a minimum of 2 hours per day.
That being said, the first "mistake" note simply sounds like a scoop on "ye", but it's such a small and inconsequential "note" in an otherwise brilliant accidental masterpiece. We could take practically every single pre-autotune era song and find these slightly off notes. Jazz and blues musicians utilize these seemingly micro tonal scoops/slides/bends as a way to put a feeling into a composition. Pianos may be limited when it comes to this, but it's still possible to create tension or feeling by playing "blue" notes. I'm sorry if I'm blathering on but, I would rather hear a "mistake" note over a perfectly pitched one. It's more honest and natural, and, well, human.
The live performance of "Je Suis Malade" featuring the talented Lara Fabian has, almost imperceptible moments of these notes, and it kicks me in the soul. It makes the melody so honest and pure. Check it out
Anyway, Great video!
The band King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard actually has an entire album playing around with this called Flying Microtonal Banana, i highly recommend it
Literally never thought it was anything but F F F
What a cluster F...
As a huge Beatles-fan, I bought myself guitars and learned to play them. My ambition was to learn my favorite Beatles-tunes. So I bought the complete Beatles scores sheet music. But even those contains errors. And talented people on RUclips with lessons do it differently. And as pointed out in this video, even McCartney himself performs the classics differently now compared to before. This is perhaps why music is such a special and almost mystical art form. It lives in the now, just when it is performed. Unless you record it...
If you’re listening late at night, you may think the band are not quite right, but they are. They just play it like that.
Very nice 😉😉
Clever! I won't spoil it by saying more. 😄
If you think the harmony is a little dark and out of key, you’re correct... There’s nobody there.
Have they told you there’s no one there?
(btw mate, it’s *when not if in the lyrics from the original comment^^ just sayin’)
GubbaNubNubDooRahKah, sorry, going on memory, I just wrote it like that.
Take a shot every time you hear yesterday
I do not advise this
David Bennett Piano Even a shot of beer might be pushing it.
David Bennett Piano It’s a joke
In music theory/ear training class we learned to hear a descending major 2nd using the opening of Yesterday. This was how I was taught by my theory instructor. It's fascinating to know we were technically taught wrong. That being said I often have trouble transcribing music because the singer or musicians, especially acoustic bass, play and sing notes slightly out of tune as compared to what I play at the piano. Ultimately I just have to pick the note I think fits best.
This has driven me crazy in covers for years. The strange shift in that note adds so much to the song but is rarely replicated. Thanks for pointing it out!
Yeah me too 😅
That's what I LOVE about this channel! Being able to analyze and study the affect and relationship of ONE NOTE, and it's placement in a song! And of course The Beatles are a cornucopia of excellent examples.
Thank you 🙏
I work at a piano shop and my coworker has been singing Yesterday wrong for numerous years. This shall now be my little secret
As a songwriter myself, albeit virtually unknown, I rarely sing my own compositions the same way twice.
Are you really writing it then if your melody is fairly random
@@Viper-dz2kw When you sing a song from the heart sometimes your heart is in a different place.
Obvious solution: get two of your friends and sing it as an FGA cluster chord
Get another friend to sing a C. Tada! You have the Fadd2 (or Fadd9) chord
This might be an over-analysis of what could be no more than artistic license. Not only Paul does this, but every singer puts they own spin on every song.
That's not the point: of course Paul can sing the song as he wishes. The point is that others have trusted their eyes more than the ears and dutifully followed the dots without listening. Putting music down on paper creates an 'Urtext', which this melody never was.
@@maskaraid4763 Yeah sometimes some people forget that music is about hearing, not reading it..
But yeah still I agree that this video kinda gets out of it a bit.
They've been singing Yesterday not accurately but not wrong. After all, music is for all people to enjoy to (except people with certain disabilities of course.) The thing is, even some people not realizing the note they sing is wrong it's not that important because the feeling about the song is still the same. It's still Yesterday..
I take back that the video is getting out of hand btw I probably just don't like how he tells that it's "wrong."
@@devo6413 I have always sang Yesterday as F-F-F (and probably in a similar pithciness to Paul, though definitely not intentional on my part). Not G-F-F.
