Beatle-Philia
Beatle-Philia
Why were the Beatles so good, so beloved? Why do they stand out from everyone else? You might think it was because they were super-talented: each of them was really good at what they did. I think the opposite is true: they were that good because they were not all that talented or accomplished. Am I being willfully paradoxical? Not so. Instrumentally, they were not virtuosos: George was not an ace guitarist like, say, Eric Clapton; John was not a great guitarist either; Paul was not a first-class bass player (compare John Entwhistle); Ringo was no Buddy Rich or Keith Moon. As singers they were nothing special: not like Roy Orbison or even Elvis Presley (not to mention Aretha Franklin or Whitney Houston). This meant that they couldn’t rely on outstanding performances, instrumentally and vocally. You were not amazed at their sheer musical brilliance. So, they had to be creative, different, new. They had to make up for their lack of musical talent (ability, education, expertise). They were good individually, but they were not as good as the overall result. They wrote great songs, they sang great harmonies, they made a great sound; but they were not individually anything remarkable—unlike Steve Winwood or Stevie Wonder or Prince or Jimi Hendrix. They were not a super-group like Cream (much the same is true of the Rolling Stones). George had to be innovative not a shredder, John had to be charismatic not vocally acrobatic, Paul had to be catchy and melodic, Ringo had to be musical and fit the song. It wasn’t about “chops”. So, the reason the Beatles were so good is that they were not that good at the level of musicianship; they had to rise above their limitations. If even one of them had been super-talented, capable of capturing the attention of audiences by sheer virtuosity, they would not have been so good as a band, because they could have relied in this talented member to carry them. They needed each other, despite their individual talents, because individually they were not natural stars. I doubt that any of them would have amounted to much if they had never met and pursued individual careers; they might have had some success separately, but there would never have been the level of Beatle-philia that actually occurred. Imagine if the four of them had Steve Winwood or Prince in the band: they could easily have depended on him to draw the crowds; they wouldn’t need to come up with something special.[1]
[1] Here is a similar question: would Bob Dylan have been so successful and beloved if he were a better singer and guitarist? If he could sing like Orbison and play like Clapton, would he have produced the body of work he did produce? I doubt it: his sheer musical talent would have carried him. Why are the Stones so successful? Because Mick can’t sing very well and Keith is not a great guitarist—so they had to come up with something. I also think that the Beatles and Stones could have had successful careers and not write their own material, though that certainly helped: they were initially great cover bands with a lot of success. I actually like their covers more than their originals, because they could select from among the many terrific songs already available (though I do like many of their originals).
Lennon and McCartney were songwriters of genius; that is what really matters…. And Bob Dylan is a great singer, a great phraser in how he takes command of the often brilliant poetry in his lyrics… Cheers and thank you for your very stimulating and provocative blog!
I agree that Lennon and McCartney were songwriters of genius (if we can apply that word to the writing of pop songs), and Harrison was excellent too. But I don’t think it’s all that matters: other people performed their songs and they didn’t have the impact of the Beatles’ own performances; and they were outstanding at performing other people’s songs (Twist and Shout, Please Mr Postman, Anna, etc.). In the case of Dylan, he has a distinctive and effective voice, but he isn’t a great singer in the manner of many others. He would not go far as a lead singer doing other people’s material.
But does the listening public respond to technical greatness of the kind you note and the kind the Beatles lacked? Maybe you could say the same thing about Billy Joel, who had charisma but also had lyrical and musical genius.
Yes, they do: there are many fine singers who are very popular (Celine Dion, Whitney Houston, etc.). Many artists have had great success, but the Beatles produced Beatle mania. I don’t care for Billy Joel myself.
Other than cinema and perhaps TV drama and sitcoms pop music is the pemiere popular art form, is it not?
I think it clearly was until recently; I’m not sure it still is, what with the internet.
I agree completely.
With the advent of tv shows like X factor, there has been a greater obsession with technical brilliance – to the point where everyone is starting to sound like a version of the same singer. I very strongly doubt that The Beatles would be allowed anywhere near success these days and it was only their early success that allowed them to write all these amazing songs. Those wonderfully inventive and interesting later songs would certainly not have been allowed on the radio had they not already been successful and they would never get on mainstream radio today.
Virtuosity is more admired these days, but for me – virtuosity leads to mindless waffle.
We should also be wary of Beatlephilia, as like everything else it is becoming an algorithm of success – where we get stuck in the past – do it like they did, use their microphones etc.
I suspect you are right about the Beatles not making it today.