It seems that The Beatles are probably the most revered pop/rock band ever, both by musicians and the public. I ask this in all seriousness: Are the Beatles above criticism?

I don't mean spiteful/jealous criticism (for example, someone could criticise Paul because his songs lean towards sweetness), but criticism of what musically didn't work with the Beatles. (I am also not referring to any of the Beatles' solo careers, which even the most dedicated Beatlemaniac would admit are a little on the spotty side.)

Maybe I'm not up on Beatle trivia, but I can count the number of Beatle "failures" probably on one hand... The Magical Mystery Tour TV show, maybe a couple of the more drone-like songs... But even the so-called "failures" have been embraced for being ahead of their time. Ringo was considered a "bad" drummer in the Beatles' heyday, but now his idiosyncracies are actually desired characteristics among certain drummers.

If the Beatles are above criticism, then it puts them in the same spot as many classical composers, where you're almost not allowed to not like them... There's something about that attitude I don't like, but I can't put my finger on exactly why.

I give up... What do you think?



This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-23-2001 at 03:00 PM

No one is above criticism, but I'm wondering what good it will do to criticize a group that disbanded over thirty years ago. Your remarks aren't going to improve their next album.

My pet Beatles peeve is the panning on some of their albums, especially Revolver. It's so extreme that I can't listen to Revolver in headphones. Maybe this is more of a Sir George Martin criticism. During the recording of Abbey Road, John reportedly told SGM that he didn't want "any of your studio crap," suggesting that he wanted the music to be the album's focus, rather than a bunch of engineering tricks.

I know what you mean - there are artists you aren't SUPPOSED to question, even if you might not like them all that much. I personally can take or leave (mostly leave) the following "gods-descended-to-earth": Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Pink Floyd, Richard Thompson, The Replacements, Tom Petty... there are many others. If you dare to doubt that these guys' work is 100% genius, you are considered to be an idiot.

I always thought from Revolver back were originally mono recordings, and Geo. Martin has stated he didn't have anything to do with the stereo remastering and was not particually impressed with the results.

Bob

Allow me to demonstrate my idiotic side -

Springsteen - I can't even listen to The River, the singing is to bad. (I love greeting, though.) And Born In The USA is one of the most boring songs ever written.

SRV - Let's just say he had his moments before he embraced sobriety.

Floyd - Put it on at a party and watch everyone fall asleep.

Richard Thompson - Who the hell is that? John Boy from the Waltons?

The Replacements - The punk energy was there, and I like a few of the tunes, but their sound was unpolished to a fault. Even Primus sounds overproduced by comparison.

Tom Petty - Good band, good songwriter. No complaints.

This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 07-23-2001 at 12:44 PM

Ever wonder why anybody else doing a Beatles song sounds hokey as hell?? I personally hold them up high on a pedestal....studio tricks or not....they were incredible. To me their works still hold up today.....people still try to get "that sound".

This subject came up Sat. nite at my house .. and about the Beatles, too.

One of my friends (who has a knack for starting conversations with a premise that he cannot back up at all) said this: "The Beatles were good
and everything but they are not the untouchable gods that everyone says they were .. as far as musically that is. If they had not gotten "lucky"
with their TIMING, any number of other groups would have gone just as far
in the world as they did. The reason they got so big is that they had the
money and power backing them up .. and poor bands like the DC5 and others
couldn't compete."

(I told you the guy was weird)

Now I don't think I'll ever hear comments as stupid as that again, but
I'll repeat here what I said to him. To me, the Beatles not only had
perfect timing, but they also had the best songwriting .. which is
ultimately responsible for their long run. Their explosive creativity
combined with their incredible sense of the pop song world are what
made them "bigger than Jesus Christ" as John said. Yes they were great
performers, singers, players, and personalities .. but the picture was so much bigger than that. No one else put out 7 or 8 LP's in a row where EVERY song was known by virtually EVERY listener. No one else had as much influence on the world's music, teen thought process, dress code, even hair style .. and I think the COMBINATION of ALL of these things and more gave us this phenom.

So I guess I'm in the camp that thinks, yea .. they've got their flaws
if you look close enough. But in our lifetimes, we'll never see another package as complete and powerful as the BEATLES.

That's like trying to imitate Tiger Woods' golf swing - good luck!!

But the Beatles were more than chops and a polished sound and familiar pop icon faces. They were integrators who combined the best of rock 'n' roll, R&B, calypso, march music, and several other idoms, coupled these styles with their own sentiments and outrageous approach to songwriting and created an irresistible synergy that is still referenced by contemporary artists. Turn on MTV, and you'll see the Beatles influence in almost every video. Listen to today's hits on the radio, listen to the lyrics. You can hear the Beatles attitude and audacity still shining through. Liverpool lives on!!!

