Pop Culture Rants nobody asked for Part 2: Do the Beatles still matter?
I was looking at new music on iTunes today (yes, iTunes is still thing) and I saw that Paul McCartney had released a new album today. It’s called “Pure McCartney (Deluxe Edition)”, and at first I was already annoyed. I personally think Deluxe Edition albums are stupid. Yeah sure you might get an extra song or two and maybe some Digital booklet that does nothing but take up megabytes in your music library (come on, who actually looks at that shit?), and they’re probably priced the same as the regular album, but if you already have the regular album what’s the point? It’s just a cash grab for the distributor (in this case Concord), but I’m getting off point. Now back to the rant: so this album apparently is a compilation album of McCartney’s work from 1970 to 2015, and I looked at the track list and it has 68 songs. Most them are just filler in my opinion with a few titles that actually popped out to me ( Maybe I’m Amazed, Ebony and Ivory, Band on the Run, Live and Let Die, etc.), and includes songs from his solo career, duets, Wings, hell even the Fireman are there. Anyway I went to read the reviews and as you would expect overwhelmingly positive with a few outlying 1 stars here and there, but one three star review really stuck out to me. This review read something along the line of “all good songs, but if you already have the music than theres no need in buying this album, you can pretty much piece it together with what you already have, but if you’re a new fan go ahead and buy this.” That got me thinking; this album, while full of good music, is more a fan service to existing fans than an attempt to make new music. So my mind started wandering again like it normally does when I got to thinking about the Beatles, and I wondered would a band like the Beatles make it in today’s world of pop music? Now this is what led me to today’s topic; are the Beatles still relevant today?
I feel as though it’s impossible to discuss this topic without offending someone somewhere, so I’m going to go ahead and clarify some things; the Beatles are one of my all time favorite bands, hell I have a box full of their vinyl (yes kids those still exist too) sitting in front of me while I type this out, including one of my most prized possessions, an original 1969 UK released copy of Abbey Road. I think the Beatles made amazing music that really defined an era in not only the history of pop music but just history itself. If you told somebody to list somethings that describe the 1960s, most of them would probably put the Beatles in one of their top five spots. The Beatles have influenced so many artists that it would be impossible to list them all, but it’s important to know that fact. I’m going to try and look at this sacred cow as objectively as possible, and if I offend anyone in the process, there’s nothing I can do about that. I’m going to try and discuss the band as a whole, and then focus on the individual members.
So the Beatles, what made them the gods of music we know them as today? Well it all started in a little town known as Liverpool England. I’m not going to go into the whole history of the band but more hit the high points, and at Liverpool the Beatles really started the road to success when the encountered local record store owner Brian Epstein, whom they would eventually make their manager. The Beatles had been playing mostly around Liverpool and Hamburg Germany and building a sizable following in these two cities, but it would be Epstein who really helped them branch out into mainstream success. Epstein helped negotiate early ends to their prior label agreements which were holding the band back, but in mid 1962, he was able to convince George Martin to sign the band to EMI. George Martin would play a much more important role later in the story, but right now it was the band’s time to shine. Epstein also played an important role in convincing the band to replace drummer Pete Best with Ringo Starr. With Martin’s help, the band released their first album “Please Please Me”, which was moderately successful when compared to other Beatle albums. When asking someone what the first Beatle song to reach number 1 was, most people wold probably say “Love Me Do” or “Please Please Me”, but it was actually “From Me to You”. That first number one would start a record of 20 number one singles, the most for any artist ever, and a record that still stands today.
This was the start of Beatlemania in Britain, but once you make it in America that’s when you really go global. This is where Epstein’s genius really shined, as he helped create a marketing campaign never before seen in the states. He secured deals with radio DJ’s all over the country to play Beatle’s music, sponsored free merchandize give aways, started up fan clubs, etc. But surely this can’t be the only reason the Beatles made it in America right? Well you are correct. The Beatles were simply in the right place at the right time. Rock and Rock was dying in America. Jerry Lee Lewis was a disgraced, incestuous pervert, Elvis had joined the army, Little Richard had become a preacher, and Buddy Holly, Big Bopper, and Ritchie Valens had all died in a plane crash, not a good time for American music. But behold, these savvy, wise cracking, good looking, long haired, exotic Brits had come to save American youth from the wretches of the man. Ironically the British invasion probably saved American music more than any Americans ever did. The Brits had been taken aback by the raw passion of American rock and roll and had turned it into something uniquely British in the process, and the Beatles were undoubtedly the leaders of this movement. In 1964 the Beatles had invaded America, and later that year they would appear on the Ed Sullivan show before over 70 million TV viewers, the largest audience for anything ever up to that point. The day after the critics actually railed against the Beatles, but it was too late, the Beatles were here to stay. They toured America, seeing all we had to offer, even inspiring some change along the the way (they refused to play at any places in the south that weren’t integrated). After that the Beatles just met success after success, with the hit film Hard Day’s night, and albums “Beatles for Sale”, “Help”, and “Rubber Soul”.
