And maybe the most amazing thing: the Beatles made it all look so effortless!
I watched a couple of those videos by Galeazzo Frudua and they are fascinating for someone interested in studying music or learning advanced techniques.
What puzzles me though is the phenomenon of musicians saying things like “There’s only one right way to play a song” or otherwise valuing the exact copying of a particular recording as the “right” way to play a song.
That’s not what performing music is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be an exercise in self-expression and contributing one’s own creativity to a work.
I don’t think there’s only one way to play a song. There have been some terrific covers of Beatles’ songs. What I’m hearing (and certainly it’s my point) is that the Beatles’ music has such subtle complexities that it’s fun to see someone who cracked the code. And, yes, for real Beatles’ fanatics, their version does hold a special magic.
And, of course, when I played in cover bands, there was more or less one right way to play the songs as far as the guys who hired us were concerned. People were less interested in our self-expression than in hearing a live band play the versions of songs they knew. 
From watching his videos last night, I never got the impression he was saying there was only one “right” way to play a song at all. He was explaining how it actually was played and sung, and if you were interested in doing note-perfect covers, here’s what was going on on the record. I find it a fascinating study, and it increases my appreciation of the music now that I’m more attuned to the subtleties. I absolutely agree self-expression is the point of a lot of music, but learning how others have done it can lead to some interesting insights and expand your own musical palate of techniques to help your own self-expression.
Who’s saying this, and in what context?
If this is a reaction to the YouTube videos about “How to sing…” and “How to REALLY play…” this or that Beatles song, I think Stratocaster and pulykamell gave excellent responses.
That’s one opinion.
Does the song exist to serve the performer, or does the performer exist to serve the song? IMHO both are legitimate positions to take: neither is inherently incorrect. And it’s not a strict dichotomy. (And it’s a distinction that applies to other sorts of performances as well, not just music.)
It sounds like you lean toward the former view. That’s fine, but, as I said, it’s not the only legitimate approach. And some of the defenses we’ve read in this thread of the Beatles as musicians have been on the basis their performances are well-suited to serve their songs.
I had no idea. I assumed it was done on one guitar with a weird chord. Was this pure genius or did they accidentally all start off on the wrong note?
Sorry, I passed over reading most of the replies and it is late for this post but my take:
Paul was the only one over-rated as none of the others were ever rated highly as musicians but he often was; in the 70s at least. John & Paul are in the conversation for the best song writers of all time but none were masters of their instruments.
Hmmm… I remember seeing a YouTube of The Beatles performing live (back in the early days) and Lennon played the F add 9 on his short necked black Rick for The Chord, not a D sus 4. Some other musicologist I read said there’s a piano in there too playing some form of a G major.
Here’s the isolated tracks deconstruction that talks about the piano, and also confirms your memory of Fadd9 in the live shows.
I want you (she’s so heavy) came up on the radio a couple of days ago and I was again fascinated by the short bass solos he plays in the transition between the bluesy part and the main theme. Perhaps a little bit short for you but they sure groove.
This is probably a non sequitur in the context of this thread. But it’s a thing I commonly hear when in the presence of musicians or, especially amateur or student musicians.
There seems to be a contingent of people—with reference to rock and pop music—who insist on phrases like “there’s only one right way to play that guitar part, and that way is the way they play it on X recording.”
I think that’s totally wrong. And I believe my statement here is not just “one opinion.”
Even when you’re playing a classical piece and for the most part you are trying to express the intent of the composer, even then, your goal shouldn’t be to exactly reproduce a particular recording or performance by a particular performer.
Playing music—even within the confines of an orchestral score—should always be based on the particular individuals performing and their existence as individual human beings.
I can see the value of copying a master in order to learn technique or develop skill. But you use those techniques and skills to serve your particular performance, not to reproduce someone else’s.
If I were a world-class violinist, and I were trying to learn the solo violin part Beethoven’s Violin Concerto, once I’ve learned it, my goal should be to produce my own performance, not to exactly reproduce, say, Itzhak Perlman’s 19XX recording of it, or whatever.
And that’s even more true of rock or pop music, whose roots are in the folk tradition of music.
In any case, what I object to is the sentiment “Oh, your X performance was a failure, because you didn’t play it exactly the way Y played it on Z occasion.” That opinion is always wrong.
I suppose that attitude does crop up, but no one I know would endorse it, and the last thing I would go out of my way to see is a note-perfect Beatles tribute band. But I am fascinated when people can peel back the layers and show all the extraordinary things going on within what might seem a very “simple” tune, and that’s why I enjoy those videos.
As playing musicians the Beatles themselves have said others are superior, but no one is superior to their creative minds and how they came up with absolutely new and fresh music. For example, Paul spoke about how a jazz riff or a classical line from Bach would be the inspiration for a pop tune, but rather than rip off the jazz artist or the classical composer the Beatles would take the sound in a totally different direction, turn it inside out. Who knew that a jazz guitar was the inspiration for Michelle? That was their genius. So a virtuoso musician may have the creativity to do such things, but the Beatles did them.
That’s more-or-less how I was going to respond. It’s not an attitude among the musicians I know or have played with (that if you don’t play it exactly like how Y played it on Z occasion it’s a failure.) But it’s a fun thing to study, because it increases your own palate of tricks and sounds and self-expression.
Watch what you say about the Beatles being overrated.
After I read that I went and had a listen, bass and drums isolated (mostly)
think of how many bands are lucky enough to come up with a handful of hits over decades of playing and compare that to what the Beatles did in 10 years. 10 years. Think of hard hard it is to play an instrument well. Then how hard it is to play it well with other musicians. then how hard it is to have stage presence. Then how hard it is to have your own “sound”. Then how hard it is to have your own sound and create music that goes in completely different directions and still retain that sound. Throw in world tours, a couple of movies, a cartoon, endless photo shoots, interviews, voice overs… God forbid they have any kind of personal lives.
10 years.
When the hell did they have time to compose ANYTHING let alone record it.