In the studio
Like ‘Eleanor Rigby’ before it, ‘She’s Leaving Home’ did not feature any musical instruments played by The Beatles. Instead it had a string backing, with a harp, violins, violas, cellos and a double bass.It was scored by Mike Leander, a freelance producer and arranger, because George Martin was unavailable at the short notice demanded by Paul McCartney.
I rang him and I said, ‘I need you to arrange it.’ He said, ‘I’m sorry, Paul, I’ve got a Cilla [Black] session.’ And I thought, Fucking hell! After all this time working together, he ought to put himself out. It was probably unreasonable to expect him to. Anyway, I said, ‘Well, fine, thanks George,’ but I was so hot to trot that I called Mike Leander, another arranger. I got him to come over to Cavendish Avenue and I showed him what I wanted, strings, and he said, ‘Leave it with me.’
Many Years From Now, Barry Miles
The Cilla Black session was likely to have been for her single ‘What Good Am I?’ Released in the UK in June 1967, it was arranged and conducted by Mort Shuman, and produced by George Martin.
Martin was hurt by McCartney’s decision to enlist Mike Leander to arrange ‘She’s Leaving Home’, although he did produce the session and conduct the players.
During the making of Pepper [Paul] was also to give me one of the biggest hurts of my life. It concerned the song ‘She’s Leaving Home’. At that time I was still having to record all my other artists. One day Paul rang me to say: ‘I’ve got a song I want you to work with me on. Can you come round tomorrow afternoon? I want to get it done quickly. We’ll book an orchestra, and you can score it.’
‘I can’t tomorrow, Paul. I’m recording Cilla [Black] at two-thirty.’
‘Come on. You can come round at two o’clock.’
‘No, I can’t, I’ve got a session on.’
‘All right, then,’ he said, and that ended the conversation.What he did then, as I discovered later, was to get Neil Aspinall, the road manager, to ring round and find someone else to do the score for him, simply because I couldn’t do it at that short notice. In the end he found Mike Leander, who could. The following day Paul presented me with it and said, ‘Here we are. I’ve got a score. We can record it now.’
I recorded it, with a few alterations to make it work better, but I was hurt. I thought: Paul, you could have waited. For I really couldn’t have done it that afternoon, unless I had just devoted everything to The Beatles and never dealt with any other artist. Paul obviously didn’t think it was important that I should do everything. To me it was. I wasn’t getting much out of it from a financial point of view, but at least I was getting satisfaction. The score itself was good enough, and still holds up today, but it was the only score that was ever done by anyone else during all my time with The Beatles.
All You Need Is Ears
The recording of ‘She’s Leaving Home’ took place over two days. The first was on 17 March 1967, which featured just the strings. Six takes were recorded; Paul McCartney was present in the studio.
I got to the studio early to tune the instrument. I walked in and there was Paul McCartney but I didn’t recognise him at first. I was concentrating on what was written on the manuscript, then I turned around, heard the Liverpool accent and realised it was him. I hadn’t got a clue, I had just talked to the other musicians and waited.In actual fact he was quite difficult to work with because he wasn’t too sure what he actually wanted. He said ‘no I don’t want that, I want something…’ but he couldn’t describe what he wanted and I tried it all every which way.
On 20 March it was decided that take one had been the best, and so McCartney and John Lennon’s vocals were recorded, twice over to give the impression of more voices.
George Martin may have called it “pure McCartney, from start to finish” but it’s not true. Paul is on record stating John actually wrote the part where Paul sings the high extended notes (She… is leaving… home… etc.) with John singing the father/mother part (we gave her most of our lives, sacrificed most of our lives etc.)
Paul called this part the Greek chorus, not really sure why (Greek tragedy?)
This song is actually a proper Lennon-McCartney composition although not generally acknowledged as such.
I believe that what Sir George Martin meant by « Pure McCartney » was in the song’s essence not in writing contribution strictly speaking.
