Every Little Thing | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

So true SG, the playing really comes together in this song. I always thought it was George Martin on piano but instead this is a true group effort. John sounds so sincere in his love. When I was 10 or 11 the innocent imagery is what struck me (especially I remember the first time, I was lonely without her). But I think you’re right and John had a little more in mind then just holding hands .

Ok, *rolls up feathers*,

The song is all about the excitement of new love, feeling proud and lucky and more than a little bragging and promises of undying affection, the usual stuff! If you think of it in that way, that’s fine, that’s what they want to get across. But what are they really doing…

What gets your attention at first is the lovely Rickenbacker jangle intro by John, introducing the verse melody, which has to a modern ear, quite a chorusy tone to it (of course, because it’s a 12-string!). And then the melody seems very Paul, but the rhythm and lead vocal is thoroughly John. Paul joins in on the choruses which gets quite a dramatic lift by Ringo adding timpani (and I have to admit, I find this musically funny but that’s just me), but also some dramatic octave chording along with it from John. And just to be different, George is holding down the acoustic rhythm! So this song gets all hands on deck, everyone contributes. I’ve said elsewhere that one of the important things about the Beatles For Sale album is how they explored dynamics, particularly on John compositions and their choice of covers. This song is another study in that vein.

The jangly intro pauses into a quiet acoustic guitar-led verse of double-tracked John, you can barely hear Ringo’s kick and then that interesting rhythmic tacet yes I know I’m a lucky guy strengthened by piano notes, then Ringo brings in snare rim taps and just before we hit the first chorus a little roll, so there’s a continuing gradient into the timpani, the octaves and Paul’s high notes.  The album is full of this intricate work, it’s only a shame the production is second-rate, it would sound lush with a better job.  I detect George Martin’s guiding hand on the structure of the solo, repeating the intro motif; and because it’s difficult to do anything much crazy with a 12-string, a deft little riff around the tacet melody that brings things neatly back into the chorus, and then the song goes out playing around the first half of the verse melody again and counterpointing against the 12-string rather prettily.

But the song is also odd: it’s not a standard pop format. There’s no middle-eight, or any modulation like we’re used to. Its verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo_as_verse_-chorus-verse_but_chorus_lyrics. And the chorus melody is a harmony in 4ths, the strangeness of which is held in by carefully mixing John’s lower harmony so it doesn’t sound quite as clashing but it sounds very unyielding, and I’ve always had a jarring sense of the chorus as musically defiant. There’s a medieval sense of correctness about the whole song, and the 12-string is almost lute-like in the harmony it’s using. Think of the Rolling Stone’s later Lady Jane for what I mean, there’s the repeated linking of the tonic chord (A major in this case) from start to finish, and how the melody begins and ends on the 3rd. And more if you keep looking.

Sometimes Beatles albums are like traps, they look simple but are not. Beatles For Sale has its flaws and I blame the production for largely obscuring its gems, like this simple-seeming song that disobeys pop rules and reminds you of older musical traditions.

That’ll do penguin, that’ll do.