Well, that's not exactly what I'm getting at... Yesterday I was looking though a community college's class offerings and found there is actually a non-credit Beatles class you can take. I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar classes offered in high schools and colleges around the world. It kinda comes down to what we, as a culture, find important and what we're teaching the next generation...

I don't like most of Mozart's music (I like his later, morbid, dark stuff), but that opinion doesn't go over too well in a college-level music analysis class. If the Beatles are going to be as institutionalized as Mozart (it looks like they're headed that way), is that a good thing?

Personally, I enjoy the Beatles' music so much that it is difficult to look at it with a critical eye. If I had a criticism, it would be that they didn't release *enough* music. In the case of, say, the Beach Boys or Prince, there are tons of recordings (many of them less-than-stellar) that a dedicated fan could listen to... With the Beatles, there's about 13 original albums, and their style changes so drastically between albums, it's never like they stayed in one mode long enough to really absorb what it was that they were doing. But geez, that's not really much of a criticism...





This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-23-2001 at 02:23 PM

This quote was taken entirely out of context since day one when John Lennon was asked by a reporter about the Beatles popularity at the time. John did comment that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, but how he said this was done so that it would show that this was NOT a good thing. The fact is that most kids did find the Beatles to be more important than god at the time that the Beatles were around, and John was reflecting upon that. But back on topic now ;-).... I don't think that you can dismiss the number of great songs that the Beatles wrote and more importantly, the huge impact that the band made on peoples lives at this time. Even to this day I am floored by some of the songs that I hear from them today. What really amazes me is that all of these songs were written and recorded in such a short time frame. Try to think of another artist or group in this century that wrote as many great songs as the Beatles. You won't find anyone. Even artists that have had active careers for more than 30 years can't touch the level of success that the Beatles have had in their short time together. I'm glad to hear that schools are holding Beatles classes, but unfortunately, I feel that most young kids won't be able to get into them as much as previous generations. Especially if the music is shoved down their throats. Music is something that you have to discover personally sometimes.

-Dylan


This message has been edited by Dylan Walters on 07-23-2001 at 01:42 PM

George Martin has never received enough credit for his contribution, IMO. Without him the Beatles would probably have been a good, but not groundbreaking band. Obviously good songwriters and performers. But what really set them apart was the innovative stuff Martin added to the middle career recordings. This really comes to light when you listen to some of the Anthology recordings. While the Beatles may have said - Maybe some horns on this song - It was Martin that created the arrangements which added a surreal dimension to the music. So I guess I think that withoug George Martin the Beatles would not have been able to accomplish what they did (I guess you just have to look at the later solo stuff to see that!).

"This quote was taken entirely out of context since day one when John Lennon was asked by a reporter about the Beatles popularity at the time. John did comment that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, but how he said this was done so that it would show that this was NOT a good thing. The fact is that most kids did find the Beatles to be more important than god at the time that the Beatles were around, and John was reflecting upon that."

Yes, Dylan, I'm well aware of what you say. I think the reporter was
Maureen Cleeves. John was commenting on the absurdity of the Beatles popularity .. and she or someone else grabbed that line and ran.

"George Martin has never received enough credit for his contribution, IMO. Without him the Beatles would probably have been a good, but not groundbreaking band. Obviously good songwriters and performers. But what really set them apart was the innovative stuff Martin added to the middle career recordings. This really comes to light when you listen to some of the Anthology recordings. While the Beatles may have said - Maybe some horns on this song - It was Martin that created the arrangements which added a surreal dimension to the music. So I guess I think that withoug George Martin the Beatles would not have been able to accomplish what they did (I guess you just have to look at the later solo stuff to see that!)."

Calfee, an even better example I think is the LET IT BE album. Considering
they followed that with ABBEY ROAD, the difference between the 2 is staggering.

And before you could say "Helter Skelter," excitable, brainless American fundamentalists were stoking bonfires with Beatles records. If "innocent until proven guilty" is the American way, why do so many of us act like totalitarians?

Good point, Dan,

I can still see all those pristine Beatle LP's on the fire.
How stupid can people get?

Phil Spector pieced together the Let it Be album. You can hear the Phil Spector "Wall of Sound"-like arrangements in "The Long and Winding Road"... Definitely a different "sound" than the way George Martin probably would have approached it.

If memory serves me correctly, I don't think George Martin had much to do with the Let It Be album, at least not as far as the way the final production sounded.


This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-23-2001 at 02:13 PM

<>

in the dictionary, "B" comes before "C", so i guess the Beatles are above Criticism, but actually below AC/DC...

