[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:A Hard Day's Night (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleA Hard Day's Night (song) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 7, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
October 22, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 19, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that there is some debate about whether a Gm7 add 11 or G sus 4th chord opens the Beatles' "A Hard Day's Night"?
Current status: Former featured article

Older entries

[edit]

The idea expressed in the following sentence framgents are somewhat accurate though not appropriate for this article. It would be more appropriate under Lennon/McCartney. 69.22.223.38 05:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)WBFromNJ@Aol.com[reply]

though the two of them did not actually work on many of their songs together — instead, one would write the majority of the song, and the other would critique it. (In some cases, even when there was no input from the other Beatle, such as on "Yesterday", both of them would still be credited as authors.) It was a symbiosis that could be described as friendly competition.[citation needed]


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_%28song%29"

The following sentence is complete nonsense and speaks volumes about the problem with an online project where anyone can write anything they wish regardless of their knowledge of the topic: "Both Lennon and McCartney were credited as co-authors, though the two of them did not actually work on their songs together — instead, one would write the majority of the song, and the other would critique it." In fact, they did compose a number of early songs together. It's amazing that for all of the talk about the opening chord, which could only be a matter of conjecture to someone who can't hear it -- basic details such as authorship slip by. (RTL) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.79.74 (talk • contribs).

I fixed the sentence by adding 3 words, which speaks volumes about the why this is a great project. Rather than complain, you could have easily fixed the sentence. Anyone can write anything they wish regardless of their knowledge of the topic, but that doesn't mean it will remain. Sometimes, things can slip by uncorrected for quite some time, like the sentence you pointed out. Many people who criticize Wikipedia for this sort of thing I think are missing a much bigger point. You should not trust anything you read at face value. At least with wikipedia, you can look at the history of a page and see all the different iterations of an article, and you can read the talk page to get a sense of the underlying editorial bias and decision-making. I often think I learn more from talk pages than I do from the articles. -- Samuel Wantman 07:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did not fix the sentence. It is still incorrect. What you refer to as a complaint is just one individual voicing his opinion. It would be wonderful to have a repository of factual information here. The problem occurs when folks try to write about a subject they don't understand. Because anyone can write whatever they wish here, no matter how well-intended they may be, it is virtually a given that a great deal of misinformation will slip through most of the articles. Further, most folks are not good writers. (RTL)

Here is something else which speaks to the boneheadedness of an online project such as this: "The instrumental break, is often credited to George Harrison on a 12 string. This is not necessarily so. The break may have been played by George Martin on a harpsichord." Who often credits Harrison? What do the authors mean by "not necessarily so"? Is it so, or isn't it so? Was the break played by Martin or not? How was the instrument recorded? (A hint: half speed). When an entry is written in a virtual committee, like this one, what else can the reader expect but sentences which hedge their bets, incorrect and incomplete information, and an inconsistent prose style? (RTL)

Opening chord

[edit]
Ahem, pardon, excuse me, why has nobody mentioned that this is the EXACT chord used on The Pixies - Here Comes Your Man????
May I suggest clarification to the following sentence in the article?....."According to Walter Everett (1999: 13,19,312), the opening chord is a major subtonic ninth (♭VII, read "flat seven", plus the seventh and ninth, in G major: F A C E G)"........ The "flat seven" in question is of course not that within the chord (it would be D# in the subtonic F chord); rather a label for the subtonic chord itself. I initially found this rather confusing.

Isn't the problem with the opening chord that there are actually two guitars playing, like John and George? One is playing G7sus4, and another is playing G6, or so is my understanding. Adam Bishop 00:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a musician, so I'm not too sure. Actually, I'm hardly musically-inclined — when I first heard the song, I thought it was a percussion instrument. Your reasoning sounds plausible, though. Maybe you could add it to the article? Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I should probably confirm it first :) It's possible that it is just customary to transcribe the opening for two guitars, even if that's not what the Beatles did. I'll see what I can find. Adam Bishop 12:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is llsus? Sebastian 05:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed it. Johnleemk | Talk 06:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fixed it also in the "Did you know..." section on the main page. Femto 16:09, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good article, but I would take minor issue with the sentence: '"A Hard Day's Night" is probably the only Beatles song that is recognisable within two seconds.'

While I know what the writer intended, a random sampling of my Beatles collection shows that some tracks which are instantly recognisable are Something, Ticket to Ride, Help (whose first word is "Help"), Eleanor Rigby, etc. In fact an average Beatles fan would recognise almost any Beatles song within two seconds.

It's worth mentioning because one of the most stunning achievements of the Beatles is their unique skill with intros.

--Attila the Pooh 10:29, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed it to something more accurate. Johnleemk | Talk 14:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's still a "the" too many. But before someone goes there and deletes just that word - can't we just delete the whole blather about "one of the few" and limit ourselves to real information?
I've rephrased it even more this time. Johnleemk | Talk 16:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This song's intro definitely is more unique than just "two seconds" or "before the vocals". How about "immediately recognisable only by the first note", if one can ignore the fact that technically a chord is more than one note (is it?). I kinda liked "recognisable", it gave the sentence that "british" aura. Femto 18:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added some new research on the opening chord. I heard about it on "As It Happens" the CBC radio program broadcast sometimes on PBS. To hear the report listen about 13 minutes into the following: [1] --Samuel Wantman 07:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


