It’s 1965. Really. You’re on a ski-ing holiday in the Alps, and are delighted to find the Beatles there too, filming their second feature film, Help. Okay so far?
You’re amongst a small crowd of spectators when a grand piano is lifted by crane above the boys for a Ticket To Ride sequence. As they prepare for the scene, you – and you alone – notice a rope around the grand piano fraying to a thread. You dash for the boys, knowing full well you can only push one of them out of the way of the falling piano.
Although it’s a tragedy that three Beatles were crushed to death, you achieve fame of a sort for saving the life one of the Beatles. My question is – which one did you save? And why?
Rules: Smartarse votes for any “Beatle” not John, Paul, George, or Ringo will be disqualified. Votes for any outcome other than you saving the life of one Beatle (and the consequent deaths of the other three) will be disqualified. A reason has to be given for your split-second choice. remember – history turns on your decision.
http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t642/burtkocain/CartoonAd1-lge_zpsaj6r28ru.jpg
George, as I once met him and him me on the Astral Dream Plane. We had an egg and cress sandwich picnic in a boat on Loch Ness together. We kept some spare for Nessie too, but alas kaVOOOM ! Me silver cord got yanked just as she was about to put in an apperance for her delicious granary bread sarnies and I was make on Terra Materia once more.
Right – that’s it, then. George is the Afterword’s favourite Beatle. I’m surprised, but I can live with it.
Are we assuming that whoever we save would have gone on to do whatever they did after 1965, both with the Beedles and solo, exactly as in real life except without the other Beedles playing on their stuff?
If so, it has to be Macca. True, we’d have had no Rain or Walrus or Strawberry Fields, but there was a hell of a lot of magnificent Maccaness still to come after 1965. Lennon was less of a hummable-hit machine, and I’m big on hummable hits now we’re fifty years down the line.
I’ve also just realised what may be the clincher for me. Imagine there’s no “Imagine”. And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
Of course it has to be Macca. I can’t imagine there being another answer – at least, not one that makes any sense at all. Lots of great Lennon songs would be lost, but they’re edged out by the sheer tonnage of McCartney brilliance that followed. And Lennon did absolutely nothing worth hearing after The Beatles, whereas Macca did plenty (as well as some shite).
Lennon’s solo career reminds me of that exchange in Trainspotting when Renton and Sick Boy are discussing Sean Connery and Lou Reed:
Sick Boy: It’s certainly a phenomenon in aw walks ay life.
Renton: What do you mean?
Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you goat it, and then you lose it, and it’s gone forever. All walks ay life – George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed…
Renton: Some of his solo stuff’s no bad.
Sick Boy: No, it’s no bad, but it’s not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it’s actually just… shite.
Maybe this actually happened. The time and place obviously became lost in translation, but this could’ve been the event that killed McCartney Piano accident ’65, not car crash ’66)
And if it ws anyone but Ringo who was save, who’d do the narration for Thomas The Tank Engine 20 years later?
George.
Thoroughly decent human, who facilitated the release of The Life Of Brian.
George for me too. The only Beatle I own several solo albums by, and love them all.
I have a Best of John Lennon 2 CD comp but I’ve ripped only four tracks or so from it (and don’t like them that much either). Only own “The Frog Chorus” by Macca, because it’s the least annoying song of his… 😉
Ringo isn’t a serious option…
George, because he was the most likeable and hence the one I would save if acting on instant.
Indeed, and he didn’t/doesn’t bogart mayonnaise.
At 10 I would have watched it all unfold, wondering who they were. I’d have then missed the opportunity to see it in Brighton on release with my sister, but I would now be a lord on the afterword, describing the I was there with relish. Of course, the Manfred Mann filled the void and became huge, having been given the diaries of John and Paul, giving up on that silly Dylan nonsense
What happens at 10.01. New relish ? Are you ascending ?
If Macca were saved, he’d have probably thought Maxwell’s Silver Hammer coming down upon anyone’s head wasn’t such a good idea.
True, but you can get your kit off to Mother Nature’s Son if you’re a Land Owner.
If you save John does he still only have fifteen years to live?
Demented Cello Balloon – run Jeff Lynne, and if you get into trouble sit calmly and croon falsetto, with up curled fingers quivering in time with your tidal mantra ministrations. They will come. It’s pretty helpful if you have a bucket full of spring water, sharp night eyes and a cloak.
All the best man. Go for it.
John.
Its a tough one though and Paul peaked later.
