Ebook Free Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration
Thanks for visiting the most finished and upgraded website that bring hundreds of publication listings. This is just what you can take for obtaining the book as the referral for you in doing the presentation to really feel better. Guide that ends up being recommendation to read now is Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration This is one of guides that we note as one part of the terrific countless books from all over the world. So, when you find as well as browse guide titles here, it will certainly be from several nations worldwide. So, it's so completed, isn't it?
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration
Ebook Free Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration
Make use of the sophisticated modern technology that human establishes today to find guide Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration quickly. However initially, we will certainly ask you, how much do you enjoy to read a book Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration Does it always until surface? Wherefore does that book read? Well, if you truly love reading, try to check out the Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration as one of your reading collection. If you only reviewed the book based on demand at the time as well as incomplete, you need to attempt to like reading Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration initially.
As a publication, including the wise as well as selective publication is the common one to constantly bear in mind. It needs to choose as well as choose the very best words choices or dictions that could influence the top quality of guide. Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration additionally has the easy language to be recognized by all people. When you think that this book is proper with you, choose it now. As a great book, it offers not just the characteristics of guides that we have offered.
Everybody has their way to love analysis; it is not just for creative individuals. Many people also read the book due to the fact that absolutely nothing. Juts intend to take output from upgraded ideas as well as idea, possibly! It may be also the method just how they worry about the presence of the new ideas of amusing system. Evaluating guide for everyone will certainly be distinctive. Some may believe that Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration is really directly, yet some will really enjoy reviewing it.
So, it will certainly not force your time to always spend the moment for this kind of the book. Simply few times in a day, and you could get what the other visitors expect. In this situation, Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, And The Magic Of Collaboration is supplied in soft file system. You can download as well as obtain the book from the web link connecting that is provided. It will not be complicated. You will go quickly to find guide as well as begin to read.
Review
“A historically masterly and musically literate unraveling of some of the most-admired credits in 20th-century popular music....This is musicology with taste as well as ears.†- Dominic Green, Wall Street Journal“Richly detailed and immersive....Fascinating.†- Willard Jenkins, DownBeat“A richly detailed portrait of the delicate balance between group dynamics and individual vision, and the nexus between African American vernacular traditions and commercial imperatives, Help! adds significantly to our knowledge of popular music and iconic musicians of the 20th century.†- Glenn C. Altschuler, Philadelphia Inquirer“Wonderfully written....[Help!] is an important book. It should be read; it should be studied in detail. Anyone reading it with an open mind will come away enriched in his or her understanding of music.†- Edward Green, Professor, Manhattan School of Music“An erudite, engagingly written history…Brothers’s rich analyses make for an engrossing narrative that illuminates some of pop music’s greatest creative collaborations.†- Publishers Weekly“A sweeping history of 20th-century popular music....A fresh blend of scholarly musical analysis and provocative ideas about creativity and how composers create great art.†- Kirkus“Brothers’ musicology background is evident in his closely attentive and detailed responses to Ellington and Beatles compositions.†- Booklist“Engaging and considered....A thorough and unique introduction to two legends.†- Library Journal
Read more
About the Author
Thomas Brothers is the author of Help! The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration; Louis Armstrong’s New Orleans; and Louis Armstrong, Master of Modernism, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. A professor of music at Duke University, he lives with his family in Durham, North Carolina.