A chord like the one at the start of "A Hard Day's Night" fascinated me as a university music student in the 60's but I am more doubtful now as to whether this was a chord designed by the Beatles or George Martin. The same effect is produced at the end of "A Day in the Life" and I feel sure that this monolithic chord was Martin's doing and not the boys'. Please convince me otherwise - as I age all my heroes are developing feet of clay. 16 Oct 2004

Martin did not "design" the chord at the end of A Day In The Life anymore than he designed the chord used to open A Hard Day's Night. (RTL)

Note on this point under: Who done it? below...
I've long come to think of the Beatles as John, Paul, George, Ringo and George Martin. Take one of them out of the mix and quite a bit of the magic would be gone. George Martin is one of my heroes. No need for clay. --Samuel Wantman 09:38, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous. George Martin was not a member of The Beatles. He was a superb producer. (RTL)

I would guess it was Martin. If I remember correctly he was responsible for their pandiatonicism. Hyacinth 01:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
According to Walter Everett (1999: 21) Martin was largely responsible for the quality (if not the content) of the introductions, codas, and fade-outs. Hyacinth 20:46, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Martin didn't write the introductions and could not be "largely responsible" for them. (RTL)

From users' discussion

It's been over 20 years since I took music theory, but i'd just call this a tone cluster. You're probably better at this, what do you think? --Samuel Wantman 22:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the song available for listening, as that sometimes clears up immediately whether notes are coloristic or not.
I would probably agree with you: call it a pandiatonic cluster (whose root is D). However, there are two things I notice about the chord:
  • The pitch classes can be lined up in a cycle of fifths: F-C-G-D-A-E
  • The pitch classes can also be lined up in a series of thirds: D-F-A-C-E-G
Neither is suggested by the spacing or inversion, except that a series of thirds seems more likely in popular music and having D in the bass suggests itself as the root. One could thus interpret it simply as D11 extended chord. Hyacinth 01:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You wrote in the article:
The song is in the key of G major, making the above bVII9 chord F-A-C-E-G, and in 4/4 time.
but what about the D that is so prominent in the chord? George plays it, and Paul and George Martin reinforce it. All the discussions about the chord are making things very confusing for the reader. I can barely follow it all, and they contradict each other. The research you cite is older than the reseach I cited about professor Brown. I'd re-edit all of this myself, chronologically, If I understood it well enough to do it justice, but I think you'd do a better job if you're willing. --Samuel Wantman 21:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First, every piece of music is analysed in many divergent ways. If this wasn't the case analyses would not need to be done as the "truth" would be immediately apparent. The best service we can do for readers is to provide at least a sampling of the full variety of interpretations of a given piece.
Second, I don't know who considers the chord a G chord of any variety, but that is extremely unlikely, in my opinion. According to Alan W. Pollack's notes [2] the chord "functions as a surrogate dominant (i.e. V) with respect to the chord on G which begins the first verse". Given this I would feel fine about removing the claim that the opening chord is any G chord, and that would reduce the variety. Hyacinth 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also note that Prof. Brown doesn't interpret his data at all and that a chords function should not be confused with its structure.
I also attempted to indicate clearly in the article Everett's analytic situation. He is more likely to interpret the chord as a bVII because he is only making that point as part of a larger argument that the bVII is important and often used in The Beatles' music. He also has a much more compelling reason, which is that the bVII is used throughout "A Hard Day's Night" and thus the opening chord is more likely to be (re)interpreted as a bVII. Hyacinth 22:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I did try a re-edit, and hope I have not offended you by it. I understand more from your comments on my talk page than I did from what you wrote in the article. I tried to make the article more readable for a general reader. I you want to go into a more detailed analysis, I think you should explain it in more detail. Thanks, --Samuel Wantman 22:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No offense, you greatly improved the order of the information. I readded the technical details you removed. Hopefully they are written and located more clearly. Hyacinth 22:42, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
end paste
I still don't understand why the D is missing from the analysis of the chord in the article since it is played by both Harrison on the 12 string and McCartney on the bass. After reading the 2 paragraphs I can't help but think "What about the D?" --Samuel Wantman 05:34, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My bulleted statements above are not original research, since they are self-evident. Any interpretation of those statements without a citation would be original research. I added an attempt at explination according to Alan W. Pollack in the article. Hyacinth 06:10, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for "some have said it is Gm7add11 (G Bb C D F), while others state that is Gsus4 (G C D). Still others contend the chord played was a G7sus4"? Who is this mysterious "some" and their friend "others"? Hyacinth 22:04, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because, actually looking at the claims, I realized they are ridiculous.
  • According to Alan W. Pollack, the opening chord is a "surrogate dominant". The song cleary is in G major, and the chord which opens the first verse (ie, the chord which directly follows the opening chord) is a G major chord. Thus the opening chord can not be a G chord of any kind. Even to a lay listener it is obviously not the same chord as the one which follows, and thus CAN'T BE A G CHORD.
  • There could be no debate over whether it is a G4 or G11 chord, as 4=11 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8/1,9/2,10/3,11/4), THEY ARE THE SAME THING.
  • I have found no source which says the chord is any kind of a G chord.
I can only conclude that the claim "some have said it is Gm7add11 (G Bb C D F), while others state that is Gsus4 (G C D). Still others contend the chord played was a G7sus4" is original research and never belonged on the article, nevermind the main page.
In my opinion disinformation such as this should not make it to the main page, but I am not sure how to prevent it. Hyacinth 19:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reproducing the Chord

[edit]

I've been reading about this chord for years, and I thought I had it figured out, so I put it to the test and I recorded my version. I ended up doing many adjustments and you can listen to the final version here: AHDN-Chord-Redone It is the closest I could get to it after trying many different chords and recording setups.