Mainly so he could write Strawberry Fields, A Day in the Life, In My Life and I Am the Walrus, not to mention oodles of beautiful songs on The White Album.
Those who say is solo career is shite have obviously missed Instant Karma, Plastic One Band and (most of) Imagine and we tragically were denied any chance of a late career resurgance in middle age and on.
George. The only really interesting Beatle.
Whoever is left behind – and I’d probably go for Paul- would he, after a brief period of grieving, just have auditioned for 3 replacements? Or would he have started Wings a bit early with Jane Asher on the tambourine?
Um. Paul and John wouldn’t have been each other without each other. It was a competition.
Be mighty lonely up on that rooftop concert in 1969…
The correct answer is Ringo. Because he loves the most. The others would get on with their lives. Paul would enjoy the focus on him as the tragic survivor. and pen some mawkish songs about loneliness and loss. John would think he was saved to save the world, and become an embarrassment. George would cut himself off from the world, not because his heart was broken but because he couldn’t think of anything better to do. Ringo, though, would go through hell, and you’d have to be there for him.
Who would wish such a fate or poor Ringo? Kinder by far to let him get squished by the falling piano. It’s clearer than ever that the only sane option is to rescue George.
But – Ringo is the best human being of the bunch, therefore the most worthy to be saved. he’d suffer the most, on being saved, but that’s why he should be saved. He’s the best of them.
Nah. Lovely chap, but it’s got to be George.
Just as long as whoever’s left doesn’t recruit Jeff Lynne to help finish any unreleased songs
The exception being George’s posthumous ‘Brainwashed’ album. It’s superb.
Has to be John. Apart from the magnificent, game-changing singles, there’s also the Plastic Ono Band album which far surpasses anyone else’s solo efforts.
Also, the pain of yet again losing those closest to him would spur him onto even greater heights of songwriting.
Finally, if the piano was a Yamaha., that could lead to a lifelong aversion to all things Japanese.
@ianess ha said it all…end of debate methinks
The Beatles?
During the filming of Help. Their futures absolutely unknown. Solo potentials entirely untapped. It has to be a character call, doesn’t it?
You’re trying to push them out of the way? So, is it their character or would it be a matter of practicality?
John would push back (so you’d both die); Paul would take his shoes off and refuse to admit he’s dead; George would give you a hug whilst chanting hare krishna (so you’d both die); but Ringo’s only little and would go flying.
Peace and love.
I don’t think George was Hari Georgeson at that time, so I can’t see him giving you a hug. Even in full-on peace and love mode, he doesn’t seem the type. John pushing back is very good, though.
“I’ll hug whatever you want me to hug, or I won’t hug at all if you don’t want to me to hug. Whatever it is that will please you, I’ll do it.”
I’d save Paul. Not because of my own musical reasons, more because the one left behind would feel guilt and be resented by fans and press alike. It would be quite miserable for them, not to mention the emotional trauma. Paul, being thick-skinned and ruthlessly business-minded, would cope best, indeed he would thrive. Though, in reality it would be a split-second reaction so more likely George, based on the likeability, attractive personality aspect.
But…this is one of the big Fab myths. Paul is most definitely not thick-skinned. If you have read any account of the break-up and its aftermath, you’ll know that he was absolutely tortured and distraught, and had a complete breakdown. And his perennial obsessing over how he is critically perceived vis-a-vis John/songwriting etc. points to the fact that even after all he has achieved, he is still riddled with insecurities.
But I think ultimately he would be best able to cope and succeed alone. Perhaps not exactly thick-skinned but resilient nevertheless. Might choose not to write Ebony and Ivory either, which would be a bonus. Too many painful associations.
@ianess is correct (and for all the right reasons) – John.
Nah – it’s George.
I need help here – how has George suddenly become “the likeable one”? He was always the grumpy one. He was. Now, in hindsight, people see him as some kind of benign, easy-going chap (“produced Life of Brian”). Stalinist revisionism at its worst. Why save the Grumpy One? He’d hardly be grateful.
Yes you’re right, he was a tad earnest and sanctimonious, plus his constant whingeing, leading to a certain sourness. In 1965 these qualities would not yet be so developed and his personality was more agreeable, but they would come soon enough, so come falling piano and let him be crushed to a pulp and I’ll stick with Paul and his careerist toughness, enabling him to cope best.
George was the funniest, though. If you look at the early interviews, he’s got the driest sense of humour and possesses impeccable timing. He doesn’t talk much, but, when he does, his quips are excellent.