Read more
Product details
Hardcover: 416 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (October 23, 2018)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 9780393246230
ISBN-13: 978-0393246230
ASIN: 039324623X
Product Dimensions:
6.4 x 1.4 x 9.6 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review:
3.9 out of 5 stars
7 customer reviews
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#150,920 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
This new book by Thomas Brothers is a "must read" for anyone who cares deeply about the Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the subject of creativity in music. It very convincingly argues that in the case of these masters of 20th century music, collaborative composing was a---if not "the"---key to the large success of their work. The book is filled with detail. (Some nice photos, too, though a bit grainy). It is also wonderfully written: the language is clear, engaging, and blessedly without the use of obscure, trendy, polysyllabic academic jargon. At the same time, it has scholarly rigor.Among the many strengths of this book is the graceful way its author relates the work of these important 20th century musicians to older African-American traditions of music-making, including the early and mid 19th century "Ring Shout." Another strength is the sensitive way Thomas Brothers has of relating the lives of the musicians he is writing of, to their work.This is refreshing! Quite often in recent musical scholarship---(I will not "name names")-- the biographical aspect of a musician is presented in a very superficial, even misleading, relation to the aesthetics of the music. The weaknesses of the person, in short, are used against the strength of the art. At times, such books are so "gossipy"--so inclined to exaggerate the personal failings of the artists--that they actually distract readers from the music; from the beauty these artists achieve.Not so with Thomas Brothers in this new book. In large measure, he is careful and useful in how he relates Art and Life. Especially in the section about the Beatles, I feel the author is writing with great love, and with great insight. Bravo!Is this a perfect book? No. The second half, which deals with the work of the Beatles, is, indeed, superb; in many ways it is the most definitive study of their artistic life together that I have read. I was gripped, and educated, all the way through. But the first half, the Ellington half, has its debatable aspects--and the remainder of this review will deal with these.I caution readers of this review that as they read what follows to please remember that I am not cataloging the many excellent passages about Ellington to be found in this volume. The book is chock-full of them, which is why (along with the wonderful writing about the Beatles) I am happy to recommend it so highly. But as someone who, himself, has done a good deal of Ellington scholarship--and who loves the man as well as the composer--I owe it to Edward Kennedy Ellington (the Duke) to correct certain impressions Brothers gives in this book; especially as I imagine it will (and rightly so) become a very popular book.In particular, I think that in his laudatory desire to show that "collaborative composition" was a bigger element in the life and work of Duke Ellington than has previously been acknowledged, Thomas Brothers overshoots the mark, and misses (or at least doesn't present) the strong, in fact voluminous, evidence that Ellington was perfectly at ease---and relatively early in his career, to boot---with "solo composing." That is, with the standard, or "European" model of what it means to be a composer: one person alone with manuscript paper!However, he is right on target in highlighting how there was a publicity machine, first lead by Ellington's manager Irving Mills, and then by Duke himself, which from early on worked to create the impression that all of Ellington's work was "solo" composing. Or, to be a bit more nuanced about it, that if Ellington did make use of the creative imagination of his band members (and others outside the band) to create his music, it was largely limited to borrowing short scraps of melody from them and then bringing to those scraps a three-dimensional tonal and harmonic richness, and a completeness of formal development, which these associates were incapable of achieving.Some exception was made by the "publicity machine" for Billy Strayhorn; in his case there was--even during his lifetime--a modicum of acknowledgment of his powers as a composer. But still, as Walter van de Leur and others have shown, this public acknowledgement fell quite a bit short of the full story. One of the best aspects of Thomas Brothers' book, in fact, is the sensitive and deep way he writes about Strayhorn. Another Bravo for that.The book steers a middle-path when it comes to technical matters. It never enters the highly thorny, quasi-mathematical regions of music theory. At the same time, when Dr. Brothers needs to make a musical point that requires some technical depth and clarity, he doesn't hesitate to do so. But---and again, this is the charm of the book---he does so in plain English. Does it help if one already knows music theory? Yes. If you don't, will you throw the book aside in despair? Hardly!As I'm implying, the book is important. The author's main point is excellent, strongly argued, and very much needed. In fact, I found it personally useful. It became clear to me, as I read the book, that in some of my own writings on Ellington, I gave the crucially collaborative aspect of his work far less prominence than it deserved. So I'd like publicly to thank Thomas Brothers for "bringing me up to speed."Still, as I said, in his very honorable process of trying to correct a wrong "tradition" about Ellington as the greatest "solo genius" in the history of jazz composition, he let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction and gave short shrift to the piles of evidence that Ellington did have large powers of working independently as a composer. In particular, I question Brothers' strong assertion that Ellington had little ability as a melodist, and was largely (though without acknowledgment) dependent on others for his "best tunes."What then does one make of a tune like "Hymn to Sorrow" from "Symphony in Black"--from relatively early in his career? (mid-30s) It's simple, and lovely! Or (even earlier)"Black Beauty?"