Revolution at Nine

[jkoseattle]

 

[David Sprouse]

I was waiting for the song to wrap up, but it just kept going, and going....  This was 10 minutes whereas Beatles revolution #9 was only 8:22. 

[bitflipper]

Brilliant!

Even if that recording wouldn't have actually fit on a 78 RPM record. Coincidentally, just minutes ago I watched a video about Scott Joplin and ragtime, stride's progenitor. That and then this made me want to boot up the Kronos and jam out some old-timey piano...then I realized that despite my rather extensive collection of piano libraries, I have nothing that sounds quite like this. What is it?

[jkoseattle]

This is a piece I wrote a few years back, at a time I was into Fats Waller. If you're looking for "real" music that's like this, Waller would be a good place to start. Plus, he's terrific fun to listen to anyway. I remember I was also listening to Art Tatum at the time as well, and I probably absorbed notions from him too.

For years I'd thought about how the Beatles song was the most well-known piece of avant-garde music in the world, and that there were actually numerous bits in it that were actual music that maybe people would recognize if heard in another context. I don't know how much of anyone could pick out, so I also put together a recording showing the original bits side by side with the piano bits that match it so I'd have a record of it:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8j7nholzze7c4ak/Revolution at 9.1 Comparisons.mp3?dl=0