-d. gauss

Letting Phil Spector produce Let It Be was like casting Ronald Reagan as Rick Blaine in Casablanca - Reagan was Warner's first choice - i.e. a dumb assed, non-artistic decision made by suits. Luckily for cinema fans, Reagan was bound by contract to work on other films. Music fans didn't fare as well.

ROTFL!!!

Hey d gauss -- your humor is needed over in the other forums are CLICKY thread. They're talking about you there...

Hmm, I guess I don't really understand what you guys are talking about.

As far as the artists on fet's list - I never considered them to be above criticism. LOTS of people criticize all of the above, except for maybe Richard Thompson. Not a lot of point in criticizing him, he's never been on the pop charts anyway. I'm a huge fan of his, personally, but it's because I really am, not because I'm "supposed" to be. As for the other guys on the list, I am not at all a fan of some of them and know lots of other people who aren't either.

When it comes to the Beatles... I dunno if it's even a valid question whether they're "above" criticism. I mean, nobody is, really, but so what? You seem to be intimating that there are some people who only like the Beatles because they're "supposed" to and not because they really like the music, or that some people really don't like the Beatles but are afraid to say so. I certainly don't feel that way and I don't know anyone who feels that way. I don't think they're God or anything, but I'm nutso about their music and know and play with lots of other people who are. So what's wrong with that? The fact that very few people can find anything bad to say about them shouldn't bother you. Some people just ARE that good. I think a lot of people have a problem with that - they would like to think that "people are just people" or "nobody is better than anybody else" and they just have to deal with the fact that some people ARE better at certain things than others. And some are WAY beyond others. DUH. That's just the reality.

As to whether the Beatles ought to be "institutionalized"... well, I don't really like institutions of any kind but there are always those who do. There have been schools that have offered courses on the Beatles for some time now. Maybe over time those courses will really start to suck and make the Beatles be like some mummified curio piece in a museum, like they do with classical composers. But what else is new, I've always found that sitting in a classroom learning something tends to squash the life out of it as opposed to just getting out and doing it. I would think that if you listen to the music or play it, you can easily decide for yourself whether you enjoy it or not and go from there. But that's just me, if someone else can benefit from such a class then whatever!

--Lee

My only real musical gripe would that the White Album shouldn't have been a double album. Half of it should have been shelved. Well also I think "Long Long Long" was mixed poorly.

DAMMIT, D!....More Pepsi shot thru my nose in paroxysms of laughter. That, unfortunately, puts Abba above AC/DC...AAAUGHGHGHGHGHGHGH!!!!

Yep, no one is above criticism. Not even the Fabs.

Those who fail to comprehend the "record burning" that went on following Lennon's "statement" fail to understand the social climate at the time. Looking through 80s, 90s, early 2000s eyes...that never would have happened. A remark like that would have, even if intentional and not quoted out of context, been largely ignored. Although a close example was the effect of Sinead O'Connor's "Pope picture" ripping on TV. People got pissed, but there wasn't a huge mass burning of Sinead O'Connor records that I'm aware of.

A lot of movies make the sixties look like an extremely hip period. It actually wasn't. There were (excuse the pun) "hip pockets"...but, for the most part it was a lot like the conservative fifties. That was what made it such a unique time, and has watered down the impact to subsequent decades. By the mid to late 70s, nothing shocked anyone anymore. But the sixties were a decade of being shocked...long hair, "free sex"...drugs. Picture an Andy Griffith episode where Opie smokes a doobie and you'll start getting the picture.

But, back to the Beatles...the Dave Clark Five had some good songs. The fact that Beatlemania was firmly entrenched hurt their chances...they were "also rans" from the get go. But the Beatles had the staying power. DC5 didn't. The Beatles evolved...DC5 didn't. The Beatles were trend setters, others were followers.

Looking back, I remember a few times during their short career when everyone was sure The Beatles were washed up. When they started abandoning their "Yeah yeah yeah" phase and released Rubber Soul...people weren't sure what to do with that. They seemed to be (and were) getting way far away from the mainstream. Just when you thought they were gone, they'd come back. Perhaps a large part of that was due to good ol' Ed Sullivan, showing the "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields" videos (not to mention the other videos The Beatles did after abandoning touring)...keeping them in the public eye. And, although, like Strat says...covers of their tunes were invariably bozo, it made you realize to hear some Vegas crooner sing "Yesterday" how really good their songs were in their own right...not that you liked the Vegas crooner's rendition, but that the song itself was good enough to stand on its own.