It does reflect a stronger ( if not total ) McCartney feel… Of course, John contributed — as stated by Paul himself — with his very Lennonesque « Greek chorus » lines. Nonetheless, it was still created from Paul’s inspiration and very much reflects his brand and that’s what Martin was making reference to in his comment.
I think you are right. A pure collaboration, Paul’s verse John’s chorus. And if you think about the verse and chorus lyrics, they must have done them together, at least the second and third verse. Verses and refrains are so linked, that they must have thought them together. If you think about the end result, in my opinion it’s not possible that Paul came with three full verses, and after that John wrote those refrain lyrics. In fact, you can see in Lennon’s handwritten lyrics for Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, that he was maybe also thinking words for the third verse for She’s Leaving Home in that same paper. You can see he has written “Wedenesday morning at 9… ” .
I think Martin was stating that the lyrics and songwriting are pure McCartney. The song ties strongly with Paul’s recurring theme of alienation seen in Revolver (the album just before Sgt. Pepper). Elanor Rigby and For No One have similar messages of separation. Though it is true that Lennon provides a great counter-melody musically, the song is definitely a classic McCartney tune in its meaning.
Sorry, I think this is a maudlin, sugary piece of crap not worthy of the Beatles. “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy”? Seriously?
Your opinion. Thousands disagree and they’re not wrong. Musicologist Wilfred Mellors in his book Twilight of the Gods described the song as an inspired piece of adolescent genius.
.
I agree with Fanque. A depressingly long song I always skipped over the years. It has its merits but the style of this song was done already with Eleanor Rigby and Yesterday. This should have been the B-Side to Penny Lane and replaced with Strawberry Fields Forever on the album which would been a mind blowing end to side one.
Everyone is entitled their opinion of course, but I truly feel sorry for you if that is all that you can say about what is truly a musical masterpiece. It’s songs such as this that made the Beatles unique and paved the way for so many bands who took up the reins when they split!
This is definitely a masterpiece….I don’t understand how someone cannot see this….Every element of this work is first rate….From the poignant subject matter to the hauntingly soaring melody and counterpoint chorus vocals….And the instrumentation is just a harp, played exquisitely, and a string section. No guitars, no drums…
Like I said, the song has its merits but like it or not it grinds Side 1 of Sgt. Pepper to a screeching halt.
Think about who is singing “fun is the one thing that money can’t buy.” This line is delivered by “the GReek chorus” and is meant to be ironic; of course, “Love” is the one thing that money can’t buy, but the clueless parents in the song (who are “the Greek Chorus) are incapable of understanding or accepting that it is their own failures that drove the child away. They never were able, or willing, to show love, and so they substituted “fun” instead. “We gave her everything money could buy.”
The insight into the family dynamic in this song is brilliant, subtle, and quite acerbic. The sweetness of the harp music and lilting melody is in stark contrast to the bitter reality of the girl’s life. “After living alone for so many years” because her parents were too self-absorbed to even notice her pain. “What did we do that was wrong? … We struggled hard all our lives … How could she do this to me?”
I think this song is worth your time to reevaluate and perhaps even grow to enjoy.
Nicely put
Oh Pablo, get off your high horse and enjoy it. ?
paul wrote the part with the high extend notes(she … is… leaving… home). lennon’s contribution was the countermelody and the lyrics from the father and mother part(we gave her most our lives…).
The song is mostly written by mccartney, but its true that lennon helped on it
Actually, that is incorrect. Here’s Paul quoted as stating that John contributed the chorus with the “long sustained notes” (“sheeeee….is leaving…..”), including the sustained notes of the songs ending, and the answering melody lines (“we struggled hard all our lives to get by” etc.) while all of the verses were written by Paul. “It was John’s idea for the words of the old couple, ‘What did we do that was wrong?’ in the background,” explained George Martin. “He was looking at the misused old people and also the conflict between them and the young girl. Originally, it was undoubtedly Paul’s song, but John contributed quite a bit in a way with the answering chorus.” Paul confirms this by saying, “It was largely mine, with help from John.”
i read somewhere that David Crosby on tour there with the Byrds also sand harmony on this song
David Crosby didn’t sing on this song for sure!!