Then things took a downturn in 1966 when John Lennon decided he just couldn’t keep his mouth shut about Jesus (more on that later), and they decided to stop touring after they realized that their fans were just in it for the hype and not the music. The Beatles then decided to show people that it was the music that mattered, and through this effort we got Sgt. Pepper’s. Ringo Starr once said “Sgt. Pepper’s for me, it’s a fine album, but I did learn to play chess on it”, which I think pretty much sums up where the band was at this time in history. They weren’t really like a band anymore, things got complicated and you didn’t have to record together anymore. It was a time they tried to experiment, and they succeeded, but at the cost of unity. Shortly after Epstein died unexpectedly of a drug overdose which the members took very hard. Epstein was the last real tangible aspect that was truly holding the band together and after his death the band quite honestly didn’t have much to do with each other. Sure in 1968 they made the stupid (yeah I said it, stupid) decision to go to India to try and be enlightened or whatever, but it simply didn’t work. They came back, recorded the white album, “Let it Be” and then “Yellow Submarine” and things fell apart. Despite all this George Martin helped them through it, and was really able to show them what each was capable of creatively. Martin really took the limits of of what the band could do, and I believe the quality of their later work really shows for this. The last album they recorded (not released) was Abbey Road, and it was really here that the Beatles showed their sense of duty to the music and put their differences aside for one last time, and it was beautiful. But it didn’t last, the group broke up in 1970, and released their last album almost a month later, leaving a void of disillusionment that would last really for the next twenty years.
So yeah that cool, but what about the individuals? Well let’s start with the larger than life figure John. John is a compelling figure in the history of pop culture to me personally, doing as what I see a complete 180 in terms of personality. He started out a charming, witty British youth with eyes of world fame in his grasp. Yes the John of the early years was a force to be reckoned with. Although we see Lennon today as this tolerant peace loving individual, it wasn’t always this way. Brian Epstein was both gay and Jewish, two things Lennon often loved to tease about, often referring to him as that “queer Jew” or that “fag Jew”. Lennon was also a fighter in his early days, often resulting to violence after a few drinks. In fact once after someone made a remark about his and Epstein’s relationship, John beat the man senseless saying “He called me a queer, so I battered his bloody his ribs in”. Don’t get me wrong, Epstein and Lennon were marvelous friends, but I’m trying to illustrate that sensitivity and rationale were never quite that much of importance to John. Then John becomes famous, and here is where we really see something peculiar. Fame made John both more stable in his behavior, and more erratic in his personality. It made him more stable in that he finally started to see that other people (foreigners, gays, women, his kids) did matter, and that it wasn’t just about him, but it made him more erratic in that he increasing took positions on issues or made statements that weren’t widely accepted at the time, which I guess you can say made him ahead of his time. This can be first with the whole bigger than Jesus controversy. I get that John probably didn’t mean it in the way people took it, but come on, how big of an ego do you have to have to compare yourself to fucking Jesus in any context other than ironic? Do I personally take offense to this comment? No, because I’m not a religious person, but even so I can see where people would be offended. I could see this being more true in the years following the 60s, as religion is starting to more and more take that back seat in most peoples lives (hence that ahead of his time thing). John’s identity took its biggest curveball the day he met Yoko Ono.
Yeah yeah, Yoko is awful, and I completely agree. One thing that always bothered me about Yoko is that seemed to take away that British charm that John had. You can really see a change is him pre and post Yoko. He becomes more serious, his banter less witty, and just overall more cynical. She took John and made him political, which is what would ultimately would happen to all the Beatles, but that’s how it happened to John. I can take someone being political, but the problem with John and Yoko is that they almost never made sense to me. They were way too vague and overly philosophical in their protests (which were almost always for general peace, yes very concrete there), and they just came off as though they were doing them just to do them with no real goals in mind. John’s attempts to justify Yoko’s “art” was what always turned me off of him. I know it’s probably unfair to do that to him, but I don’t care, I just can’t stand Yoko that much. I think Bill Burr explains it pretty well.
Anyway, the thing that really saves John from obscurity, sadly, is his death. He really died at a pretty high point in his life. He wasn’t quite at the top, but he hadn’t fallen down yet. However, this also hinders him as it means he personally probably has the least effect on young people of today, simply because he died before most 35 year olds of today were even born.
