She Loves You
No more of this future tense stuff, on Sunday, Paul McCartney will BE 64. Wow, that’s kind of crazy (but perhaps not as shocking as losing John Lennon to a crazed gunman and George Harrison to cancer). My love affair with the Fab Four began at a tender age of nine, and I can still remember how “Penny Lane” captured my imagination the first time I heard it unfolding from the speakers of our family car. Hearing that song transported me to some colorful, exotic place and ignited a life-long passion for music.
When I think about how much the Beatles did in the brief time they actually recorded together (12 albums from 1963 to 1970), and the sheer innovation and growth between the start and end of their career (“Please Please Me” to the song cycle on side two of Abbey Road), I can’t believe how much they evolved in those seven short years.
But enough about what I think. The definitive biography on the Beatles is Shout! The Beatles in their Generation by Philip Norman. While Norman didn’t interview any of the former Beatles for this book, he knew the Beatles personally; he combines solid research and a sharp critical look at the rise and fall of the four lads from Liverpool who shook the world. The section of the book about the band’s early days on the rock-n-roll circuit in Hamburg, Germany, will make you think about the lovable mop-tops in a totally different way. Some of their exploits put the Rolling Stones to shame. It’s a great book for those who love the band or for those who simply recognize the songs on the radio.
Another interesting look at the band is Let It Be by Steven Matteo, one of the titles in Continuum’s great 33⅓ series. Matteo, who’s not only the author of a Dylan biography but also a music writer published in mags ranging from Spin to the New York Times, delves into the history of the recording sessions that ultimately led to the album Let It Be. The sessions were meant to be a foray back to the live stage, tapping into the raw energy that charged the Beatles during their Hamburg days. What emerged from those creative and chaotic hours in the studio was an album produced by the pop enfant terrible Phil Spector, and a final product that perhaps not all of the Beatles were satisfied with. Matteo does thorough research in this book, and by talking with numerous people who were in the studio with the Beatles, the author works to re-create the band at work. Also worth checking out is the heartbreaking movie Let It Be that was filmed during these sessions. The final rooftop performance is not to be missed.
posted by Subterranean Books @ 12:50 PM
3 Comments:
I say this not in the interest of starting a fight; I say it merely to get it out in the open and you can respond or ignore, as you choose: I don't give a tufted titmouse about the Beatles.
Oh, I nod in their general direction, acknowledging their contribution to pop culture, and to the recording industry. I understand that they broke the stranglehold of professional songwriters, giving rise to musicians writing and recording their own songs, thereby changing the direction of rock & roll and sparing us the sort of flaccid "music" produced by the likes of the current crop of "Country" "artists." And yes, I have listened to the Beatles' albums. I know many of the words, and I have known many people who speak passionately and ecstatically about the works of the Fab Four.
But personally, I don't care for them. I have never bought a Beatles album, nor do I believe I ever will.
And yet -- (wait for it) -- I greatly and deeply enjoy the works of Yoko Ono, without irony or false pride.
I don't believe in Beatles; I just believe in Yoko.
But, you know, good for Paul for making it to 64. But wouldn't you trade him for George?
Paul from across the street
I respect that you don't like or "get" the Beatles. I feel the same way about the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson. People go on and on about Pet Sounds, and what an important album that is. I've read Brian Wilson's autobiography, and I find him to be an interesting subject, but kind of like car wrecks can be interesting subjects. And I can acknowledge the importance he and his "teenage symphonies" had on pop music. But I still don't like them.
So that's fine. You can have your opinion. But what you left out in your post is the advances that the Beatles and George Martin made in the recording and production of rock music, not just in songwriting. Many of those albums, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, made a huge impact on the technical aspect of how a record could be engineered and produced. You got to give them their props there.
The Beatles were integral in shaping my sonic landscape, and as I said, launching me on the path of the music lover. Today still, I love a melody, and that's the influence of the Beatles. And while I may be a Paul apologist, I'm not a Yoko hata. But your question about trading Paul for George (who was my secret rock-n-roll boyfriend from nine to twelve), I'd rather have them all alive and well.
Paul from across the street, I think I know a little bit about your musical taste, so let me throw this out at you: Some consider "Helter Skelter" from the White Album to be the first heavy metal song.
Whatcha think about that?
--Jenni
Hi, Jenni!
Well, "some" may consider "Helter Skelter" to be the first heavy metal song, but I would disagree. "Beowulf" is the original heavy metal song, especially when it's chanted in Anglo-Saxon -- as it was meant to be performed. But as far as the first appearance of heavy metal in a popular music format, I wouldn't agree with "Helter." "White Light/White Heat" appeared a full year earlier than "Helter," and it has the basic crunch and roar necessary for metal -- but I wouldn't consider either the Velvets or the Beatles as metal progenitors. I believe that heavy metal was born at the terrifying moment when that far-away bell starts tolling in the opening seconds of Black Sabbath's "Black Sabbath."
As for Sir George Martin, I gave him a passing "wassup?" when I mentioned the Beatles' "contribution to the recording industry." But it's all apples and donkeys as far as I'm concerned, anyway. The Beatles broke a lot of ground in many areas -- but I think that it is precisely for that reason that they are so revered. Everything up 'til their appearance was absolutely plastic and boring. Annette Funicelo, Paul Anka and Shelley Fabares all had hits; Pat Boone owned the country for a brief summer. Even Elvis was lost in a series of horrible movie-related albums that became progressively worse. Then THE BEATLES appear, with actual personalities, charm, guitars, hair cuts, etc. They were new, and real and better. And they stayed better for years -- but then a ton of great music came after them, and yet people continue to hold true to the Beatles as the greatest. I don't like the idea that perfection was achieved in 1964, abandoned in 1970, and everything since then just doesn't measure up to those six years. I believe "Who's Next" destroys anything in the Beatles' catalog. I also believe Cher's version of "Half Breed" is awesome, Husker Du may have perfected the Pop Album and Motorhead are beyond critiscism. So clearly, I may not really know anything.
But I am opionated . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home