Maybe they did their own version?
Isn’t there also George Harrison in backing vocals?
Hi Pascal,
I believe its just Paul and John doing backround vocals in the format that is described in the aforementioned comments. I think Paul and John sat across from one another in the studio and recorded thier parts at the same time. Sorry no George on this one.
George was absent from a lot of this album. He stated in Anthology that his heart was still in India.
I have always thought this was written and recorded before the trip to India. Not After
Though Time does Warble in my mind when looking back
No he wasn’t – he was on every track except “She’s Leaving Home” – and he was on holiday in India for like two months, so that would’ve given him plenty of time to rest and recover from the final American tour before he had to go back to London for the recording.
It wasn’t like he was in hospital for the majority of the sessions, let alone living abroad for a year as a tax exile.
Just like the old days, sitting across from each other playing around with chords and finding lyrics to match.
I just listened to this song in both mono and stereo versions; there is a slight difference between the two tracks. One is either speeded up or the other one is a lower pitch or something; it’s hard to pinpoint since I was listening on my laptop.
I noticed that too between the vinyl and digital versions…I thought something was wrong with my new record player when I first heard it on vinyl lol
This is song is stunning. Haunting. Alluring beauty. John’s (fantastic!) incredibly sweet voice in the “Greek chorus” gives you shivers. More so than in A Day in the Life… A masterpice.
@marie…you’re totally right. the mono version is 10 secs shorter since it’s basically running faster than the stereo version. the mono version sounds cuter though hehe while the stereo version sounds and feels just right for the song.
Something hat i recently discovered. The mono version IS the original speed of the song.
The stereo version is the altered one, the slower and one semitone lower in pitch.
This info you can find it on the booklet acompanning ”The Beatles In Mono” box set, but no reason is given.
How did you discover that?
Listning to the original recordings (4 track) the stereo one is the original speed.
Sorry I didn’t read!!!
Stil the stereo one is same speed as 4 track. And less chipmunk sound. And same speed as the vinyl record…
I always thought the vocals on the stereo version sounded a bit dragging. Not as extreme as Strawberry Fields, but still.
The correct mono-version which I heard two days ago for the first time finally sounds right.
On the other hand, the slower version sounds a bit more sad and fits the song not that bad.
Yeah i have the four track master too, and it’s on the stereo speed, but i don’t know, in the mono box booklet says that it was slowed down on stereo of the original speed that is in mono.
I prefer the lower tune of Stereo, but there’s some sadness also on mono.
Pulled straight from a book titled “100 Best Beatles Songs: An Informed Fan’s Guide” by Stephen J. Spignes and Michael Lewis : The original mono version is in the key of F-major. For the 1967 stereo release of Sgt.Pepper the song was slowed down just enough to drop it down half a step to E major. 🙂
The Beatles In Mono booklet says: “The Beatles had soon begun to take an interest in how their recordings were completed during mixing. While Sgt. Pepper was assembled in 1967, they attended all the mono mixing sessions and would sometimes add another element at this final stage of the recording process. However, once the mono version of the album was finished, the group were content to leave the stereo mixing in the hands of George Martin and his engineers. For whatever reasons, this stereo mix is remarkably different. Did someone forget about pressing a tape machine vari-speed button so that ‘She’s Leaving Home’ in stereo runs slower and is a semi-tone lower in pitch than the mono version?”
That is, in my opinion, probably what happend. Furthermore the original sheet music is in E major, and Sheila Bromberg plays the harp part in E major as well, which all goes to show that it was recorded in E major as heard on the stereo version, and sped up to F major for the mono version.
The mono version sounds like chipmunks on a drug trip. The Beatles were in a phase where they liked speeding things up during remix, just as much as they liked slowing them down. For instance, When I’m 64 on the same album is speeded up, and The Fool On the Hill later featured a speeded-up vocal (over normal instruments).