I agree, and suspect that if you asked Paul to write it out, he'd do it with the G as the first note. I think we're reading way too much into vocal inflections (and assuming Paul's pitch was perfectly accurate) here.
Given that Paul isn't a trained singer, isn't it more likely he was just flat a couple of times during the recording?
Given that Paul sings really really well, it's also possible that he and everyone else in the studio just thought that it sounded good.
Is it more likeky that he sang it 150 cents too flat or 50 cents too sharp ? This argument makes no sense. What he sings is closer to an F, and an F makes sense in the context, so why would it be a very very flat G ?
@@samylemzaoui2298 Because this was a time period where you had to splice physical tape to get more than one take together for a track. People didn't do one section over and over until it sounded right, they sang the whole song and then compared takes to try and get something as close to what they wanted as possible. Not to mention a common problem for a singer to have is being off on the first note of a song. If he sang the first note kind of flat, but the rest of the take was brilliant, and the flat note still sounds ok, why wouldn't they just take it?
@@MegaMistborn i doubt many people will agree with you, but I think you make a great point
@@MegaMistborn yeah but why do you want that note to be a G so hard ? What you said could also be applied if he meant to sing an F so your point is invalid. Whatever he wanted to sing, he sang it a bit off, that is not the point. He is closer to an F so to me it's only logical that we notate it as F instead of G. Of course he could've wanted to sing a G, but there is no evidence leading you to that conclusion.
The amount of work that went into the analysis of this song is astounding
Students: Is the presentation today?
Teacher: 🎶Yes! Today 🎶
sorry if it's corny XD
This is the kind of detail we want! Excellent video. Thank you for all of your hard work. :)
Thank you!
Thank you David... I've been trying to play it and felt that something is going wrong with the melody... but I wasen't able to detect the problem.. now you solved it.
😀
I think it's an ornamentation and that he begins on f and there's a slight ripple and then he's back on f. It's just a natural thing to avoid the monotonous (literally) repetition of f's. Just couldn't be bothered to make it up to the g.
Really interesting stuff! For me, the F-F-F version sounds definitely more "correct" than the "G-F-F", at least at the beginning of the song, as a "cold start" so to say. It would be nice if Paul McCartney would give a statement of how he really "meant" the note ... if he actually knows himself!
Agreed 🙂
best comment on here.
he's also a northerner and and we northerners have flat vowel sounds.
I agree about the F F F cold start, then Suddenly sounds better with G F F.
@William G Danson I listened to two: one from the same year as the record was released (he sings a G) ruclips.net/video/wXTJBr9tt8Q/видео.html
and one from recently (he sings an F).
This is a question which did not need to be asked, and has no answer.
all of your videos are so eye opening i love itt
1:02 but it's obviously closer to f# than to f!? (if you take the vertical center of the letters)
Great video, never noticed that.
0:38 windows error sound effect has me cackling
That’s very well, I suppose.
However, the appoggiatura G>F melody makes way more sense than F>F.
Consider that the downward appoggiatura features another two times along the stanza (“far away” E>D over the Dm chord and "hide away" Bb>A over an F chord) and then the stanza closes with an upward appoggiatura ("yesterday" F>A over the last Bb and F chords).
I think that people can hear that McCartney *aimed* at a G.
David, you've nailed the difference between "sang" and "sung"! Not just a musical genius and a talented teacher, but also a linguist. I'm proud of you! ;)
Can’t just it be him going out of tune
I would say unlikely.
@@theredshirts7245 pretty likely tbh, no singer is perfect and paul is not clasical trained musician so he most likely just sung what sounded good to his ears and his brain probably went for the G or F at the start BUT, in the take he used he went a bit flat because is the first sillabe to come out of his mouth, and it is such a brief thing that he probably didnt even notice, and I would go as far to say that the flat note gives the melody a bit more personality, like it makes it start in a melancholic, nonchalant kind of feel.
yep pretty much, but people iconize so much they can't even see the obvious, sounds good anyway
My thought, he was singing the way he felt. As did most everybody else in the industry. Mention a metro to the band before you start recording. See how far that will get you.
