The Beatles: icon or con?

Sidney Morning Herald ^ | 12/22/04 | Greg Hassall and Charles Purcell

[qam1]

Greg Hassall and Charles Purcell do battle over the fab four.

FOR

OK, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is the most annoying song ever written. And you won't find Revolution No 9 on too many iPods. But how many bands' dud tracks can you count on one hand? The Beatles deserve their place in the pop pantheon. They revolutionised the way pop music was written, recorded and talked about. They were funny, charismatic, hungry to learn and unafraid of controversy. They matured spectacularly over seven tumultuous years, then quit on a high note with the peerless Abbey Road.

They were a genuine band, in that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. The three writers spurred each other on and checked each other's excesses (McCartney's sentimentality, Lennon's bile and Harrison's cod mysticism). In one throwaway B-side, Rain, they created the template for psychedelic Britpop, a genre lesser bands spend an entire career mining. Their refusal to write the same song twice resulted in a catalogue of breathtaking diversity, while producer George Martin gave the recordings a unique, uncluttered sound that refuses to date. And, as the age of the drum solo dawned, Ringo kept it real, underpinning the Beatles' sound with undemonstrative precision.

Greg Hassall

AGAINST

Pretty much everyone in the '60s must have been on drugs - that's the only reason I can imagine why the Beatles were so popular. They had about three decent songs: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Eleanor Rigby - and that other one, the one that doesn't suck. It's a riddle greater than the pyramids as to why a group of English fops with ridiculous hairstyles could make entire crowds of grown adults faint in awe. John Lennon? A prancing popinjay. Paul McCartney? A ponce. George Harrison? Vanity in the shape of a man. Ringo Starr?

A cool dude - the only one.

OK, so the Beatles recorded on top of a building. Big deal. OK, so they hung out with the Maharishi. Is that supposed to give their dire tunes spiritual worth?

"But they were a major influence in the history of rock'n'roll," some might bleat. Sure they were - but does that mean the baby boomers have to force their boring Beatlemania down our craws year after year, decade after decade?

I'm glad Yoko Ono helped split them up. She's the true heroine of this story. Too bad she's also a lousy artist.

And Wings. Don't get me started on McCartney's sad side project. That's another story.

- Charles Purcell

[NRA1995]

If the Beatles had done anything as powerful and emotional as Tower Of Power's "So Very Hard To Go" I might have liked them

[netmilsmom]

I acually owned it on vinyl!

(shhh, I'm pretty old)

[the OlLine Rebel]

Too many posts by now so sorry, I haven't caught up on the general opinions here.

My own - overrated. Not bad, just overrated.

Personally I liked the initial Beatles, who were just another set of guys making some good rock songs (honest rock, not "cross-over to some other unnamed music segment" "rock"). Their later stuff was the latter type. Psychedelic, hippie, whatever. Largely it was stupid and gooney sounding; I mean really, come on! All that "aaa-eeeeehh" whining in majorly nasal high pitch. It's STUPID! It sounds "gay" (for lack of a better term)! Never mind how some were supposed to be preachy (altho you can't be sure cuz it's mostly a bunch of nonsensical yap).

So on balance, I think they were OK. Some of the latter-age songs were good (purely in musical terms), but most I'm just as happy to turn off.

Taken in pieces - the original Beatles stuff is good, the "socially conscious" stuff is bad.

[the OlLine Rebel]

"There was too much really great R & B out there at the time for me to feel like I missed something."

Agreed, this was Motown time.

I also loved Beach Boys and Four Seasons. So kill me.

Of course there's alot about the mid-latter '60s I don't like - including music, which was largely either too gooney or too literally "noisy" w/the latter-day hippie garbage, but generally these are my favorites from then.

[RightOnline]

The Beatles rocked. I'm qualified to say that. I've been a music fan since the late '50's.......and a rock guitarist since the late '60's. Their musicianship was sometimes........questionable..........but their vocals?? Their songwriting skills? Their pure craftsmanship?

Unequalled.

[the OlLine Rebel]

What has latest music (or anything non-Beatles, FTM) have to do w/the basic question: are all the *accolades* the Beatles get well-deserved, or not?

People who lash out at other music on a clear question about something specific are obviously trying to divert the conversation.

I say they're overrated. Doesn't mean they're bad, just put on way too high a pedestal.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

These are cookie cutter songs. Yes mechanically they are different, but that's just the mechanics. A cheesy lovesong is a cheesy lovesong is a cheesy lovesong, in the end they're all the same. And early in their career the Beatles were master of the cheesy lovesong.