My recording details:

  1. I listened closely to the 2009 remastered stereo version because of the better sound and the split instruments on the channels.
  2. On the left channel I discerned: 12 String Rickenbacker, bass, kick drum, snare and crash cymbal.
  3. on the right channel I discerned: Piano, J-160E and soft snare and crash cymbal (spill?).
  4. To match the instruments I used my 1965 Rickenbacker 360/12, an Ibanez bass (I wish I had a Hofner), a Takamine 330 six string electro-acoustic (I tried my Gibson J200, but the Takamine was a much closer match to the sound), and a Line 6 keyboard to record the rest.
  5. on left channel:
    1. the Rickenbacker: I played the F9 chord muting the low E and A strings and playing -from low to high- F-A-C-G
    2. Kick drum, snare and crash
    3. Bass: D on the 12 fret
  6. on the right channel:
    1. The Takamine replacing the J-160E: G7sus4: low to high: G-D-F-C-D-G (from all the different guitars I tried I'm convinced he used this one and not his Rick nor another guitar, knowing what they had at hand in the studio)
    2. Piano: G2(A2)-D3-G3 (The piano seems to hit an A2 and then pick it up, "mistake"?)
    3. Soft snare and crash cymbal.
  7. After laying that in the tracks I had to go through EQ and some effects to get closer to the sound:
    1. The bass has a "wobble", I used a chorus to imitate it. I'm not sure they had them back then, but it helped me.
    2. John's guitar seems to be slightly distorted so I played with the input gain to try to match it.
    3. Paul has mentioned that he can't "ride" the digital recording equipment like they did with the analog systems. This seems to be a perfect example of that.
    4. I know they used compressors to record, and I used my digital compressors excessively and I feel I still fell short there. Not only were the Beatles geniuses, and George Martin, but the engineers were up there with them every step of the way.

My conclusion is that this chord is an engineering feat as much as it is musical genius. It's not perfect but it's the closest I could get to it after 2 days.

Hope it helps. TomasMFC (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who done it?

[edit]

Concerning the authorship of "The Chord," in an interview, either on the "Beatles Anthology" or the Miramax "Hard Day's Night" DVDs, George Martin attributes the chord to John Lennon, not himself, as someone speculated. Though work on the intro may have been at Martin's prodding.

Also, the way Martin talks about it indicates that the chord was/can be played by a SINGLE guitar, unlike sheet transcriptions mentioned.

I beleive he comments that he has no idea what the chord is, for an extra bit of trivia. -- portly podge (Oct 13 2005 2:32PST)

Of course the chord can be played on a single guitar. (RTL)

A hard day's night opening chord

[edit]

Ok I think I have nailed this one. The chord is G11sus4. It is played on a guitar thus: barre the third fret,play the second string on the fifth fret and do the same for the fourth string. The notes read: G,D,F,C,D,G. An incredible chord and the portent of things to come way back in 1964/65!!

First, there are sources which argue against your interpretation, how do you explain that? Secondly, an 11th chord (an extended chord) can not be an add 4, because the 11th is the 4th:
1 3 5 7 9/2 11/4
G B D F A C
Thus I would call what you are describing a G7add4. Hyacinth 19:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Except there's no B in the chord, so that makes it a G7sus4. Although I don't claim that's what it is; see other discussion here. --Locarno 16:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Hyacinth 19:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: in tablature books (published by...I forget, but whoever publishes all the standard tab books), the chord described above (G11sus4) is what is used. I have also seen a transcription with, on top of that, a second guitar playing G6, I guess (my music theory knowledge is crap) - G, B, D, and A, the A on the fifth fret of the first string. That has the problem of having both a 3rd and a suspended 4th, though. A good way to combine it is to play the G11sus4, adding that A note on the first string. I'm not sure what that would be called, but it gives it the shape of a Dm7 with a G bass note. Perhaps another reason the first G chord of the song itself sounds different is because it is an open chord, while the G (or whatever) at the beginning is a barre chord. Adam Bishop 19:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be two different discussions happening here at the same time. One is a music theory question, and the other is how the chord can be played on a guitar. If we assume that professor Brown's research is correct, then there is no question of about what the guitars were playing. I haven't played guitar in years, but It looks like George was playing a normally tuned 12 string. He probably only strummed the top 10 strings (not playing the bottom e2 and e3. The next 6 strings were open, and the two b3 strings were played on the first fret making them c4. The same finger probably damped the top 2 strings. The music theory question is much more complicated because the notes can be interpreted as being many different chords. I think a Dm7sus4 makes sense just from looking at the notes that were played, but that doesn't mean that a guitar player would play a Dm7sus4 and get the correct sound. Everett & Pollack's research also adds interesting analyses of how the chord relates to the entire song. So can we put this to rest? --Samuel Wantman 00:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Brown's analysis: this commenter on another article on the chord points out some key characteristics of Harrison's Rickenbacker 12-string that are likelier to account for the sound than Brown's analysis, which seems (IMHO) willfully ignorant of the way a guitarist would think. I cannot imagine Harrison playing the chord Brown says he played (bottom 4 strings open except B string fretted first fret to produce a C), nor can I imagine Lennon deciding to add an arbitrary, single C 8 frets up on the E string...and I certainly can't imagine Martin (the only trained musician in the bunch) adding those weird high notes on the piano that aren't even individually audible in the recording. Those are much likelier to be overtones arising from amplification and the combination of instruments. Just because Brown used "science" doesn't mean there aren't other ways to arrive at the notes in the recording than players actually playing those notes. 2fs (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In listening to this chord (which I think is the most effective way to judge its role in the piece), I hear the D most prominently as the sounding root of the chord, and the G slightly less prominently as an added note. Brown's research seems to support the D as an important note. The chord sounds like it has a dominant function (meaning that it creates tension that leads to a resolution in the tonic); this can be illustrated by playing D-C-B-A-G between the first chord and the opening of the song. Given all this, I am more inclined to label it as a type of Dsus4 (the added fourth anticipates the tonic of the piece). --TobyRush 17:10, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't appear in the ogg sample