It is most plausible that the stereo mix retains the original speed and key (E) of the performances, the more so if that is what the 4-track says, and that the mono was speeded up during remix. Which to call “correct” is another question, essentially a religious argument.
As much as I enjoy the song, it does have a lyrical gaffe which I always took to be McCartney’s. Fun can absolutely be bought with money. (“Fun was the one thing that money can’t buy”) Love, maybe not so much.
True enough, money probably can buy fun. A more accurate sentiment would have been “Love is the one thing that money can’t buy” but we already learned that back in ’64.
I had exactly the same reaction the first time I heard this song. In my case, I thought immediately of being taken to an amusement park and having lots of fun—paid for by my parents! $ = fun, right?
But when I heard John sing, “Fun is the one thing that money can’t buy,” I asked myself whether it really was the money that made me enjoy myself. Obviously the money was necessary: you couldn’t ride the rides without tickets, and tickets cost money. But I realized that the money was not sufficient: I later went to the same amusement park, rode the same rides, and had no fun at all. Why? My parents had recently gotten divorced.
$ can buy you enjoyable things, but actually enjoying them isn’t something that $ alone can provide.
Maybe “fun” in the song is intended as “happiness”..
Excellent observation about a line that always bothered me too.
No no no, this is typical Lennonesque irony: he’s puncturing the sentimentality by tossing in something obviously, comically false. But it also intensifies the sadness: fun isn’t really fulfilling if it’s just bought.
No no no, this is typical Lennonesque irony: he’s puncturing the sentimentality by tossing in something obviously, comically false. But it also intensifies the sadness: fun isn’t really fulfilling if it’s just bought.
Just my opinion, but I read it on a deeper level. When you’re unhappy, you can easily become depressed. Depression can be like a zombie walk through life that has become existence. You can be with someone at a “fun” event, but feel pain or nothing at all instead of fun. You need to feel from the inside what the outside is presenting to you. You can be at a great party or an amusement park, and feel absolutely lonely and miserable. I imagine the girl in the song is isolated with her parents. She probably couldn’t relate well to kids her own age. She was sheltered and, when her parents saw her withdrawing, maybe they took her to events that were supposed to be “fun” and would have been if only she had company who could unlock the joy inside her. I see a forlorn soul, going through the motions of the rides all alone, with her sad parents standing near trees, looking on and not knowing what to do or how to help her in any way. All three are joyless, and it’s sad because so many people in life feel that way.
I’m an oldie and I fortunately have the 2 versions on vinyl (original ODEON POPS black label in Argentina 1967 mono & the stereo mix of 1980s). The speed is exactly the same in both cases. But it changed when EMI reedited all the band’s catalogue on CD. The 2009 remastered version has the same length as the CD of that period (1980s)but it really sounds different. By the way what would you say about John’s vocals? Only vocals, background vocals or lead vocals? In my opinion he sings background.
I’ve always found this song dragging and dreary, although the counterpoint vocals, the complexity of the melody and the orchestral arrangement are to be admired. Then I heard the mono version – which, incidentally, is the actual speed/key in which the song was recorded – and it suddenly made sense. I can even say I like it now – rather than just admiring its musicality of the piece.
I could agree more. The mono version is really nice. The song no longer drags.
George Martin was very critical of the orchestral arrangement – of course because he didn’t do it. Sour grapes!
how do you know this?
The arrangement is a thing of beauty. This is one of my favorite Beatles songs. The mood, the lyrics, Paul and John’s vocals, and the musical resolution at the end with the harp. Was surprised to find Martin didn’t do the arrangement. It certainly doesn’t suffer from it.
Who did the arrangement if not George Martin?
Mike Leander did the arrangement on this.