But let 'em have it. I just can't think of anything really bad to say about 'em, especially given the time frame. Well, they should have let George put a few more of his tunes on...it's like they break up and Harrison releases a triple LP. Those tunes had to have been sitting around awhile, and some of 'em were damn good.

There's a site I just found a couple of weeks ago that lists
nearly every Beatle song and about 10 or 20 mistakes in each of them.
Great reading. I can't find the damn thing now, though.

Where the hell is that site, anyboby know?

That's because there aren't enough Sinead O'Connor records to make a bonfire.



I would not classify the sixties as progressive or conservative, but rather a revolutionary time where these two camps came face to face, often with violent results. The television shows and movies of the era attest to this schizophenic mood. The innocence of Gilligan's Island sequed into the psychadelic shenanigans of Rowan & Martin's Laugh In. James Bond took the cool, square look to new heights, but not without help from the sexual revolution.

The decade opened with 'The Apartment' and ended with 'Easy Rider'. Charlton Heston went from the salvation in 'Ben Hur' to the Apocolypse of 'Planet of the Apes'. Woody Allen explained 'Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex' and Stanley Kubrick urged us to learn to "stop worrying and love the bomb" in 'Dr. Strangelove'.

It's almost impossible to grasp the impact of the social revolution that occurred in the sixties, even for those of us who grew up with Vietnam and Watts and the "space race" and demonstrations and "sit ins" and "Women's Liberation" and "the pill" and JFK and RFK and MLK and the Beatniks and Hippies and Yippies and "flower power" and Timothy Leary and Abbey Hoffman and Bob Dylan and Volkswagen Beetles and the British Invasion and long hair and love beads and tie dye and peace signs and the Tet Offensive and Laos and Ho Chi Mihn and Mi Lai and Napalm and the Bay Of Pigs and the Cuban Missle Crisis and space walks and moon walks and Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11. How can we expect anyone born after 1964 to comprehend the magnitude of this amazing era?

Beatles thoughts from a crabby middle-aged guitar player:

1) The Beatles created the model for the self-contained writing/singing/playing combo. It became necessary for pop musicians to become songwriters in order to be taken seriously, and this meant that a lot of truly bad music got recorded. I would contend that the average level of pop songwriting craft was a good deal higher in 1947 than in 1967.

2) The fantastic rewards the Beatles reaped from their work influenced many to become pop musicians who might better have entered other fields. The electric guitar became an avid pursuit for many who might have been better at model airplanes or bonsai. Hence the demise of the 50's and 60's institution, the "hobby shop"; it's long since been replaced by Guitar Center.

3) If as many people cared to do woodworking or oil painting or sculpture or gardening as care to create and play pop music, the world would be a much more beautiful place than it is.

4) All this wasn't the Beatles' fault - they did very fine work; it was the fault of their listeners.

If the Beatles are taught as a music analysis class, then there's an implicit message being sent to the class that they *are* supposed to like the Beatles.

I dunno -- I have mixed feelings about it. It's not like the Beatles' music is ever going to go away if nobody *did* teach about them in schools... I've found myself to be more enthusiastic about the music I "discovered" on my own and was not "taught to like" in a formal classroom setting. But that's just me.

Yeah, I agree pop, I always prefer music that I discover on my own. But then, I'm kinda extreme about that. I never even went to college at all because I prefer to learn stuff on my own. So I don't use myself as a barometer for such things.

But I dunno about a class implying that you're "supposed" to like the Beatles. There seem to be courses on all kinds of whacked out things lately, which a lotta people wouldn't necessarily like... LOL...

--Lee

Yea, I'm one of the many Beatle freaks out there that think they were gods. Sure, they had a few funky-ass songs, (Honey Pie, Anna, etc.), but please, show me a group that was that consistently good & ground-breaking, album after album. They just blew everyone away, and still are!
What irritates me is when people (mostly young) say they "hate the Beatles", and when asked why?? they will say something like "oh that shit is so old..." -what, because something is old that automatically makes it shitty? I think young people get pissed off to hear that it wasn't *their* generation of musicians that came up with certain musical ideas.
-I love telling younger people that groups like N-Sync & Backstreet Boys wouldn't be around if it weren't for the Beatles. (Just like there would be no Beatles if it weren't for Elvis, The Everly Bros, Motown....)
-Hippie

Really? I haven't yet met anyone who has said that about the Beatles. I'd be tempted to say that the under-25 set was probably a significant chunk of the people who bought that "1" album. (Everyone else who is older should have all that stuff already on CD, shouldn't they?!?!?)

Do you mean this site?

http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/beatles/wgoalph.htm


Macle



This message has been edited by macle96@yahoo.com on 07-23-2001 at 07:10 PM