I Love I Hate The Beatles

Loving twisted proteges -- not very twisted, of course, but the fact that I'm an Oasis fan for some is reason enough to condemn. ;-) There's the Tape-Beatles, though, a different situation entirely. The bands I hate the absolute most -- long running candidates include Rage Against the Machine, the Black Crowes, and Gene, but there are others -- probably have inspired some people I enjoy along the way.

I like the Beatles, early more than late, and at some point maybe I'll defend their music, but here I want to point out two things that make them likable no matter what: (1) Their third U.S. album was called The Beatles' Second Album, thereby subverting the hegemony of numerical order. It caused creative critical commentary like the following: "I prefer the Beatles' second album to the Beatles' second album, though I'll admit that both the Beatles' second album and the Beatles' second album are quite good and also that the Beatles' second album has some persuasive adherents, those who would take its high spirits and audacity over the Beatles' second album's dark rage." (2) They wrote and recorded a song called "Please Please Me," a title that completely baffled me as a ten-year- old. This was the title of their first British LP, one that in the U.S. was called Introducing the Beatles. Please Please Me was no doubt considered too daring a title for the North American market. What does this tell us about national character? Perhaps that the U.S. is willing to subvert number but not pleasure, whereas the U.K. will undermine pleasure while manning the bulwarks in defense of number. Or perhaps not.

But then I realized how much *more* dismayed I would have been to see another Radiohead thread, and I breathed a sigh of relief.

What is it about the Beatles that defies writing about? (And not in a good way)

I was aiming more to discuss a relationship which could in some ways seem hypocritical- the love of a band who, on the surface, could be said to sound very much like one who is hated (eg The White Stripes vs Led Zeppelin, having actually gone to see them and been surprisingly blown away). And/or the relationship of cover versions to their original counterparts- does the music really tread on a fine line, where a few alterations can make dross great? Or is it just funny to hear a massacre sometimes?

Is this eyeball which Jerry would be giving a Residential eyeball? If so, I claim Mr Green Eye...

Andy, two things- i) I don't much care for The Pretty Things or The Zombies either, although I'm rather more enamoured of The Zombies because they wrote a song about me ii) I'm the kind of wiseass hipster who goes around saying things like "That new record by The Pattern is ACE" so ner...

Also, I miss Andy. Where has he gone?

I think if you can stand bands that sound like the Beatles, and if you like re/deconstructions of Beatle songs (though I'm curious - can you stand straight covers?), then you may very well have a problem with the mystique/overexposure, or the actual personalities/characterizations of the Beatles as individuals (and as a group, hence their "trademark"). I also get annoyed at one of them individually for any number of reasons, and I could care less to read much about them ever again. In fact, I've heard so much Beatle music, I wonder how much I will actually listen to them from this point in my life onwards. In any case, I have an immense amount of respect for them as a) technically good songwriters and b) being people who realized they had a big opportunity and didn't shy away from it.

Take this, Geir, may it serve you well.

99999999999999999999999999999999999D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not sure I agree with you, donut (or at least, I think the solo work after may be a contributing factor, but not a very important one). However, this sense of not being able to escape the band's legacy, in a not-good way is interesting. From the context, I'm taking it that you mean that this led to them releasing sub-par material, but I think it's a hugely important factor in audience reaction, also.

x-post: pretty much saying what Dominique said there. And, hm, I can't think of any straight covers that I like - it's what I said five years ago, I do tend to find most of the arrangements dull.