That’s right. Mike Leander did have a track record of his own, working variously with Lulu, Nico, Marianne Faithfull, The Rolling Stones, The Small Faces, Van Morrison, Joe Cocker, Roy Orbison, Ben E. King, The Drifters and also disgraced glam rock singer Gary Glitter.
Paul McCartney:
“John and I wrote ‘She’s Leaving Home’ together…when I showed it to John, he added the long sustained notes, and one of the nice things about the structure of the song is that it stays on those chords endlessly…”
I’m actually just hearing the mono version for the first time now.. I’ ve fallin in love with the CD remastered version the speed gives it a certain atmosphere that I think fits the song. I think I like it better tho the mono version is still great.
The song was recorded deliberately at a slower speed and in a lower key, with the intention of speeding the tape up on playback. This was to “brighten up” the sound of the instruments and vocals. That was what happened in the Mono version, but when mixing the Stereo version (with The Beatles absent) the tape was not speeded up as originally intended. No-one seems to know why this happened but it means that it is the faster Mono version which The Beatles intended to put out.
it’s not sped up on the stereo version, because they forgot! same thing with the stereo version of lucy in the sky with diamonds – they forgot to phase the lead vocal as they did on the mono version. the mono version was the preferred mix and got all the attention. the stereo mix was an afterthought, as most people did not own stereos at the time. the beatles didn’t even attend the stereo mixing. this is also fairly well documented – as in geoff emerick’s book. they used varisound quite a lot in 1965-67
George Martin was biased towards Paul – John and George knew that and never worked with him again after the split – and spoke a lot of crap half the time like saying in one doco I saw recently Paul was mainly interested in the music while John in the words which is blatantly untrue. He wouldn’t have known who wrote what precisely and wasn’t even involved in the recording of “She’s Leaving Home” was he?
It’s great that Paul gave credit to John for co-writing the song.When I hear it – like today hence this post- I now think of it as a McCartney-Lennon song with John as co-lead singer. I like Paul more when he shows his generous side instead of trying to claim everything.
Mind you Lennon gave George Martin a serve on a few occasions. He told him he didn’t want any of his “production crap” on the Get Back album and GM said he was vicious to him and everybody in the RS interview 1970. So there were some issues there.
John did that 1970 Rolling Stone interview with Jann S. Wenner at a time when he made a lot of angry utterances, possibly because a) he and Yoko were undergoing primal scream therapy under the supervision of Dr. Arthur Janov and b) The Beatles’ public breakup must’ve still been in his thoughts, particularly the way Paul publicized his own departure to sell a record.
John later recanted much of what he said in the interview and he did attribute it to his anger, and he was very angry when Jann S. Wenner published the interview into the book “Lennon Remembers”.
This is one of a number of songs from this album written by Paul that nonetheless feature a prominent John vocal section (I’m thinkig of “Sgt. Pepper” the opening track and “Getting Better”). At one time I thought these sections were written by John. Ian MacDonald in “Revolution in the Head” refers to the middle of this song (which he described as the “sour” middle I seem to remember) of this songs as being contributed by John. But I guess his contribution was limited to a few of the lyrics of the song?
Yeah, basically what John sings is what he contributed: the perspective of the runaway girl’s parents.
But just the lyrics, right? By contrast, I noticed in the “Getting Better” article that Paul credited John with writing a “counter-melody” in that one. Not so in this one, I suppose?
I can’t believe 40-50 years later so many are still pitting John and Paul against each other. Competition would be natural for the two greatest songwriters of any generation. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people feel the need to fight Johns battles, they both did a pretty good job on their own and still loved each other to the end. It’s The Beatles and everything they did was great. In the seven years together the four of them accomplished more than 20 bands combined couldn’t dream of doing in a lifetime. Enjoy the music and hit next on your ipod, cd player if you don’t like a song or feel the need to critique every aspect of a song because millions and millions didn’t seem to have a problem. I can only imagine what Beethoven had to put up with.
I was staggered by the beauty of this song the first time I heard it. Pure poetry.