---though Brothers insinuates, without anything approaching adequate evidence, that Bubber Miley was behind it?. There are lots of other superb melodies I could mention throughout the 30s that have never been "claimed" by other band members--in part or whole. So it seems to me not quite right, methodologically, for the author to weigh the scale so heavily towards implying that "unknown hands" must have been at work whenever "Ellington" is tuneful. That's tipping the scholarly scales! (Pun, of course, intended).Now, that there may well be just such instances of "unknown hands," who are not yet identified, can surely be agreed to. It's easy enough to give weight to that as a possibility, even as a likelihood. But I think it's equally likely that a large portion of Ellington's most tuneful work does, indeed, stem from his own musical genius. It just doesn't seem quite sporting or even-handed on the part of the author to cast as dark a shadow over that second possibility as he does.When I question this aspect of Thomas Brothers' book, I am not at all arguing with him that most of Ellington's best early work is definitely collaborative. (Especially from the 1920s). The author is clear and convincing on that point; he certainly is right to highlight the musical genius of Ellington's lead trumpeter, Bubber Miley, and his place as a co-composer with Ellington of most of the band's early masterpieces.Miley is clearly one of the great creative forces in the jazz of the 1920s. (I like, by the way, how Brothers honors Jelly Roll Morton, too. Of course, Morton worked separately from Duke.)But even so, with all this about Miley happily acknowledged, consider "Birmingham Breakdown." We have a short score in Ellington's own hand from 1927. It's not a masterpiece the way "Black and Tan Fantasy" is, or "East St. Louis Toodle-Oo" (both created in collaboration with Miley)--but it's not a piece of fluff, either. And, of course, we have dozens of short scores entirely in his hand from the 30s--scores, therefore, composed without the assistance of Miley, who was no longer with the band at that point; in fact, alas, was no longer alive.And once we reach the later part of 1939, even as Strayhorn has joined the band, and the several decades to follow, there are literally hundreds of short scores in Duke's hand. (Others, of course, in Strayhorn's.) True: they often worked together on a composition, especially if it were an extended work, such as a suite. But often their scores are in their own hands, indicating the ability of each composer to work, essentially, on his own.Even the matter of Ellington using, and then bringing to fuller musical expression, germinal ideas presented by others in the band (many instances of which Brothers does a fine job in bringing to light) is--from one point of view--not all that different from the astonishing way Brahms worked with Handel's tune for his great set of piano variations, or what he thought was Haydn's for his even greater set of orchestral variations. Or what Beethoven did with those snippets of Russian folk melody for his three string quartets, Op. 59.I believe Thomas Brothers is absolutely right in presenting Ellington as an astonishing "center" of a vastly talented collective body of musicians. (I like the author's analogy to the world of film.) But clearly Duke could "fly on his own" as a composer and do confident, glorious work that way. Including (though the author seems to deny it) fairly early on. For example, I think, all-in-all, "The Mooche"--which is from 1928-- is Duke's "solo" conception, though I'd hasten to add that Bubber's "answers" to the clarinets in the outer sections are amazingly original jazz, too!As I said earlier in this review, what Thomas Brothers writes about Strayhorn I fundamentally agree with. He really did get the short end of the stick from the "Ellington publicity machine." I really admire how Brothers stands up for Strayhorn! Moreover, the parallels he makes between the creative interaction of Lennon + Ellington, relative to their partners McCartney + Strayhorn are very engaging, and original. They are largely convincing. I, for one, never thought of them before reading this book.Another reason the book is, as I said at the top of this review, a "must read." Another Bravo.Meanwhile, even as to Strayhorn, Brothers can, on occasion, go too far and claim too much. Despite what he says, I don't see any compelling evidence that Strayhorn had a hand in Ellington's "Ko-Ko." Moreover, though he hints at it, Brothers doesn't linger adequately with how the relation of Ellington and Strayhorn was often a two-way street in terms of each man improving the other's work. He gives several excellent examples of how Strayhorn did exactly that for Ellington: complete and/or improve something. But what about the other direction? For example, how Ellington improved the best known of all Strayhorn's compositions: "Take the A-Train." The "pyramid" climax of the arrangement was Duke's idea, let alone his famous piano figure in the Intro and Coda; the last A section of the first chorus was likewise by Ellington. These improvements certainly help the music.The pyramid matter, in particular, is important to investigate since Brothers compares how it ends (those two sharply articulated eighths followed by a dramatic silence) to what happens in "Ko-Ko," and then presents that