That being said, he was a grumpy sod.
Here’s the thing : I think the grumpiness tag is out of proportion, largely his own making of course. He disliked fame and celebrity and essentialy a private man. Those that were close to him always mention his love of comedy and terrific sense of humour and apparently he laughed a lot, something which Terry Gilliam said wasn’t highlighted enough in the Scorsese biopic. He also said that The Beatles were the truly subversive ones, not The Stones, because they working from within the establishment. Sort of covert if you will, changing heads all over the world, something that The Stones never did, or indeed could have.
I think you’re bang on the mark as regards his distaste for the insane level of fame he experienced. A couple of friends of his that I knew did make a point of emphasising his excellent sense of humour.
HP – if you’re looking for Stalinist revisionism, check out the accolades being heaped on Satanic Majesties on the Keef thread. The worlds gone mad I tells yer…
I like Satanic Majesties, always have. It’s one of the great UK psych albums, and if it was by some obscure band everyone would be praising it to the skies, and saying it’s better than Pepper. Because it’s by the Stones it gets kicked to bits, even by the Stones.
Did you hold that view when it was first released? Brave man if you did.
It was the first Stones album I bought. Couldn’t resist the cover. And it had a red “cloudy” inner sleeve, which you could see through a little hole on the back cover. These things matter.
It does have a rather nice cover, yes, and I can see how the inner sleeve with a little peep hole would delight. No real need for the accompanying bit of vinyl though.
Please see a reply I made to a comment of yours that I made elsewhere. It will save us both a lot of time in the long run – time that I can use perfecting my scrimshaw technique, or waxing the bindings of my incunabula.
It’s still George you know.
(Or Brian, if The Stones were hugging the Beatles lovely ski cloaks and it was a particularly large piano).
So… George and Brian. Case closed.
From what I’ve read, i.e. more books about the Stones than is reasonable, Brian was quite the little shit. Still, each to their own.
Well, my post re Brian was… guesswhat ?…justabitofachainyank for Saucey, and as for the other thread, it’s been stated by me that he could be an unpleasant character, but the wider point was the uncalled for level of inhumane nastiness and bitching still directed at him by Captain Keef.
Personally, one doesn’t side with little shits percy, I have a healthy bowel and my curries would strip the enamel of yer jacks bowl.
He was a spoiled, simpering, self-serving brat who couldn’t play a musical instrument (sitar? gimme a man-sized break – he could barely strum a gee-tar) and formed the group (on the basis of his divine handsomeness) because he wanted to be Lead Singer. He couldn’t actually sing, either.
Painting Jones as a talented martyr unfairly ousted by a bunch of talentless hacks is just more Rob C revisionist bollocks (no offence, Rob, I love reading your revisionist bollocks) that we have to entertain here from time to time. It makes the Afterword the vibrant online community it is.
Great rhythm guitar player. Excellent on the blues harp. Could get beauty out of most instruments he dabbled with eg. sitar/mellotron/, came up with the gorgeous Recorder playing/main motif in Ruby Tuesday and got no credit for his efforts, and as for his slide guitar ? ‘No Expectations’ ? So as for your sweeping bollocks about revisionism and his so called lack of musical ability ? Laughable. His Achilles heel was songwriting, but HP, dear heart, your impassioned bolloxability is also something that is part of the AW community, and to be treasured 🙂
Have a magick pakora xxx
Come on, HP, he was a talented player from the off and his divine looks certainly added to their boy band appeal. He was badly treated by the toxic trio of Jagger, Richards and Oldham and even had his girl stolen by Keith. From all accounts, he wasn’t Dad of the Year nor the kind of bloke you want your daughter bringing home to meet you, but, then again, neither Jagger nor Richards were paragons of virtue.
I haven’t a clue what I’m on about. I’m just trying to make this thread garner more comments. It was an experiment – I’m not a Beatles fan (they’re a good group, but not that good) and I wanted to see if it would bring out the people who don’t normally respond to my stuff. I thought it was a good, thought-provoking question – at that time, there were no individual expressions like solo albums, so your decision would have to be based on something else – what? But I forgot I about Beatles Fans, who are mostly not that capable of this type of conjecture. To be a Beatles Fan just means you haven’t listened to that much music. You’re happy with what you know, the Beatles Are The Best. “End of” as I think they’d put it.