Precisely. I can't wait for David Bennett Piano to tell us the correct notes of Bob Dylan's songs and how everyone's been doing it wrong.
As someone who has always learned and played better by ear and used sheet music as more of a "reminder" of the notes, seeing the thumbnail really confused me because I've always known it to be the same note in the first verse. Good video. I've been getting a lot your videos recommended lately and they're always interesting to watch.
Another excellent video, thank you David.
Thanks Peter!
When the singer makes a recording mistake and causes this video years later
Diedre Carmo human perception deserves even more videos, it fascinates me
Yes. Try to sing the first note as an F. It would sound wrong. This video is just a result of Pauls “slappy” singing, nothing more. Then the music sheet writers need to figure out the note and document it. It will of course land on a G-note.
Dag B it would sound “wrong” because ad 1. You have heard it a thousand times with G. ad2. It’s not a straight F, it would be like pinning a blue note to a fixed pitch.
The question still remains. What note is it supposed to be? How should it be sung? Paul sings it differently each time if you consider the blue notes.
Dag B I suppose it’s half sung, half spoken. If i had to notate it, I would write an “x” notehead on the closest pitch, every time a different one.
This is why Leonard Bernstein suggested the term "exact music" to describe what most people mean by "classical music". However, a phrase that captures even better what Bernstein meant would be "composer-specified music". He said the difference between what most consider classical and other pieces is that the performers and the performances, and in many cases the arrangement, make a great deal of difference in other types of music, such that the pieces can share the same name and yet be extremely different, while the classical composer tries to be an auteur and specify the piece in great detail, allowing only sometimes for differences in instrumentation. Nobody thinks of a recorded version of a classical piece as a "cover" of the original, and it takes an aficionado's ear to recognize a difference in orchestra or conductor or performance.
Oh thank god, as a singer I always hear the “f” and everyone thinks I’m nuts
That's interesting. As soon as I read the title, I thought "oh you're right, it's an F!"
I would suggest the reason we hear the G is because of what happens at the end of the line (when he sings "far away") - another three note pattern, but this one does go from a higher note to a lower note. So we hear that motif, and we fill in the motif at the beginning of the phrase. And it happens again "here to stay" etc. Great video
brilliant
Thanks!
A pretty amazing detail to have recognised there, David. And your video is extremely well-presented! Such a keen ear you have. Enjoyed that immensely!! :-)
There was a similar story going around with people wondering why Cold Chisel and Crowded House sheet music was so complex. Don Walker of cold chisel said it shouldn’t be and the sheet music was transcribed by the lead singer of Icehouse who only had a portable record player which played records slightly slower than the real tempo.
❗️EXTRA DISCUSSION: A lot of commenters have suggested that Paul just sang flat, hence the “wrong” note. However, I think it more likely that he sang sharp!
Paul sang a slightly sharp “F”, so it’s more likely that he was aiming for the “F” and sang a little bit sharp. If Paul was aiming for “G” then he would be almost a whole tone flat which is quite significantly out.
Also, as I addressed in the video, he also sings verse 3 with a “A”, so to suggest he was a tone flat on the first verse, you would also have to suggest he was a tone sharp on the third verse.
Of course, perhaps Paul's intention was to sing the motif the same way all 4 times that it appears in the song. But even if that was his intention, surely the original studio recording of the song should be considered the ultimate, canon version of the melody? That, after all, is the version that The Beatles officially released.
Thanks for watching 🙏🎵
A straight f sounds crap, relating especially to the rest of the melodic motions.
@@DeVibe. a whole tone sharp? Absolutely not a common mistake unless you're tone deaf
I'm pretty sure Paul meant it to be F but it just sounds a bit sharp on the original recording. I just listened to a live version and his first "yes" note is clearly a same note as the notes on "ter - day" here: ruclips.net/video/lH5x1ChYhcI/видео.html
@@LindonBindon
It does. And it doesn't sound as cool.
Like he's not concentrating yet.
I too think he sings sharp, in Melodyne you can see him sliding up from a “d” so he probably just slides too high by the time he starts the note. The “a” note is also some kind of “over-aiming”.
all i know is i looked up the chords once and then immediately clicked out after seeing all the chords i don't know how to play.