What you're saying, in essence, is that a stick figure sketch of the Madonna is the same as a Renaissance master's oil painting of the Madonna because their subject is the same: the Madonna. Just say you don't care for the Beatles and be done with it. Your clinical justifications for your opinion don't hold much water.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I also think it's sad that 'oldies' are now considered to be anything recorded after 1964 (Beatles/British Invasion). There's a whole decade (1954-1964) that is now completely absent from the airwaves - say what you want about some of the corniness that came out of that decade, but there were ample gems from rock's early pioneers.

Lots of great rockabilly from that time period right there. Elvis' Sun Records recordings are the best stuff he ever did.

[dave k]

Lots of great rockabilly from that time period right there. Elvis' Sun Records recordings are the best stuff he ever did.

Agreed. Almost everything from the Sun label was excellent rockabilly. My other fave's along the same lines were Gene Vincent and the Blue Caps's early Capitol sides, Bill Haley and the Comets early Essex and Decca singles, the Johnny Burnette Rock and Roll Trio, Buddy Holly,...the list could go on. Of course, I'm also a fan of the R&B/rock of the same period; Fats Domino, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, The Drifters (Clyde McPhatter era)...

What a shame that stuff isn't even played on the air. Instead, we've got a generation of kids being weened on Snoop Dog and Fifty Cent (or whatever the hell their names are).

[Mr. Mojo]

I listed some good rock and roll bands from the 1970s (Ramones, Saints, Dictators, even the Gizmos) unfortunately they did not chart, get played on tv shows, press in magazines, or in other ways seep down to me in the 1970s the way that the Beatles DID.

Very true, they didn't. But those are just the 70s bands that you like. (I like the Ramones too, btw). Others (that I mentioned) got both charted and radio play. Sure, the 70s Stones, Floyd, Zep, Mott the Hoople, Skynyrd, Allman Bros. etc. never charted quite like the 60s Beatles or 50s Elvis. But then again who ever did?

I listened to Foreigner, Steve Miller Band, AC/DC, and such stuff in my mid-school years but I would be hard pressed to consider it noteworthy

Neither would I, and that's why I didn't include them any of them on my 70s lists.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Neither would I, and that's why I didn't include them any of them on my 70s lists.

I'd consider AC/DC noteworthy.

And we've all forgotten about this man right here:

Who was not only a musical visionary, but perhaps the greatest rock/blues/funk guitarist of all time.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Kinks rock, as we've already discussed on previous threads. Big difference between the Kinks and the Beatles - the Beatles wanted to get to the very top and stay there. Consciously, or sub-consciously the Kinks never wanted to.

[Mr. Mojo]

Jimi's the greatest guitarist ever, of course. ....and could write a great tune or two on occasion. ("The Wind Cries Mary" being a prime example).

But we're talking the 70s, not the 60s. (Although Hendrix did live nine and a half months in the 70s).

[Mr. Mojo]

nine and a half months

Make that eight and a half.

[discostu]

No what I'm saying is that all crappy sophomoric love songs are crappy sophomoric love songs and anybody claiming that the Beatles, who wrote DOZENS of crappy sophomoric love songs, never wrote the same song twice is wrong across the board. It's a cookie cutter, they are the same song. Basically you're argument is that if one thing is different they aren't functionally the same song, with that argument then none of the cookie cutter pop stars that have followed have ever written the same song twice, thus this claim of greatness of the Beatles by the "pro" fellow in the original article is pointless. By your definition it is impossible for anybody to write the same song twice, obviously neither the original writer nor myself are using your definition. All those lame stupid love songs I listed by the Beatles, plus plenty I didn't, are the same song by any useful definition of the term.

Once the Beatles got out of their crappy canned love song phase I find a few songs of their I like. To say I simply don't care for them would be a lie, I like some of their music. But I will not forgive them for the curse of the idiot teeny-bopper love song that they laid upon the music industry, a curse still reaking aural havoc on Western society today. It's not a matter of liking them or not liking them, it's a matter of not being able to tune into a top 40 radio station without suffering from what they've done.

[jaydubya2]

Is this Charles Purcell guy 10 years old? He sure doesn't recognize their contribution to music. Although I can find enjoyment in any Beatles song, Eleanor Rigby isn't their best.

[GSWarrior]

One can argue the merits of the Beatles' music, but it's hard to deny their effect on pop culture.

[DoctorMichael]

sar·casm    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (särkzm)
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit¹.

---

[Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.]

sarcasm

n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johathan Swift [syn: irony, satire, caustic remark]