Look at it this way (if you’re not a Beatles Fan) – in the period ’65 -’70 there were hundreds of great singles released. You draw up a list of the greatest (say, some Motown, Byrds, Dylan, Hendrix, whatever) and ask yourself what Beatles singles can really stand alongside them. truly great Beatles singles? As good as (say) Sittin’ On The Dock Of The Bay? Or Bridge Over Troubled Water? Or When A Man Loves A Woman? Or Good Vibrations? Or Tambourine Man? Or even Im A Believer? What are they? Hey Jude? A dull-as-ditchwater football crowd singalong? They made a handful of good singles. Up there with the Who, the Kinks. Well, possibly not the Kinks.
The Beatles are loved because they are The Beatles. And those that love, don’t question – worse – they’re incapable of it.
I sort of know what you mean, but I don’t think The Beatles is the default band for those that have a limited exposure to music. I see it as a good sign – they might also like all those other songs too, or at least have heard of them.
I’m sorry to say that snobbery pushes my nose perpendicular when someone announces, as if it ends all discussion, that they are a fan of AC/DC.
Actual fans I have no problem with…but AC/DC is the band to namedrop when you actually haven’t got an effing clue.
Oh come on HP ! That’s just lazy. I’m a Beatles fan, but I have a very wide taste in music from pop/rock to jazz, folk, blues, classical etc. I don’t consider them the greatest thing ever, but in terms of modern pop/rock I thing it’s pretty undeniable that they were the most influential band and had an overall quality body of work that is unsurpassed (handful of good singles my sacred arse).
Unquestioning ? Incapable ? You’ll be saying Beatles fans are all subscribers to the nations best loved Commie rag ‘The Morning Star’ next !
Demerit for entirely inappropriate – even lazy – use of “lazy”.
No, it’a all true, Rob. For Beatles fans there’s The Beatles and there’s Everything Else. BFs are very fond of putting Fabs albums in order of quality, but it’s an enclosed world. When you try putting Beatles hit songs out there in the real world – Everything Else – you start to see how limited they really are. They just do not make the grade. They sound, in fact, woefully thin.
While I think you’re probably just (partly) teasing, I sort of agree with you, HP. I think people want the Beatles to be even better than they are – is it a national pride thing? Or just a they’re-not-American thing? They’re quite brilliant enough without needing to overstate it.
I love The Beatles, but I think when you put them next to what was going on in the LA studios at the same time – Wilson, Spector/Nitzsche, half the thousands of records that Hal Blaine, Tommy Tedesco, Carol Kaye, Earl Palmer ect ect ect played on – you start to see them in a more realistic context. They were phenomenal, The Beatles, but not quite as peerless as the Fabdolators want them to be.
As so often, we come back to a silly Hepworthism: “The Beatles aren’t overrated. It’s impossible to overrate the Beatles.” No it’s not. They are, while still being completely amazing.
They certainly had peers. Agreed. I think their uniqueness is their consistency in the quality of their output compared to other bands. It’s funny how passionate Kinks/Beach Boys fans are in their rather deluded belief that they are up to the same level, when it’s clearly obvious that they’re not. Moments of genuine greatness ? Yes. Certainly. To the same degree of overall consistency ? Absolutely not.
Personally, I don’t find them amazing. I find them quite dull. But I’m willing to recognise that people who know far more about music than I do regard them as “important” so there must be something in there, and I’m just missing it.
With the benefit of the sort of distance granted you by not really liking a band, I find all the fuss over them on here quite odd. Ultimately, they’re just a pop group. Their music will, in time, be completely forgotten, just as all the bands I like will also be forgotten. They were not geniuses in the true sense of the word, merely in the ersatz sense that gets tossed round in music chat. The Theory of General Relativity is a work of genius. A Day In The Life is just a slightly more sophisticated pop song.
I think there’s sometimes a reflexive desire on here to believe that the Beatles are, and always will be, somehow “current”, and I think it’s due to a combination of the remarkably heavy emotional investment a lot of people have made in the group, together with a desire to believe that the cultural events of one’s own youth were somehow seminal; in much the same way that, deep in my heart, I believe that Hollywood peaked in the 80s.
Precisely nobody I know listens to the Beatles. Not me, not my friends, not even my parents, who lived through the entire period and were/are huge music fans. Occasionally, I might hear Hey Jude playing out somewhere, but if I didn’t have this place and the music magazines to repeatedly tell me how amazing the Fabs were, they would have zero impact on my life and I would struggle to pick them out of a line up.