musical parallel as strong evidence for Strayhorn's active participation in the co-composition of "Ko-Ko."But a far simpler and also more chronologically coherent way to see this musical parallel would be to take the 1939 version of Ko-Ko (which presumably already had that rhythmic figure) as Duke's. In that case, this moment in "A-Train," which does NOT exist in the earliest air checks for the piece, points to Duke's engagement with the final arrangement. And while it is true that we don't have a short score to the original 1939 "Ko-Ko," we do have, in Duke's hand, the part he wrote for tenor saxophonist Ben Webster, the part he needed to add to his 4 sax arrangement when, with Webster as part of the band, he now had 5 saxes. If Duke had "farmed out the piece" to Strayhorn to improve it before the 1940 recording session, why didn't he give that job to Strayhorn as well?Moreover, Thomas Brothers' contention that some of the advanced harmony of "Ko-Ko" (especially the high degree of dissonance in the upper voices) points to Strayhorn, because Strayhorn, circa 1939-1940, had much more awareness of these things than Duke, is belied by the amazing, nearly polytonal piano solo Ellington takes in "Ko-Ko." Surely Strayhorn didn't create that solo for him!Another point where, though I admire the book greatly and recommend it heartily to readers, I must take issue with its author concerns the music of Juan Tizol. According to David Berger, who in my estimation knows more about the music of the Ellington band than any other living scholar, Tizol told him directly that when he and Duke worked together, the trombonist (Tizol) never did the specific scoring for any of his tunes, but only provided Duke with lead sheets---and Duke did all the rest. Even when Tizol's name is the only name credited with a composition on a record of that composition (and this is a very interesting bit of evidence Thomas Brothers raises that would, indeed, argue for Tizol as full-scale composer), it may not have quite the probative value he suggests. That "solo credit," for example, could have been a decision by Irving Mills to release the record that way---perhaps to keep Tizol "on board" / "happy" / "not asking for a raise," etc.But more saliently to the point: there are, to my knowledge, no short-score charts in Tizol's hand of Tizol compositions in the Smithsonian Archives (where nearly all of the music of the Ellington band now resides). That there are parts, of course, in his hand. But Tizol created parts for lots of people; he was, after all, one of the primary copyists for the band. That fact, too, tends to support what David Berger reports.I should give Mr. Berger credit, too, for a very surprising fact about Ellington and collaborative composition which, to my knowledge, few are aware of. I certainly didn't know it until last week, and it doesn't appear in Thomas Brothers' book---though it strongly supports his core thesis. It seems now inarguable that Ellington "stole" the last chorus of "Daybreak Express,"--that he lifted this chorus from a chart Hilly Edelstein did of "Milenburg Joys." (The common source in "Tiger Rag" made that possible.) The scores for neither work are extant, but the parts to the "Milenburg" arrangement are, and they predate "Daybreak."Another place where I am impelled to question an attribution made by Thomas Brothers. This concerns "Cottontail." Dr. Brothers implies that the lion's share of the arrangement is by Ben Webster. But Jimmy Maxwell, who played trumpet in the Ellington band and knew both Webster and Duke quite well, has said that only the head and the lead line on the sax soli were written by Webster, and that all the rest is by Ellington, including the actual scoring of the sax soli. Maxwell is a solid source. Between a surmise of what "might" have been possible (which is, in essence, all that Thomas Brothers gives) and a source like Maxwell, who says definitely, This is what happened--I'd place my money on Maxwell.I could give more such examples. But I am afraid this review may already be far too lengthy. Worse, it may be tedious! Worse still, a reader may think I don't like the book because I've gone to some trouble to point out weaknesses in it.But that's not true! I like this book very much. So let me end as I began: this is an important book. It should be read; it should be studied in detail. Anyone reading it with an open mind will come away enriched in his or her understanding of music. And, in particular, the great music created by the Beatles, and by Ellington---whether solo, or in collaboration.Edward Green, PhD [Editor, The Cambridge Companion to Duke Ellington]
Help is a very interesting examination of musical creativity and collaboration, focusing on Duke Ellington in the 20s through the 50s and on the Beatles in the 60s. Author Thomas Brothers is a talented musicologist and dedicated researcher, who seems to have tracked down every remark these composers have made about their specific works. It is hard to read this book and not think a little less of Ellington. Brothers portrays him as a "genius collaborator" but most of the Ellington sections seem to be detailing how the Duke took credit for others' work, especially Billy Strayhorn. In Brothers view, Ellington's long, long career, was partially the result of meeting a much younger Strayhorn when Ellington was at the height of his career. In the Beatles section, the author makes the case for McCartney, not Lennon, being the key figure in the band. As a pop music fan, I love the Beatles, and respect Ellington, but don't really know him very well. In reading the book, the Ellington stuff was harder for me to follow. If you are very knowledgeable about Ellington, but not as familiar with the Beatles work, it could be you will have the opposite reaction. I would recommend this book, but believe you should be a serious music fan if you expect to follow it.