Now what about Paul? Unlike John, Paul really stayed course and never really let fame change him personally in my opinion. To use an old political cliche, I’m pretty sure I’d rather have a beer with Paul than John, just seems to be more of a people kinda guy. Like John however, Paul got political, which was his downfall. I say downfall in not in the sense of being less popular, but in that when he talks to you, you go “what’s he going to preach about this time”. So you still like him, but you expect less of him. Nobody likes to be preached to, you’re probably mad at me right now and I don’t blame you. Paul is definitely the most active of the Beatles, simply because he’s the more famous of the only two remaining (sorry Ringo). You have to admire Paul’s longevity with the success of both his solo career and say Wings over the years, but other than that theres not much to say about him to be honest.
So now we move on to George. Ah poor George, the unsung and underused hero of the band. George to me is actually to the most talented of the four musically, probably not lyrically since Paul and John pretty much had that locked down, but but in terms of actually playing beautiful music, theres no comparison. Hell, he’s number eleven on the Rolling Stone’s list of the 100 greatest guitarist ever. He also wrote one of my personal top 5 Beatle songs, “Something”. I think the best thing that happened to George creatively was the Beatles breaking up. Paul and John were never going to let him be a major song writer, and his experiments with indian music I think would never have been fully accepted as part of the Beatles discography. Solo though, it works for him perfectly, because that’s just who George is. George also really was the only one to reach out beyond music. He had a hand in filmmaking, personally producing over twenty films and even helping finance the Monty Python classic “Life of Brian”. George also doesn’t suffer from the lack of authenticity that I think plagues the other Beatles. When he did something, you really felt as though you were getting the full effort of his being. George however suffered where John didn’t, he died in relative obscurity later in life after a long slouch in his career. He also died about a month after 9/11, so the world wasn’t really focused on musicians of the past at the time. So to me, the legacy of George Harrison is like that of a star; it gets brighter and bright until it eventually burns out, while the the rest of the universe moves on around it, but hey while it was at it’s brightest it was an amazing sight.
Finally, we make it to Ringo. Ringo often earns the moniker of “nobody’s favorite Beatle”, which is an unfortunate one to say the least. Ringo is seen as that goofy funny drummer who was just riding that wave as long as he could and didn’t want it end. This couldn’t be farther from the truth though. Yes, Ringo was probably the least used of the four, but it’s not like he took that lying down. He hated always having his input not taken seriously by the others and often got frustrated with them. It’s generally believed Lennon was first to quit the Beatles, but actually it was Ringo in 1968 who quit after finally reaching his breaking point in not being taken seriously. Granted, it was only for two weeks, but it that act of defiance the other band members realized that in order to be a band, they needed each other. Still though, after the band’s breakup, Ringo’s solo career was… let’s say lackluster. He actually usually only regained that old success when he worked with another Beatle, but it never lasted long. Despite my defense of Ringo I have to say, I don’t think any Beatle sold out harder than him. Just watch this Sketchers commercial.
So, now that we know all this, do the Beatles still matter? Well, what do I think…? No.
Now now, before you kill me, hear me out. The Beatles defined an era like I said, and they influenced many artists throughout the years, but as to actually contributing anything currently to the zeitgeist? They simply just aren’t. Sure their influence can be felt today, but the top experimental genres of today (i.e. rap, EDM, new R&B, Heavy Metal) borrow very little from the Beatles. I do think their value of experimentation is still quite relevant, but I don’t think we can give the Beatles all the credit there. Also there’s simply only two of the Beatles left, and they just can’t be in everything. The Beatles didn’t suffer when they broke up, they suffered as soon as they decided to try and be political and artsy, which don’t get me wrong is perfectly fine, but it alienates a good bit of your audience and I think this is what led to them being downplayed over the years.
But does this ruling actually mean anything? Well, no. This just what I think the Beatles mean to the current trends in pop culture. If you love the Beatle (which I do), then more power to you, if you hate the Beatles then that’s perfectly fine too. Just remember though, just because the Beatles aren’t that important anymore isn’t a bad thing. It means that the future holds more room for possibly an even greater band to come in and take their place. The Beatles defined themselves by breaking past the rules and traditions of their day, and if we hold onto them with impunity and without regard for anything new, then we go against everything the Beatles ever stood for. How will we ever create anything new if we so vehemently cling to the past? Doesn’t mean we have to forget the Beatles, we just need to stop relying on them so much and remember what it really means to be creative. That’s it for this rant, thank for reading and if you have any comments or suggestions for rants let me know.
titsay
blakekathryn
jbbartram-illu
areudirty
annaxmalina
kianamaiart
snowghoul
izzy806
baratheonpilled