[edit]

It's too bad that this much-discussed opening chord doesn't appear in the sound file linked in the article's intro. --Doradus 16:28, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Mono/Stereo versions?

[edit]

It would be worth to mention that there are at least two released versions of this song. - Don't ask me, all I know is that I was disappointed that the (faster, stereo) version on The_Beatles_1 wasn't the (european market?, mono) version that I liked - and incidentally, I did notice it immediately from the opening chord.

Could this explain the chord disparities, because people in different parts of the world talk about different recordings? The .ogg sample appears to be the stereo version, only in mono. It's a pity that it doesn't include the opening chord, now that it got so much attention. Femto 11:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A (the?) mono version that sounds familiar to me is on Anthology 1, but that can't be where I heard it first. According to this list of takes it's take 1, which is not unlike take 3, that was used for the title track of the film. Can the chord be that unique that I remember it as the 'right' one years (decades!?) after hearing it somewhere? I'm not a big radio listener, it's possible that I've never heard the 'right' song until recently.
What disturbs me with above list is that take 9 "turns out to be, for the most part, the commercially released version of the song" [bolding mine]. So it could be that my Dad's old records played some obscure UK single film soundtrack version or what? I spent some time a-googling but apparently didn't know the right technical terms to find it out. Do you too sometimes have this weird feeling of living in a parallel universe? Femto 13:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Malapropism?

[edit]

I don't think this qualifies as a malapropism, despite the fact that McCartney used the term. Which word is Starr supposed to have thought meant something that it didn't? What word was he confusing it with? Josh Cherry 18:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. There is not a single example of an actual malaporpism in the entire article, event though the word is used 6.0*10^0 times. And what's with the redundant "and was the title song for their album of the same name"? Jeffrey L. Whitledge 20:51, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Some online dictionaries define it as 'a ludicrous misuse of a word' or 'humorous misuse or distortion of a phrase'. Saying "day" instead of "night" in this context fits the definition more than well, I'd say. That it's further specified as 'also or especially the confusion with a word that sounds similar' doesn't make the first definition wrong. It's way too late trying to keep the use of "malapropism" 'clean', and the word worked for me. Femto 15:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Besides, "gaffe" doesn't fit at all in my opinion. It seems to go more into the direction of 'clumsy social error' and 'blatant mistake'. He just could have said "it's been a hard day" and that's it, no mistake, not funny, even though it's night. Or, if it's a 'britishism', it either needs to be awkwardly explained to some readers, or the word shouldn't be used too often or without a 'funny gaffe' qualifier. Femto 15:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a 100% fitting word for this kind of 'retroactive malapropism' that distorts a phrase by actually correcting something that wasn't wrong until after it did so. If you can't find a word, invent one. The current solution of calling the Ringo-ism by what they called it is so simple it's brilliant again. The heading is quite terse and looks a little like a tabloid headline maybe. It also appeared reasonable to split off the second half of this section into a separate "The making" part. Femto 14:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is it? Natural.

[edit]

What is &#9838. It is not showing up in my browser. Hyacinth, is this from you? --Samuel Wantman 11:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, its from me. It should be a natural and doesn't show on my browser either. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Musical mark up and Help:Special characters. Hyacinth 20:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lead sheet

[edit]

The lead sheet is in C major, while the piece (at least my recording of it) is in G major. I'm a newbie... am I missing something? --TobyRush 17:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[confirming that the lead sheet is in C and should be in G - also, there are incorrect rhythm and pitches even in C.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD00:7AC3:E595:31A7:A6BD:69C9 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the song as being in G, though the source of the lead sheet, Richard Middleton, considers it to be in C major and gives no reason. Having verifying the lead sheet by playing along with the recording I can only guess that Middleton is describing the key signature of the lead sheet and not the key of the song. Hyacinth 20:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The key signature of C Major (no sharps or flats) is identical to the key signature of G Mixolydian. Hence the presumable confusion. Whig 19:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The lead sheet shows chords for performance in G, but notation for performance in C. If the music is played as it stands, the notes and chords won't match. 88.111.239.234 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a key signature in the notated music does not mean that the piece is not in G Major (which may be indicated by a key signature of one sharp, f). Hyacinth (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only but agree to this highly CONFUSING paragraph! The ugly notation was it too which brought me to look into this discussion here! The first note should be a 'B1'. While keeping all the chord stuff, the leading first voice should be transposed one fifth. -andy 92.229.138.184 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraphs

[edit]

I removed the following from the article:

2005: Everett claims he is misquoted on wiki: "There is no E in the chord, and Everett's *Beatles As Musicians* does not say there is. BAM I (pp 236-237) quotes Harrison, who was filmed discussing the playing of the chord in Auckland in 1984, as saying he played "an F chord with a G on top," meaning F-A-C and G. BAM goes on to say the piano doubles the Rick, and McCartney plays D in the bass.
It doesn't make sense to try to label the chord traditionally. The chord has dominant function, it has modal neighbors, and it predicts the Rick ending. w.e."