That explains. I play by ear, and for some reason I could never get it right. I'd revert to F#, but it always felt too high.
Your videos are making me appreciate music and the artists in a much deeper way. Thank you. Just a fan, not musical.
Thank you 😊
Thanks for this video. For a long time, I thought people were not singing it right like Paul did. Now it is officially explained. This is so cool.
100%. I don't think I have perfect pitch but I know what many many songs should sound like and I can pick out a wrong note straight away. This song is a good example. Like Blackbird, it is a deceptively simple little melody that is in fact exceptionally difficult to replicate exactly.
Very interesting David, thanks. I'm so glad to see young musicians, like you are, enjoying the Beatles so much.
I always heard the whole word "yesterday" as an F.
I can't read music. So this is all kinds of wild to me.
I know what you mean. As a kid when I heard the opening of the song I sometimes thought he just sings all one note at the opening and other times it sounded like he started on a 'higher' note on 'yes'. So there was always an ambivalence there. But I did notice the definitely higher note he uses on the same phrase later in the song. Then a year or two later when I saw the sheet music I thought oh that must be it. But sheet music, especially pop sheet music can be wrong sometimes.
There are apparently exactly TWO kinds of people in the world, and only two: those who hear F FF and those who hear G FF. Maybe it's a silly point. But I have always heard it as G FF and think this is kind of fascinating.
Me either, I've never ever sang that note in G.
Note identification is actually Fourier transformation. In short notes like this there are insufficient dots on the function (amplitude-time) to transform this tone accurately.
Also in my identification this is glissando. it's 4-5 44 not 5 44. However such a "slide note" is omitted on piano sheet as they can't gliss as guitars do.
Didn't know this! I think your videos are very informative! I'm a piano player and I'm very happy you can make something as boring as music theory really interesting!
It could be that, even without hearing the later instances (2nd/4th occasions), we hear the first "Yesterday" as a descending phrase because it's a nostalgic, wistful song. Nostalgia/wistfulness/melancholy/etc are commonly conveyed by appoggiaturas ("leaning notes"), so perhaps we expect one to be there, even if it's not.
ftumschk Yes. And also in the first verse, you could say this motif&rhyme comes back as more appoggiaturas...(“far away” “here to stay”).
Here is one I've always noticed. On the first occurrence of the lyric "Now I long for yesterday", Paul holds the F note for four beats. On the second occurrence of that lyric, Paul drops from F to C-Bb-A. Most other versions I've heard, do the F-C-Bb-A drop both times.
This is SO weird that you posted this. I'm recording vocals for a song of my own. It has some quick note changes. One of them is the same type of one-step walkdown that people think Paul sings in Yesterday. Anyway, at one point I did the same "slightly sharp root note down to the root note" pattern by mistake. I left it because I thought it sounded fine. And now I feel vindicated.
Sorry, you’re wrong. The the melody is G-F-F in the beginning, even though technically it never hits the G. Let me explain: vowels ”ye” ramp up towards the note G, after that comes noteless ”s”. Since ”s” has no note, our brain fills in the gap. It doesn’t have to show up in meters to feel like G.
Yep, that's just what I was thinking
that doesn't make any sense, the note is not G, our distorted perception of reality doesn't change reality, otherwise the earth would be flat because it looks flat.
Daniel Azevedo usually I would agree with you. But sometimes context is more than the measurement. Fedex logo has a hidden arrow in the negative space. Here the letter S in yesterday is noteless so it’s sort of melodic negative space, and our brain fills it with G because of the ramp in ”ye”.
@@pera1295 In music and language, perception plays a very important role in determining the categories of elements actually - that's the difference between phonetics and phonemics.
Funny, try to go down on the "ye(s)"syllable. Seems very hard to me, you almost only can go up.
Not only an F, or not even actually an F, But a "slightly sharp F." Well, that's interesting. I could hear it clearly as soon as you pointed it out. And IMO it sounds best as the slightly blue note, with that microtonal nuance. It really makes a difference. I can hardly wait till we get completely away from A-G (or A-H as some prefer) and talk about frequencies and frequency relationships. I've been waiting patiently since the early 1980s for the 12-tone equal temperament bias to die its long overdue death. The problem is that it's familiar and relatively "simple" and it works, up to a point anyway. So, who's going to be the genius who comes up with a new way forward that encompasses and empowers all that the human imagination can do with sounds as music?