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration by Thomas Brothers illustrates the value, in two different styles of music, of collaboration. Brothers is contributing to the growing scholarship, resisted by some who bought the early "composer genius" story hook, line, and sinker, that Ellington's genius was far more in his ability to recognize, bring together, and market music than in his ability to compose it. He also brings out the importance of collaboration in The Beatles all the way to the end of their time together.In the case of Ellington doing research, which many have done before Brothers, only goes so far. A great deal of what is uncovered are press releases and interviews supporting the original script. What makes Brothers' analysis more complete and far more compelling is the inclusion of interviews with more of the musicians who openly acknowledge that Duke did not "compose" nearly as much as he organized and helped arrange. Those musicians as well as Brothers readily acknowledge Ellington's brilliance in this area. Brothers also brings a musicologist's ear to the study, recognizing the "fingerprints" of the various musicians and composers involved. This supports the stories from the musicians that were largely ignored previously. Simply doing massive amounts of research can only do so much, and if most of that research was simply finding more and more reports putting out the same story, well, quantity does not always equal quality.Brothers also makes it clear for both societal and cultural reasons that Ellington's model, which today would likely be frowned upon if enough credit wasn't given to others, was both accepted and functional for the period. Having the single front man, especially one with the talent of Ellington, worked in everyone's benefit There is no denying in this book that Ellington was a genius, it is just that the emphasis is placed where it belongs, on his organizational, big picture, and talent finding abilities rather than on his good, but far from genius level, composing skills.As for The Beatles, one of the beliefs among some fans is that when they were working on their last albums there was a lot less collaboration. That certainly would make sense if one looks at what was going on in their private lives. Brothers again uses both interviews and written accounts along with his trained ear to show the extent of collaboration that continued to the end.Anyone who thought either John or Paul was the main creative force was coming from a position of what they liked about the music rather than from the music itself. Brothers here does not so much place any Beatle above the other as he simply demonstrates that each had his own strength and his own weakness. Particularly in the case of Lennon-McCartney songs it becomes clear they needed each other to temper each others extremes and fill out any holes. Brothers seems to consistently show that songs popularly considered to be from Paul's genius was made complete by what John (and the others, including Martin) brought to the work; and that any considered to be from John's genius was made complete by what Paul and the others brought. In other words, in spite of their growing differences, when they were in the studio creating they were collaborating until the end.Also, I found Brothers' breakdown of the play between Rubber Soul/Pet Sounds/Sgt Pepper to be among the best I've seen. In addition to the usual comments about influence and inspiration there is a great deal of song by song, and even instrument by instrument, comparing and contrasting. This is perhaps the most grounded and concrete discussion of that fertile period for both bands.I highly recommend this to any fan of Ellington, The Beatles, jazz, rock, music history and musicology. Brothers goes deeply into specific compositions while also providing contextualization from personal lives and society as a whole. These artists did not create this music in a vacuum and Brothers helps us to place this music in both music history as well as world history.Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration PDF
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration EPub
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration Doc
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration iBooks
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration rtf
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration Mobipocket
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration Kindle
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration PDF
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration PDF
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration PDF
Help!: The Beatles, Duke Ellington, and the Magic of Collaboration PDF