I don't understand this. The article does not claim that Everett ever said that there was an E in the chord. That claim was made by Jason Brown. The rest could possibly be returned to the article. I'd suggest a little rewriting to make it easier to follow. -- Samuel Wantman 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This page seems to add some useful information to the discussion:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7049/hdnchd.htm
anon

Everett

[edit]

I also removed:

  • Everett (2005: 109) says: "It doesn't make sense to try to label the chord traditionally. The chord has dominant function, it has modal neighbors, and it predicts the Rick[enbacker] ending." He also thinks "the piano doubles the Rick, and McCartney plays D in the bass."

As there is no 2005 book listed in the references. Worse, it was added anonymously after the paragraphs above were removed and is actually a botched attempt at reversing the meaning of the sentence it replaced ([3]):

  • Everett (2001: 109) points out that the chord is pandiatonic.

Hyacinth 09:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown

[edit]

I also removed:

  • Jason Brown, Professor for the Faculty of Computer Science at Dalhousie University in Halifax, whose research interests include graph theory, combinatorics, and combinatorial algorithms, posits that the chord is pandiatonic. Professor Brown announced in October 2004 that after six months of reseach he succeeded in analyzing the opening chord by "de-composing the sound into original frequencies, using a combination of computer software and old-fashioned chalkboard." According to Brown, the Rickenbacker guitar wasn't the only instrument used. "It wasn't just George Harrison playing it and it wasn't just the Beatles playing on it... There was a piano in the mix." To be exact, he claims that Harrison was playing the following notes on his 12 string guitar: a2, a3, d3, d4, g3, g4, c4, and another c4; McCartney played a d3 on his bass; producer George Martin was playing d3, f3, d5, g5, and e6 on the piano, while Lennon played a loud c5 on his six-string guitar.

Where did Brown announce this? Hyacinth 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in

? Hyacinth 09:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the Brown information was listed in the References section:

I'm putting the paragraph back. Perhaps a footnote would be helpful. -- Samuel Wantman 09:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hyacinth 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studio recordings

[edit]

Anyone know if they recorded it more than once? I seem to have two versions in my MP3 library, at two quite different tempos. Both have the same opening chord, but one has a kind of reverberating snare drum, and the other doesn't. The album for the slower one is listed as "Anthology 1 CD2" and the other is "A Hard Day's Night". Any ideas? (I'm not 100% sure they're both studio recordings, certainly the quicker one has slightly better sound quality). Or is the second one what is meant by the record company being free to re-release the songs - it's not really spelt out in the article if they re-recorded them to do that. Stevage 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the #Mono/Stereo versions? section above, especially the list of takes link. There are at least two released versions: one mainstream, another on Anthology 1, and maybe another as the film soundtrack. Other than that, I have no clue either as to which when or what. Femto 18:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The middle 8

[edit]

Does anyone have a cite for the composer of the middle 8? -- Samuel Wantman 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon claimed that the only reason McCartney sang on the middle eight, was because he himself couldn't reach the notes he'd written. Lennon clearly regarded himself as the sole writer of this song, and McCartney's account('Many Years From Now') does in no way contradict him. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Correction to the image above showing the melody: The chord notations are correct and in the key of G, but the notes are transposed to the key of C (almost correctly; the first three notes as sung but in the key of C would be "ffe" instead of "ggf") . As sung in G, they should be "ccbd,d,d,,ddcdf,dcdcb" etc.. Middleton's analysis, quoted above and below the transcription, is based on this error and cites the notes as shown rather than as played and sung. The song is solidly in the key of G and does not have a single cadence resting on or implying C.

I moved the above comment here. Hyacinth 21:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all from this Wikinewbie who didn't see the discussion tab; Hyacinth, thanks for redirecting my efforts to this more appropriate place. In any case, I am quite sure the image is in error, as is much of the accompanying analysis upon which it is based, and don't see the value of including them just because they come from a printed source. The only thing I agree with is that the "shape" is "a common pattern in blues," but the dominant is D (not G), the F-natural (not B-flat) is a bluesy flatted seventh over the tonic, and the B-flat (not E-flat) is a flatted third that plays against the major third, B-natural, in the typical blues manner. AlanH212 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This notation is right, though it may be, as a whole, transposed. No cadence on C is described. In fact it is described as a leading tone. Also, there is no mention of what the dominant chord would be, as chords are not relevant to the discussion. You're assigning of functions to various notes is also puzzling as no such functions are described. Hyacinth 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) If transposed, it should be noted as such; all recordings of the tune are in G and every other source in the article says the tune is in G. 2) There are errors in the transposition (first three notes). 3) Even though the tune is (incorrectly) transposed, the guitar chord notations at the top are in the original key. 4) I don't understand your last two sentences; chords and interval relationships are relevant because Middleton "describes G as the dominant in the key of C major" (which is the key his notation transposes the tune to), and writes about a "repeated circling round the dominant (G) with an excursion to its minor third (Bb)" and mentions the minor third of the tonic as E flat and the major seventh as B natural. Everything he says about chords and intervals indicates that he is asserting that the tune is in C and he does not mention this as a transposition. 4) C is not described as a leading tone, it is described as a passing tone; in any case, both leading tones and passing tones are non-harmonic tones ("non-chord tones" according to other Wikipedia articles) with stepwise relationships to their neighbors, and the "C" referred to has no stepwise neighbor and is played against a "C" chord and is therefore not a "non-chord" tone of any kind ("C" in quotes because it should be notated as a G played against a G chord, not a C played against a G chord as notated in the article). That the note is not a passing tone by any common definition (including Wikipedia's) is not debatable and the assertion should not be left in without a peer-reviewed editorial note. 5) The continued inclusion of this example is one of the reasons the article lost its featured article status (see the FARC discussions and a note I left a long time ago on your talk page). AlanH212 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that your uncited assertions supersede a description of an analysis of the song. You can not argue that the information is incorrect because it is an objective description of Middleton's analysis. Please find a source which contradicts Middleton and describe that analysis. Hyacinth (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[accidental copy of previous two paragraphs deleted] AlanH212 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that my own or anyone else's citable or uncited analysis replace Middleton's; I originally questioned whether Middleton's analysis should have been included in the first place. I provided a contrary thumbnail analysis for this page only, for discussion purposes, and am aware that for my own analysis to make it into the article I'd have to find a publisher for it. I am still of the opinion, which you certainly may disagree with and overrule, that though published by a reputable source, the analysis (or any analysis for that matter) may be too arcane and debatable for inclusion in an encyclopedia to which people turn for enlightening information on a Beatles tune, especially if it has obvious undebatable errors.

