Post by shawnturner on Jan 29, 2018 13:43:36 GMT
Here's my essay on the Beatles:
The Beatles were terrible for much of their career. They were playing catch up their entire career and they fell apart for two main reasons: first their manager, who had been marketing them and keeping them mollified, died and, second, rock had grown up and the Beatles could no longer be just six months to a year behind the trends and they weren't good enough musicians to copy much of the music being made; they started to fall even further behind and it was becoming clear how much they were just followers and not innovators. They copied/watered down what bands such as the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Byrds, Pink Floyed, the Beach Boys, the Yardbirds, the Doors and many others were doing. One reason most everybody today sounds like the Beatles is because the Beatles sounded like all of their contemporaries.
They're important because they're important, because everybody knows them. They were popular because they regurgitated and redid things that the real innovators were doing several months or a year earlier and, most importantly, did so in a safe and easily marketable fashion. It is downright scary that things were so conservative in the US, UK, etc that the general public needed everything this watered down, this simplified. The fact that these bright cheery polite and proper clean cut white middle to upper class English lads were seen as rebellious is mind boggling.
What did they have going for them, other than the hype? They copied and distilled what most everybody else was doing so you don't have to listen to a bunch of bands to know what new was going on the 60s; 50 years later it doesn't matter that the Beatles were late on everything. Also, a real thing: they wrote really good melodies... though they did this in a time when rock was moving beyond that. They were the conservative force. Not the most conservative force - there were still crooners and folk singing the Great American Songbook - but the Beatles weren't leading in anything except record sales.
One of the most ridiculous things about Across the Universe (the film) is that it makes it seem like the Beatles had the pulse of the Western world (or at least the English speaking part) but you don't hear a bit of it in their lyrics. Baby won't you drive my car. They wrote silly pop songs about teenage love or nothing.
Beatlemania has created a modern myth and it is still powerful and still sells a fuckload of CDs. We know them because their music is not (all) bad and because they have been so built into the culture. Everybody covers a song by the Beatles in concert, partially because they know everybody will know it.
Now: I like the Beatles. I grew up on the Beatles; they usually make me feel happy. But they're still the only band I have used them for my birthday week artist a day gig where I got fucking sick of them shut it off; I preferred silence to more of their endless cheap melodies.
Now: I am not saying that nobody should listen to the Beatles. They're probably a good band to play for young children that aren't ready for the more difficult or risque stuff. And, well, there are a few albums by the Beatles that are really good. Sgt Pepper's, The Beatles and Abbey Road are all quite wonderful. Brian Epstein wasn't holding them in anymore and so everybody was writing their own songs and George Martin was at the height of his powers, making it sound good despite their limitations as musicians. Even without our cultures obsession with the Beatles these albums would all belong somewhere on some best of the 60s list. Revolver is pretty good too. I really like the originals on Beatles for Sale, leaving a fantastic 20 minute EP. There's not much beyond that that is essential.
Now: I am not saying that you shouldn't like the Beatles. I like the Beatles. Occasionally it is fun to relive my childhood and listen to happy music. Occasionally it is good to revisit one of the good albums they did. What, if anything, I would want to suggest is that some sense of history beyond just the Beatles is helpful for understanding the world of music.
The Rolling Stones were great musicians and the first modern rock band (if it wasn't the Crickets.) Ray Davies of the Kinks was a better songwriter than any of the Beatles and his lyrics (or at least more than the lyrics by the Beatles) were about something (and that's without going into Dylan, etc.) The Byrds were better conceptually, and were, with Pink Floyd and many others, were better at psychedelic music. And the Beach Boys were playing originals before the Beatles, started their own record company before the Beatles, did Pet Sounds a year before Sgt. Peppers and Brian wilson was not only a better producer than George Martin, he was a member of the band, too.
Next time I wanna listen to the Beatles I am going to try one of the above. Or the Yardbirds and their many fantastic guitarists. Or the Doors (well, despite how good they were they've probably gotten enough exposure, too.) Or the Who, another band that was actually musically innovative and culturally conscious. Or the Animals or the Sonics. Or Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin, artists that the Beatles could never have imitated musically. Or the Stooges or Black Sabbath, artists that the Beatles could never have copied the image of (since they were the establishment what was being rebelled against.) Or listen to the first rock 'n rollers like Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly or Jerry Lee Lewis or Eddie Cochran or Billy Fury. Or the people they got it from like Bo Diddley or Howlin' Wolf or Muddy Waters or... the list goes on and on.