This all brings to mind that, as part of a fundraiser locally to help pay for the move for the experimental music store Wall Of Sound and underground comic book store Confounded Books (the latter sadly closed recently) in 2003, Richard Bishop put together a night called "Help!" which was all local types getting together.. 28 bands in one night, to each do one Beatles cover. Sure the covers were not super serious covers and were really fucked up and weird mostly, but they definitely weren't out to cover the songs in a "yeah! Fuck the beatles. haha!" kinda way either... (except maybe for the 30 minute version of "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" by Master Musicians Of Bukkake, who were position to play last purposely to clear the floor for the venue more than anything I think.)... Sir Richard is a big Beatles fan so the choice for Beatles covers was really arbitrary and he thought it would be fun. He did his really haphazard medleys as part of his opening performance. But there was one moment I still remember being not only the highlight of the night, but is still the best Beatles cover i heard or seen ever. It was Kento from IQU who took a MIDI instrumental of "Across the Universe" and he played John's vocal line on a theremin to accuracy. It was dedicated to Scott Jernigan, former member of Karp and The Whip, who had passed away just days before in a boating accident. Kento and Scottie were bartending friends, and Scottie tended bar regularly at the very venue the "Help!" even took places.. booked well in advance of the tragedy. Kento's thing was a one time thing and may have been recorded, but if not, that was it...

My point here? Well besides wanting to tell the story, there isn't a rigid line between covering the Beatles in defiance or in reverence, so I'm not understanding the premise of the original argument here.

To a lot of people, the Beatles are this band you first hear about as a kid. I never heard the word "psychedelic" until my mom explained to me all the funny costumes on her Sgt. Pepper's album. I'm not sure if there's something really Freudian about Beatles hate either, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Mm. First thing I ever saw/heard from them, consciously at least, was Yellow Submarine when I was eight. And as it happens it's the one of the two things they did I'm still happy to own (the other being A Hard Day's Night -- maybe I just like them as media figures most!).

Britpop was a nice step in the right direction - finally some "indie" acts who would rather take inspiration from The Beatles rather than the Sex Pistols (Pistols are the single most overrated band ever), and music became good again. At least part of it (sadly, hip-hop had become way too dominant at that time).

The Beatles legacy will never ever be a bad thing, as long as recent artist use it to learn from the Beatles how to make good music.

Donut, I hear your comment about the solo music being just kind of there. There's no cultural heft to it (haha), really. You have to be a fan. (Well, I do hear Wings-at-their-peak ca. Band on the Run, Venus and Mars, Wings Over America as being sort of classic mid-seventies stuff that maybe has some sense of being era-defining, but otherwise, I think you are right.) That said, maybe there is some recognition that if you are, in fact, a fan, you do hear a lot of brilliance in some of the solo Beatle records, whether it's All Things Must Pass, Ram, some of John Lennon's solo a-sides, etc.?

Also, speaking of doing good covers out of not-that-good songs, I think the solo material is FAR more ripe for great covers than the Beatles songs themselves.

Anyone remember the Sgt. Pepper Knew Your Father comp?

Well, when we're confronted with "Big Important Bands With Lots Of Albums", I can't blame people for feeling each is a monolith though. You won't persuade a Beatles hater to not hate them by mentioning albums.. baby steps, though, might work.. or just let the person go. *shrug* I love the Beatles, but I'm hardly on a mission to convert people.

It doesn't help that some Beatles fan presences online make certain right-wing militia groups seem like flower children in comparison. Saying the word "Yoko" to some of these people is like declaring the Final Crusade.

Also, I think the era of the Compact Disc increases the tendency to look at it all as mere data and maybe this contributes to some more easily perceived perception of the Beatles as a monolith.

The issue's more of a "rock" thing, I think; the Beatles tend to be either very polite or very arty. They're moppety and bouncy; their psychedelia is anything but "heavy"; they kind of create pop/rock by bringing all that quaint music-hall stuff into the picture, doing a lot of the work of reconciling the "blackness" of rock'n'roll with the musical history of everyday white people. They were also, obviously, huge, and so even their weirdnesses aren't strident: they're inviting and accommodating; they ask you to follow the band into something, as opposed to that model where the band is where the band is and you can only watch.

I think a lot of contempt for that stuff gets mixed up with talk about familiarity and overexposure and pedestals. I could be very wrong about that, but I think what's bothering some people isn't that the Beatles are central and celebrated and everywhere, but that they represent some kind of softness and politeness at the same time, and something about the combination of politeness and celebration (teacher's pet!) is offputting to them.