On the lead sheet, I can argue that it is incorrect because it is self-evidently incorrect. Anyone can see that the notes in the lead sheet are transposed to the key of C while the chords above them are in the key of G. I was not the first nor was I the last to point this out. No, it's not just missing a key signature, it isn't written in G Mixolydian, it is written in the key of C, and a citation is not necessary; just play along with the recording and you'll hear that what you play is a fourth above (or a fifth below) the tune on the recording. Play the chords on the lead sheet together with the notes on the lead sheet and anyone can hear that they do not match (unless you want to present it as a bi-tonal remix!). If anyone needs a citation, the recording itself is a published source, in fact the most authoritative and incontrovertible published source as to what key it is in.

On Middleton's analysis, I do not have to cite anybody but Middleton (as I did in my paragraph above) to demonstrate that he asserts the key of the tune to be C. The same sentence in the article that introduces the analysis begins "The song is composed in the key of G major," and continues that Middleton "describes G as the dominant in the key of C major". Both parts of the sentence may be correct, but both assertions in the sentence cannot. Against Middleton's assertion that the C is a passing tone, I cited Wikipedia itself; just follow the link to the article covering passing and other nonchord tones, which states that "A passing tone ... is the nonchord tone of a part which had started at one chord tone and moved up or down through one or more nonchord tones and resolved to another chord tone ...", and though the Wikipedia article itself does not cite any sources, any of hundreds of elementary music theory texts could serve the purpose (and would have added that a passing tone is approached and exited through stepwise motion). As transposed in the article's lead sheet, the C would be played against a G and an E (a C major chord), and the C in question is not only the root of the tonic chord of the lead sheet but it is approached through a direct fifth in a cadential phrase and if the accompanying chord notation were also transposed it would have read "C" instead of "G". I don't think any music theorist and his or her publisher would spend the time and money providing a direct citable contradiction of Middleton's passing-tone (or any other) assertion; the point is too trivial to bother with and it is self-evident.

My suggestions for improving the article and putting its citations into a more respectful and accurate context:

1) Replace the lead sheet with a correct one, with the tune in G major and the chords as they are. Alternatively, caption the lead sheet as a transposition of the recorded source, leave the notes where they are (but please correct the first three notes, using the recording itself or an accurate transposition of any reputably published lead sheet as a source), and transpose the chord notations to the same key of C.

2) Rewrite the first sentence of the introductory paragraph: "The song is composed in the key of G major and in a 4/4 time signature. Richard Middleton (1990) analyzes the song as transposed to the key of C, and describes G as the dominant in the key of C major."

3) Ellipsize the parenthetical from the last sentence of the introductory paragraph so it reads "with a ceiling note of Bb and floor note of Eb ...". The passing tone assertion is not central or necessary to the analysis, and because it is so self-evidently incorrect, it can only detract from the analysis and discredit its author. We all make mistakes. I've published a few myself.

AlanH212 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: you baldly assert that the notation has been transposed, yet you provide no verification. Hyacinth (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a bald assertion, I made a self-evident assertion, as did at least two other people, and I cited the recording itself as verification that the notation is transposed. As I already suggested, please play along in unison with the recording and compare what you play to the notation; alternatively, please play the notation along with the recording and compare what you play to the recording. The notes of the first four measures of the recording (Parlophone CDP 7 46437 2, Copyright 1964 EMI Records, Ltd., track one) are: (c on the recording, b in printed sources)cbd,d,d,ddcdf,dcdcb, whereas the Wikipedia notation shows ggfg,g,g,ggfg b-flat,gfgfe. If you need a printed notated source, please find the sheet music published by Northern Songs, Ltd. and Maclen Music, Inc.-Unart Music Corp. (a number 09999 is shown on the cover); it may be purchased on eBay for $30 (http://cgi.ebay.com/BEATLES-A-HARD-DAYS-NIGHT-U-S-A-SHEET-MUSIC_W0QQitemZ120188674245QQcmdZViewItem) and while eBay only shows the cover, the music inside will show the tune in G; if you want to view the first page of the score as subsequently copyrighted by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, navigate to http://www.sheetmusicdirect.us/ecom/sellableGoodView.do?itemId=1000006559 and install the Sibelius Scorch ActiveX plugin. In all cases you will see the correct notes in the key of G (a fifth above, or fourth below, the notes shown in the Wikipedia notation except for the notation's incorrectly transcribed first three notes, which makes the Wikipedia notation in the key of C), and the same chords as appear in the article's notation.