My parents bought the single when it was a hit. I've been singing this F-F-F all my life.
Actually, it does make a huge difference. If you start out with the same note repeated three times, the effect of the following phrase of nine notes is far more dramatic.
it is not the same note, it is a slightly sharp F
Got a good laugh out of me with the "Faul" 😂
I think Paul is just pitchy. His voice is flat.
No
That’s exactly what I was thinking too
It sounds “good” tho
How dare you.
Address him properly. "I think SIR Paul is just pitchy."
I think he was trying to hit an F and was sharp.
Actually love this video! X
Thank you!
Dude, people also use sheet music to play the song on an instrument. How do you play a "slightly sharp F" on a piano? How do you write a "slightly sharp F" in music notation for the voice or instruments which can play it? The transcribers you mention are not simply transcribing what they hear, they need to make judgement calls when the notes fall "in the cracks". I think it is reasonable to assume that Paul meant to sing G as the opening note.
In a practical sense, if the lyrics "yesterday" and "suddenly" were on different notes, it would make the transcription confusing when repeat signs are used, necessitating cue notes and such. Sorry, but this is a 9-plus-minute video about nothing...
For my dinner, I'm going to have "scrambled egg", but not sure of the first note though. I could get away with a G# if pushed. :) :)
Nice 😂
Scrambled eggs, oh my baby how I love your legs
But not as much as I love scrambled eggs
Fish and chips-oh my baby how I love your lips...
I love stuff like this!! Proves that you’re not imagining things!!
My 1979 copy of Beatles Complete also has it as starting on G down to F. My recently bought book on fingerpicking Beatles songs has it starting on A down to G. I've made a note of the error in the 1979 book.
How easy is that software to use to isolate vocal lines? I’ve always wanted to analyse the vocals and see the notes especially for songs with no sheet music
.
The software shown in this video, Melodyne, will not isolate parts it's used for pitch correction.
By far the best software for your use would be Izotope RX, its very easy to use. Important to note however that even the BEST software gives average results as separation is an incredibly difficult process.
For best results try it on songs that include little or no effects on the vocal, such as reverb or delay.
Time based FX make vocal separation impossible.
A good resource for doing what you want to do, analysing top line melody, is a website called Hooktheory.
It shows you the chords & melody of a song in the context of music theory. Its database of songs is limited, you cant find every song on there, however its an invaluable resource for learning IMHO.
There are a bunch of Beatles isolated vocals videos here on RUclips. I believe some of them use the Rock Band game as source material. Pretty cool and impressive stuff.
Thanks to everyone who replied, appreciate it...I thought it would be difficult for software to pick out vocals from the music. I like to write piano transcripts to incorporate the vocals with chords which are obviously easier to potentially work out
Really interesting, as always. Thank you.
Thanks :)
I learn to play many songs by ear so on my violin I play it in G instead of F so I play A G G and so forth. So you're right in that my mind hears "re" "do" as the first two notes. I haven't listened to The Beatles original before I tried to play it. i also have the Beatles complete songbook(Hal Leonard) and the song begins on G. Thanks for the video.
Thank you David Bennet!!! Been playing this song lately and this has been driving me crazy! I thought it was just me haha.
Next Video: „wonderwall isnt C# to B“
Today...today...today...
What then, "tomorrow from Annie isn't Eb-F-Eb?"
Tomorrow... Tomorrow... Tomorrow...
God it is really sharp isn’t it? But I’d never thought of it before this
Wow, this proves that I am not tone deaf all along.
Thank you, David. I once had an argue wirh my son's violin teacher, in which that first F was my point and he was denying it. Now I can die in peace... 😬
Woahhh it’s ok what are you planning to do? You have many things to live for . Forget about that teacher, it’s not worth dying over you can just show him this video to prove it dying will not prove it! Hopefully you ok and speak to your son!