One of the main differences I have now from when I started this thread is that these days I don't really care that other people like them, whereas before it was a huge thing. I didn't understand why people would privilege their music over that of, say, the Silver Apples. Now I am more reserved. I find it facile, but it's not the fault of any individual that there is a cult built around them. And I have structured my thought processes to accept that there is a very very fine line between the good and the bad - so a change of instrument in a melody line (vocal to theremin for example) can be enough to make an okay song, or on occasion a rubbish song, a brilliant one. Because sometimes it removes politeness, or adds it where it's needed.

But there would soon be the R&B Revival, Garage rock and Stax/Volt, which would make The Beatles considerably less against the "system" by comparision. And the fact that The Beatles were getting increasingly more "arty" and at the same time brought in an icreasing amoung of pre-rock popular music (music hall, but also Tin Pan Alley elements and even elements from classical music) into their music further contributed to the "derebellization" of The Beatles. Not to mention the fact that they were the first ever rock band to get favourable pieces in Sunday newspapers.

And even more today, with the baby boomers long since representing establishment, one can understand that whoever feels rock should be about rebellion may dislike The Beatles. But then, isn't the entire rebellion idea a bit outdated in itself? After all, a lot of typical teen music (that is, music that has been rejected by older generations, such as disco, boy bands, synthpop/new romantics) from the past 30 years has not been particularly rebellious by nature.

One could also argue that the entire idea of the psychedelic era (and later prog rock) of popular music being "art", kind of introduced by The Beatles and George Martin, may have put off fans of "black" music. But then, explain the increasing complexity and "artiness" of jazz, a music form where at least 90 per cent of the leading stylistic innovators throughout history has been black.

Also, I don't think "rebellion" is the issue here so much as "edge" or something.

The Beatles can be very twee, even! Very twee. (Saying "but it's in a subversive way" holds not much force for me, since I think stuff like 90s indiepop twee is subversive, too.) People play their songs for children.

Woah, that's probably my favourite part of their entire catalogue!

As for the Beatles, these days I listen to Abbey Road most.

It's just a counterexample, not a counterargument, but no other huge rock/pop band of the late 60s would have put something like "Revolution 9" on one of their albums. In retrospect, it seems weaker now because there has been so much unearthed old found-sound collage, and so much new found-sound collage since, that "Revolution 9" sounds like it's hovering in a more benign stasis, relatively speaking. But in 1968, mainstream wasn't exactly sure how to react to that song, collectively. So you have to give them that.

Probably the best thing Paul ever did was "Helter Skelter". He wrote it supposedly because he heard that the Who had written "the loudest song ever" and he had to do something to challenge them and release it first, or something like that. Again, most of the song doesn't sound heavy compared to, oh, SUNN0)))))))) or Fu Manchu today or whatever, but it was pretty out there for its time. I'd say the epilogue to that song still sends chill down my spine as George and/or John is thrashin' away, and Ringo cries out at the end of the song, followed by more guitar noise/feedback.

: D

Way more people would like The Beatles if all of the vocals were changed to theremins. Does anyone want to start that tribute band with me?

And nabiscotm.

Well, John's "Plastic Ono Band" would have been the worst Beatles album ever.

Was that from Dave Marsh's The Book of Rock Lists? Anyway, Alfred, five stars in the first RS Record Guide ('79 red cover edition).

my favorite solo beatles album, though, might be mccartney's first (and i'm pretty indifferent to pretty much all his post-'70 stuff, a few fun singles aside): as tossed off as it is, there's a real sense of something sad and lost in all those broken, throwaway tunes - it really does sound like an album made by a guy sitting alone in his house trying to cheer himself up. you can tell how bereft he felt without the other three. and the way the whole record builds up to "maybe i'm amazed" is incredible.

i've always found ram totally unlistenable because of PM's habit of going "do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do" on every single fucking song.