AlanH212 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference edits

[edit]

I replaced these "general" references with specific footnotes:

  • Bacon, Tony (2000). Fuzz & Feedback : Classic Guitar Music of the 60's. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-612-2.
  • CBC radio. As It Happens — broadcast of October 15th, 2004. Jason Brown's research on the opening chord. To hear the story, listen 12'35" into the broadcast.
  • Campbell, Mary. (Jul. 1, 1996). Restored 'Hard Day's Night,' 'Help!' part of AMC festival. Associated Press.
  • Everett, Walter (2001). The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men Through Rubber Soul. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-514104-0.
  • Marck, J. I Am The Beatles. Retrieved Oct. 14, 2004.
  • Middleton, Richard (1990/2002). Studying Popular Music. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 0-335-15275-9.
  • Miles, Barry (1998). The Beatles: A Diary. Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-6315-0.
  • Pedler, Dominic (2003). The Songwriting Secrets of The Beatles. Omnibus Press. ISBN 0-7119-8167-1.

I need to go back and add the ISBN numbers (ran out of time).

I couldn't find where these sources were used in the article, despite close reading of the article and sources:

The Spitz ref had "*McCartney quoted in Bob Spitz...", which may refer to the "direct and personal" quoute about using pronouns in titles. I don't have Spitz handy, so I couldn't confirm that and change it to a footnote style ref.

I removed the fairly general "Lennon/McCartney" part; it wasn't accurate (IMO) and if it was it belongs in the Lennon/McCartney article.

So shoot me already. John Cardinal 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN's are done now. Who can help with REFs above and also with "citation needed" facts? John Cardinal 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed chord

[edit]

In the opening chord section, the Beatles apparent use of the borrowed bVII chord is mentioned. However, a lot of the songs mentioned as examples don't seem to use the chord as a borrowed chord but appear to simply be in the mixolydian mode. Can we change that? Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What songs mentioned as examples of what? Hyacinth (talk) 05:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

[edit]

Does anyone else think that this article is good enough to be a GA? I added some references and fixed a few things? Does anyone want me to nominate it? (The last article I worked on, "Rain", is now a GA nominee.) If anyone wants me to nominate this, let me know on my talk page or right here! Thanks! Kodster (Talk) 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the opening chord

[edit]

According to this article the chord includes a Piano note. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Near the end of the Opening chord section there is the following:

In November 2009 Wired published an article where Celemony Melodyne Editor with Direct Note Access technology was used to analyse introduction chord

I read the link. It reads like an ad for the product, but it is interesting and shows the results of this product's analysis of the chord in question.

The sentence appears to suffer from some grammatical shortcomings. However, I am sadly unfamiliar with this particular technology, product and manufacturer. So much so that I am a little hessitant to make even a minor correction edit on this sentence.

I think it should read better grammatically anyway like this:

In November 2009, Wired published an article where Celemony's Melodyne Editor with Direct Note Access technology was used to analyse the opening chord.

If no one objects, I will assume I didn't misunderstand anything and will make the edit in a while.Racerx11 (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the edit mentioned above. Now the question is should we include the results of the software's analysis. The source link is already there, but it would give the comment more reason for being there in the first place. As it is now, it seems a little like a bit of trivia. Racerx11 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of space the article already devotes to the analysis of this chord, and bearing in mind the detailed results of other analyses already given in the preceding paragraphs, it would seem only natural to include these results too as you suggest. PL290 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid someone might say that. If you really think its a good idea, then that's great. I at first thought about just uploading the graph, but I don't think that would be a good idea; I dont have a clue how do something like that anyway. If I get some more free time soon, I might take a stab at presenting the data in a simple, readable way. Unless someone else who is good at doing this stuff beats me to it. hint hint. Racerx11 (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin piano missing note?

[edit]

Came here looking for info on the "harpsichord". Great, found it. Then spent a few minutes looking for whatever "(see note at bottom)" referred to, only to be left hanging, so I snipped the parenthetical. If it's in there somewhere and I missed it, please restore; however, an anchor link to this note, or putting this info in a linked footnotes section might make it easier to find. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diff from 4 years ago[5] reveals what's going on. First, it's kind of a little debate within the text, which is not good. The "at bottom" refers to what was then the final sentence of the section. It is now next-to-final. In effect, the paragraph presents the same information twice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating this. I re-organized the section a little (new sub-headings for Recording and Lyrics), combined the two paragraphs on the instrumental break, and put the repeated book reference into an in-line citation. Snipped phrase "According to Stephenson", which presumes reader familiarity with no other mention in article; hopefully this "Hendrix chord" is not so controversial as to need attribution to an authority (cos Professor Ken Stephenson, music theorist, has no Wikipedia article at the time I write this).
The recording info makes reference to "Take 7". I think a bit more info about the chronology of takes would make this seem less out of the blue.
Most controversially, I removed the reference to the "outro" being recorded in the same fashion as the break because it conflicted with the remaining description of the closing arpeggio, and by a quick listen I cannot hear the "sped-up" sound in the ending. I don't have a copy of Recording The Beatles handy to check, but we could use a quote of the text which says the ending is recorded in this fashion (if this is indeed the case). / edg ☺ ☭ 15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Opening Chord?