Very nice to hear the 2017 deluxe version without the vocals, similar to the remix of Eleanor Rigby. Those two songs together elevated the Beatles to a level rarely reached by pop artists by gaining undeniable legitimacy among even the greatest snobs found in classical music circles. An absolutely beautiful sad song. It is interesting to imagine what the arrangement might have been like had George Martin handled the piece.
The young Miss Coe bears quite a resemblance to Pattie Boyd.
Lennon wrote a lot of this song remembering words aunt Mamie had told him.
We struggled hard all our lives to get by
Never a thought for ourselves
All those lines are Lennon referring sacrifice
This is certainly a beautiful song, it was Paul’s idea and the whole feel of it is Paul but the little lines that Lennon wrote are quite mesmerizing it gives Paul’s song depth, so many Beatles songs have that and I believe this is the Beatles secret. Some of John’s songs have that as well, that’s why they were so unique as a band.
Brilliant song, which shows that while Lennon and McCartney individually wrote great songs, the input from the partner would elevate them even further.
Lyrically this is so mature, the way it alternates between the POV of the girl and her parents, and respects them both. A 60s kitchen sink drama summed up in a 3 minute “pop” song.
So for this song, John’s contributions were the suggestion for the long notes before the chorus and the chorus lyrics that he sang. Isn’t that similar to what his contribution was for Michelle? The long notes of the middle 8? I wonder if that was a go-to fix for him that he used elsewhere? I’ve never noticed. Get stuck in a song? Throw in some long notes as a bridge to the next bit… I’ve always liked this song, with it’s different perspectives from the daughter’s point of view and the parents. Funny, when I was a kid, I thought the Greek chorus was kinda funny and I identified more with the daughter. Now that I’m older, I feel bad for the parents, and I don’t even have kids. Kinda the flip side to “We Can Work It Out” perhaps? Even in We Can Work It Out, John’s contribution was kinda of what the wise old person would say. Wasn’t he a terror as a kid? Pretty funny that he’d be contributing these kinds of lines in these songs.
The song is actually very similar to Eleanor Rigby. [It’s like a segue to it. Probably what G Martin was trying to say] It’s similar musically, and in meaning.
ie She’s leaving home because she doesn’t want to end up like Eleanor Rigby.
– But She is anyway; if you know what I mean.
I’m leaving my 2 cents all the way down here and most won’t even see it. I find it uncanny that Miss Melanie Coe had an encounter with the Beatles years before only to have them write a song about her. I wonder if Paul recognized her in the news article? “Hey, isn’t she the bird who won that song miming contest?”. I sincerely hope she went on to have a fulfilling life. Immortalized in a Beatles song, even relating to some of the lyrics before knowing it’s about her.
Hi Cathy: I read your entry and anything is possible. She did say that Paul wasn’t very chatty but maybe she left enough of an impression on him that he later thought of her worthy as the subject of one of his songs.
Listening to “She’s Leaving Home” again, and hearing it differently, now that I’ve been both child and parent and now know the deep and searing pain that both parents and children feel when the time comes that a child must break away. Sometimes a song instinctively tells a story that’s far more meaningful than the lyrics.
To anyone reading this comment, parent or child – please listen to this song together with Cat Stevens’ “Father and Son” and Harry Chapin’s “Cats in The Cradle”, to be able to deeply understand and to help ease each other’s pain when it’s time for the child to go.
Here’s my take on the “Fun” line:
Suppose the girl’s note said, “I have to leave home, I want to have some FUN in my life!” The mother reacts with her line — that they could buy everything for her EXCEPT ‘fun’.
The mother’s remark is a shock reaction, trying to make sense of the shocking development; but the note is the mixed-up, impulsive thoughts of a teen girl, who has zero perspective (and who in fact came home 10 days later). WE know that the teen girl doesn’t even know what fun is. But the mother, in her shock, has nothing else to react to, and is ready to blame ‘the impossibility of buying fun’.
Or maybe it’s nothing mote than just a Lennon jab at materialism!