For More Details:
Fire Suppression Video
The Beatles were terrible for much of their career. They were playing catch up their entire career and they fell apart for two main reasons: first their manager, who had been marketing them and keeping them mollified, died and, second, rock had grown up and the Beatles could no longer be just six months to a year behind the trends and they weren't good enough musicians to copy much of the music being made; they started to fall even further behind and it was becoming clear how much they were just followers and not innovators. They copied/watered down what bands such as the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, the Byrds, Pink Floyed, the Beach Boys, the Yardbirds, the Doors and many others were doing. One reason most everybody today sounds like the Beatles is because the Beatles sounded like all of their contemporaries.
They're important because they're important, because everybody knows them. They were popular because they regurgitated and redid things that the real innovators were doing several months or a year earlier and, most importantly, did so in a safe and easily marketable fashion. It is downright scary that things were so conservative in the US, UK, etc that the general public needed everything this watered down, this simplified. The fact that these bright cheery polite and proper clean cut white middle to upper class English lads were seen as rebellious is mind boggling.
What did they have going for them, other than the hype? They copied and distilled what most everybody else was doing so you don't have to listen to a bunch of bands to know what new was going on the 60s; 50 years later it doesn't matter that the Beatles were late on everything. Also, a real thing: they wrote really good melodies... though they did this in a time when rock was moving beyond that. They were the conservative force. Not the most conservative force - there were still crooners and folk singing the Great American Songbook - but the Beatles weren't leading in anything except record sales.
One of the most ridiculous things about Across the Universe (the film) is that it makes it seem like the Beatles had the pulse of the Western world (or at least the English speaking part) but you don't hear a bit of it in their lyrics. Baby won't you drive my car. They wrote silly pop songs about teenage love or nothing.
Beatlemania has created a modern myth and it is still powerful and still sells a fuckload of CDs. We know them because their music is not (all) bad and because they have been so built into the culture. Everybody covers a song by the Beatles in concert, partially because they know everybody will know it.
Now: I like the Beatles. I grew up on the Beatles; they usually make me feel happy. But they're still the only band I have used them for my birthday week artist a day gig where I got fucking sick of them shut it off; I preferred silence to more of their endless cheap melodies.
Now: I am not saying that nobody should listen to the Beatles. They're probably a good band to play for young children that aren't ready for the more difficult or risque stuff. And, well, there are a few albums by the Beatles that are really good. Sgt Pepper's, The Beatles and Abbey Road are all quite wonderful. Brian Epstein wasn't holding them in anymore and so everybody was writing their own songs and George Martin was at the height of his powers, making it sound good despite their limitations as musicians. Even without our cultures obsession with the Beatles these albums would all belong somewhere on some best of the 60s list. Revolver is pretty good too. I really like the originals on Beatles for Sale, leaving a fantastic 20 minute EP. There's not much beyond that that is essential.
Now: I am not saying that you shouldn't like the Beatles. I like the Beatles. Occasionally it is fun to relive my childhood and listen to happy music. Occasionally it is good to revisit one of the good albums they did. What, if anything, I would want to suggest is that some sense of history beyond just the Beatles is helpful for understanding the world of music.
The Rolling Stones were great musicians and the first modern rock band (if it wasn't the Crickets.) Ray Davies of the Kinks was a better songwriter than any of the Beatles and his lyrics (or at least more than the lyrics by the Beatles) were about something (and that's without going into Dylan, etc.) The Byrds were better conceptually, and were, with Pink Floyd and many others, were better at psychedelic music. And the Beach Boys were playing originals before the Beatles, started their own record company before the Beatles, did Pet Sounds a year before Sgt. Peppers and Brian wilson was not only a better producer than George Martin, he was a member of the band, too.
Next time I wanna listen to the Beatles I am going to try one of the above. Or the Yardbirds and their many fantastic guitarists. Or the Doors (well, despite how good they were they've probably gotten enough exposure, too.) Or the Who, another band that was actually musically innovative and culturally conscious. Or the Animals or the Sonics. Or Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin, artists that the Beatles could never have imitated musically. Or the Stooges or Black Sabbath, artists that the Beatles could never have copied the image of (since they were the establishment what was being rebelled against.) Or listen to the first rock 'n rollers like Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly or Jerry Lee Lewis or Eddie Cochran or Billy Fury. Or the people they got it from like Bo Diddley or Howlin' Wolf or Muddy Waters or... the list goes on and on.
For More Details:
Fire Suppression Video