[edit]

Would there not have to be at least versions of this chord - one for the studio tracks and the other for live performances. Perhaps the piano notes are showing up in the studio track?? Some live videos appear to show Lennon using a Fadd9 on his guitar???

Pete318 (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I find the things that you do will make me feel all right"

When I read that line described in this article as " reassuring the singer's girlfriend that his energy and pleasure level have been renewed by her ministrations", I how people can criticise critics.

A much better explanation comes before that: "the things that his lover does perk him up". Oh, I understand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:D449:3940:ACCD:5AC:5103 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter Blades?

[edit]

The last section in the Intro Chord section states: "A repeated arpeggio outlining the notes of the opening chord ends the song in a circular fashion, fading out with the sound of helicopter blades." Am I correct in assuming the bit about the helicopter blades only refers to the song as seen/heard in the film itself (the final shot of the heli taking off)? The sound effect of the helicopter blades isn't on the studio version, correct? (Meaning the actual single and album track). Since the next sentence refers to the movie I assume that's what the writer meant, perhaps it would help to clarify that this is what happens in the film, not on the record. So perhaps it should read something like this: "A repeated arpeggio outlining the notes of the opening chord ends the song in a circular fashion, fading out with the sound of helicopter blades in the actual film." Unless I've missed it all these years (which is why I don't want to be so quick to change it, perhaps I have heard it wrong all this time!) 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Tim

Actually, having just watched the film again, the song isn't what's playing when the helicopter takes off at the end, so now I'm really not sure what the text was referring to. Does anyone know? If not I'll take that little bit out, but I want to be sure I'm not missing something (it doesn't appear to be accurate information). 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Tim[reply]

Various comments (mostly about the opening chord)

[edit]

This article should celebrate and glorify one of the greatest songs in the history of music. Instead, it provides misleading and incorrect information about what I would call a sacred piece of music. As a musician and a huge Beatles fan I had to dig into this and I have to say that this article needs to be reworked so that it presents the song for what it is, in particular for the opening chord that has been long debated but most of all misrepresented. There are several approaches, most of them wrong, a few of them close enough but they is really only one way to play the chord. I will make a series of comments.

1. The "Title" section could be split into 4 subsections that I would label "Ringo's account", "John's account", "Paul's account" and "Associated Press account". That way the lines are drawn on who remembers what. Is there any evidence of Ringo and Paul talking about it and converging to a unique story?

2. The versions of the chord labeled G7add9sus4, G7sus4, and G11sus4 are not right. The chord, as confirmed by Harrison, is a Gadd9 played as 103213 on both 12-string and 6-string guitars.

3. The first 3 images in the "Opening chord" section are garbage. The actualy one is the 4th, only for the guitars. The first 3 images should be removed because they are incorrect.

4. "Tony Bacon calls it a Dm7sus4 (D F G A C)".

This is wrong again for the reasons in points 2 and 3.

5. "George Martin: D2-G2-D3 played on a Steinway Grand Piano".

After reading https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/home I tend to believe there are 5 instead of 3 notes on the plano. I am unable to verify right now so I cannot confirm that.

6. "One of the interesting things about this chord (as described by Pedler) is how McCartney's high bass note reverberates inside the soundbox of Lennon's acoustic guitar and begins to be picked up on Lennon's microphone or pick-up during the sounding of the chord."

This is wrong. As explained in https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/notchord, John's acoustic guitar was overdubbed so there was no interaction between Paul's bass and John's acoustic guitar.

7. "The chord's notes were estimated using Fourier analysis, according to which Harrison played the A2, A3, D3, D4, G3, G4, C4, and another C4 on his 12-string guitar; McCartney played a D3 on his bass; producer George Martin played D3, F3, D5, G5, and E6 on the piano; and Lennon played a loud C5 on his six-string guitar."

John playing a single note is totally ridiculous as explained in https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/brown.

8. Randy Bachman has stated that he heard the original masters of the recordings and could hear the 12-string guitar playing "an F chord, but you put a G on top, and you put a G on the bottom, and you put a C next to that G", "a D on the bass", and "rhythm guitar was a D chord with a sus 4".

This is complete nonsense. I remember finding Bachman's audio file on YouTube and trying to reproduce it after listening to his very ackward explanation of how to fret the guitar. You can read https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/notchord to understand what's wrong with the approach.

For those of you who truly want to understand what the opening chord for the song is I suggest to read the following articles in order:

A. http://www.mscs.dal.ca/~brown/n-oct04-harddayjib.pdf
B. https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/brown
C. https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/notchord
D. https://sites.google.com/site/ahdnchord/home

That should lead you to the conclusion that the chord is an Fadd9 played as 103213 by both Harrison on 12-string guitar on the left channel and Lennon on a 6-string guitar on the right channel. Along with the guitars there is a D played on a bass on the E string at the 10th fret by McCartney on the left channel and a piano playing 5 notes which are D2, G2, D3, G3, C4 by Martin on the right channel.

If everybody is convinced, I would ask to proceed to rework the article as needed to remove wrong information and place what truly needs to be in the article.

ICE77 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I think the song is Jangle Pop. There‘s a video on this and other Beatles songs on YouTube called „10 Genres the Beatles accidentally invented“. Roooooon (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: It‘s definitely not Rock music!!!!! Roooooon (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sus 4

[edit]

Shouldn't sus chords leave out the 3rd? The graphic includes the 3rd in both suggested (opening) sus chords. Burraron (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_(song)&oldid=1256349890"