Comments on: Goodall Music

Goodall Music

Magnakai — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:15:28 -0800

British composer and TV presenter Howard Goodall presents a documentary exploring the influences and theory behind the music of The Beatles, and the transformation of their sound over their recording career. Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on Youtube. But that's not all...

A fascinating program, to be sure. Howard Goodall's other programs are equally interesting: His series How Music Works examined four of the building blocks of music: Melody, Harmony, Rhythm and Bass. (previously on Metafilter) He also presented a series where he looks at important classical works and how they fit into their contemporary culture: Wagner 1874 (Pt 1 2 3 4 5) Mozart 1791 (Pt 1 2 3 4 5) Unfortunately, none of these programs, or unmentioned others, are available on DVD. Howard Goodall is also a noted composer, famously writing the theme tunes for Red Dwarf (and backwards!), Mr Bean and QI, among others. He has also been a guest on QI on a number of occasions.

By: opsin

opsin — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:31:06 -0800

Watched these - and kept copies - when they were shown. Thoroughly recommended watching. He makes for top notch documentaries on music, despite having devoted a whole episode to Mahler.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:57:08 -0800

Oh, fuck, more Beatles bullshit? Hey, hold on, wait, this "more inside" is actually pretty interesting!

By: marxchivist

marxchivist — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:05:05 -0800

This is real interesting, thanks for posting it.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:11:36 -0800

oh this is awesome, thank you.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:45:10 -0800

Oh, fuck, more Beatles bullshit? I agree, they're overexposed. Howsabout a nice FPP from you, klang, on some fantastic favorite band of yours that you'd like to let us all know about? There must be hundreds in your collection that'd make for wonderful and enlightening posts to Metafilter, and chances are a great many of them are bands we've never heard of. I eagerly await your positive contribution! Or, just wait around and snark in the next Beatles thread. Up to you.

By: lester

lester — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:47:42 -0800

nthing the awesome. thanks!

By: Seekerofsplendor

Seekerofsplendor — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:54:50 -0800

[at klangklangston] ...Or, just wait around and snark in the next Beatles thread. Up to you. flapjax, I think you may be my hero. (At least at MeFi.)

By: empath

empath — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:00:10 -0800

oh, i loved this. I could watch an hour on just one song, tbh. And yes, Tomorrow Never Knows was some kind of fulcrum on which most of modern music pivoted.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:41:02 -0800

And yes, Tomorrow Never Knows was some kind of fulcrum on which most of modern music pivoted. 1965. Like A Rolling Stone. 1966. Tomorrow Never Knows. 1967. EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! somehow, I suspect LSD is involved.

By: empath

empath — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:42:44 -0800

No, I mean the fact that it was constructed from loops, etc, not the psychedelia aspect.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:45:20 -0800

Trust me, psychedelia is constructed from loops.

By: Four Flavors

Four Flavors — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:46:21 -0800

Just watched this. It's giving me a new appreciation for the Beatles Rock band that I'll be playing for the next few forevers. thanks for posting it- perfect timing (although it must not be a coincidence that you posted on "Beatles day" 9/9/09)

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:46:26 -0800

"Howsabout a nice FPP from you, klang, on some fantastic favorite band of yours that you'd like to let us all know about? There must be hundreds in your collection that'd make for wonderful and enlightening posts to Metafilter, and chances are a great many of them are bands we've never heard of. I eagerly await your positive contribution!" Start with these ones here and feel free to take me to MeTa if you run out of music from these links, since you obviously missed them and wouldn't have posted that bullshit if you hadn't.

By: awfurby

awfurby — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:51:19 -0800

That was great, thanks.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:56:48 -0800

Thanks for the links, klangklanston. I'd seen some of them, sure. You'll notice I've left comments in some of them. I'm actually not unaware that you've made fine contributions here. So it seems all the more a shame that you feel compelled to make comments like "Oh, fuck, more Beatles bullshit?" That's what I was addressing. Cause it was a crappy, mean-spirited comment that the OP (and the rest of us) didn't deserve. The fact that you personally are not interested in this post does NOT make it "bullshit". Your characterization of it as such is rude and egocentric. So grow up, and show some class for a change.

By: notmtwain

notmtwain — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:00:14 -0800

So he thinks that McCartney was doing a lot of very intuitive, exciting and even revolutionary composing and he doesn't give Lennon much credit. I don't know enough about the origins or writing of the Beatles' songs but something seems wrong with that.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:23:45 -0800

"The fact that you personally are not interested in this post does NOT make it "bullshit"." Man, you fail at reading. I watched the the Wagner bits and am looking forward to the Mozart ones, and will probably watch the four building blocks next. Which is what I meant by, "Hey, hold on, wait, this "more inside" is actually pretty interesting!" You will note that me saying something is interesting is directly opposed to not being interested. So how about you stop being butthurt on Macca's account and whining because I'm not genuflecting toward your mono box.

By: dfan

dfan — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:58:39 -0800

Anyone interested in the Beatles from a music theory perspective must read Walter Everett's two volume work, The Beatles as Musicians. Really great stuff.

By: opsin

opsin — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:24:11 -0800

and he doesn't give Lennon much credit Well, aside from the way he talks about Strawberry Fields, Tomorrow Never Knows, Jealous Guy... I am the Walrus. I think he wound up referencing about 4 of each of their works. And yes, possibly came over more effusive about McCartney, but Lennon got his dues I reckon. I struggle with The Beatles a bit in the same way I do with Monty Python - I find it hard to enjoy the ones with Eric Idle in... I just find McCartney too ersatz, too glib a writer, and hate a lot of his work. But that said, the things Goodall points out, particularly Penny Lane, do point to how clever a writer he was, even if you don't really like his stuff. As I say, I do sort of agree Lennon didn't get the lion's share of the accolades in that, but given just how positive Goodall was about Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields, the really revolutionary ones, I think he's covered.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:47:57 -0800

klang, you are one belligerent dude. And, amazingly, you are never wrong. I thought that maybe you'd man up enough to apologize for the "bullshit" remark, but, true to form, you just come back swinging every time. I'll give you one thing, you're consistent. Tiresomely so, but, consistent.

By: empath

empath — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:12:28 -0800

i think it's that Goodall is classically trained, and has better tools to talk about what McCartney was doing. It's a lot easier to musically 'explain' Eleanor Rigby than it is to explain what's going on in Strawberry Fields.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:01:23 -0800

In defense of Klang ... if he hadn't said it, I probably would have ... Oh, fuck, more Beatles bullshit? Not because I doubt that they're probably the single most significant English language cultural phenomenon of the 20th century (except for maybe Dylan), but because, man, there's a lot of other great voices-sounds-whatevers out there that could also stand some serious analysis etc, and the overall culture would be better for it. Of course, I probably would've voiced this in a nicer way than did Klang, but of course, I'm Canadian and we're generally a nice nation. Every single one of us. Except for the drunken cyclists and former provincial attorney generals ... and Mark Messier. He's not nice at all.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:08:16 -0800

And it's good to be nice.

By: philip-random

philip-random — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:10:49 -0800

It's a lot easier to musically 'explain' Eleanor Rigby than it is to explain what's going on in Strawberry Fields. This goes back to my LSD comment. The real genius of 1966-68 Beatles is how they transcended mere music, particularly Tomorrow Never Knows, Rain, She Said She Said, Lucy in the Sky, Fixing a Hole, Strawberry Fields, A Day In The Life, I Am The Walrus, It's All Too Much, Revolution 9 .... and such, much as I enjoy spending time with Howard Goodall and his enthusiasm, he's at best painting half a picture.

By: Wolof

Wolof — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:48:44 -0800

More Beatles bullshit

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 03:17:06 -0800

Wolof... oh, Wolof... I love you, man.

By: benzo8

benzo8 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:45:58 -0800

Soundscapes has an incredible collection of analyses Beatles' songs, amongst many other wonders...

By: Magnakai

Magnakai — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:52:05 -0800

For what it's worth, I totally understand feeling that Beatles oversaturation, but I think the documentary's fascinating to any fan of music. It did seem prescient to post it when the remasters are getting so much attention, and I thought it might be slightly more deeply appreciated now that people are feeling a little Beatlemania. My main point, I guess, was that it's fascinating to hear someone classically trained talk with such clarity, passion and a genuine interest in educating the view talk about popular music, and break down exactly what made The Beatles' music so progressive. Personally, I recall gaining a new appreciation for their artistry when I first saw it, and it's never really left me.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:46:40 -0800

For what it's worth, I totally understand feeling that Beatles oversaturation, but I think the documentary's fascinating to any fan of music. No need whatsoever to qualify your reasons for posting, Magnakai. Some people just need to snark, you know? Don't let their negativity put you on the defensive. It's a good bet, also, that the guy who put it down (IIRC, there was really only one in this thread) probably didn't bother to check out your links, anyway.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:49:10 -0800

Or, put another way, yes, the documentary should be, as you say, fascinating to any fan of music, excepting those who need to prove that they are above being interested in the Beatles.