This place, and others like it, occasionally serve as a kind of mutual reassurance facility for those who share the faith. They’re still important. They’re still vital. If John Lennon was alive today he’d be making innovative electronic music and blowing minds. There’s a – to some extent imaginary – hinterland to which fans of the group collectively retreat in the face of the truth, and the truth is that the Beatles matter less each year, and one day in the not too distant future they will cease to matter at all.
None of the above matters, of course. We all have our heroes and our rituals of hero worship, and that’s part of the fun of pop culture – you choose your icons and you drink in their iconography. I think Diego Maradona was a genius, when really he was a podgy bloke who kicked a football about a bit in an era before the game was even properly professionalized. The problems only occur when you worship en masse, and the collective need for ever greater statements of adulation mean that all sight of reality is lost.
Completely forgotten ? Yeah. Along with Mozart.
My point being that regardless of whatever one thinks about their work, they are certainly in the class of musicians who will be remembered for centuries to come, (assuming we’re still around), because they’re place in that pantheon in regards to the twentieth century is assured, both musically and culturally speaking.
The statement that they’re “certainly in the class of musicians who will be remembered for centuries to come” is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about above.
Does it really matter if they aren’t? Can the fans not just enjoy them without constantly having to reassert how very, very important they are across all space and time?
Apparently not, Bing.
Entirely appropriate. Sweeping statements of personal opinion, which are actually to the point of lazy exaggeration as to the merit lacking quality of their music in your zealous opinion, but this is cool, because you’re getting something out The Beatles, just like atheists who are passionate in their need to have a God to not believe in.
Om Shanti Shanka
Rob, I know what it was like to be a Beatles Fan when they were happening. I can remember the thrill of anticipation when a new Beatles record was announced. I can remember the total blast of hearing the New Beatles on my transistor radio with the deaf-aid earpiece. I can remember parting with my cash for it, the giddy elation of owning a Beatles Thing as it happened. I can remember listening to them talk in interviews, being enraptured by their smart replies, their bright intelligence. At the time, they were The Beatles and everything else was … not much.
At the time, they represented the “younger generation” (what happened to them? they grew old) like no-one else. They were ours, and they were brilliant, and they turned the drab old UK from Bakelite brown into shimmering rainbows. For a few years.
At the time, the rest of pop music was backgrounded for me. I didn’t have the time, the money, or the media resources to do much exploration outside the realm of the Beatles. They were more than enough.
Now, with a bit of perspective – not too much – and a wider view, I can see that The Beatles were more important as an event than as music makers. They were more than a part of the times, in a sense they were the times. But those times are long gone. The Beatles are long gone. Their musical legacy is, after all the fireworks have faded, surprisingly … thin. There was so much else happening at the time, quite as good or even better, that I was blinded to. These days, they take their place as a pop group, better than most, but not the unimpeachable genius-level talents we all took them for.
That question about the Beatles’ Great Singles still stands. I don’t know why I limited it to 65-70. The sixties. Name a Beatles single up there with with the best of that decade. Most of the greatest music came from the USA. Nearly all of it. In that company, the Beatles hits come across as enjoyably competent lightweights. Only Strawberry Fields attains something truly special, but that’s so utterly outside everything else, it doesn’t fit. It’s a great work of art, not a great single.
You’re not wrong. Perhaps it’s because we thought of the Beatles as a discrete creative unit from the very beginning, whereas it’s only very recently that most people have even become aware of who made the other records we remember from the ’60s. If I’d known back then that my favourite non-Beatles singles – “Dizzy”, “She’d Rather Be With Me”, “Good Vibrations”, “Eve of Destruction”, “Last Train to Clarksville”, “California Dreamin'” and quide liderally dozens of others – were all written, arranged and played by the same group, even though back then it had no name, would our perception of the Beatles have been more relative, more nuanced? The Fabtops were ridiculously good, of course, but we were led, inaccurately, to believe that they stood apart. Because we took what it said on the labels at face value. A Barry McGuire record was not a Turtles record was not a Beach Boys record – except the truth was they were. The Beatles stood out because all their records came out under that brand name, and there were four of them in the spotlight with easy to remember names, rather than an amorphous collection of mostly unphotogenic herberts noodling away in the shadows under names like “Nitzsche” or “Tedesco”.
I’d be a fule to deny their importance. Culturally, they were the most important pop group, incredibly influential. But they were this because of who they were, how they acted together in the context of the times. A historical happening outside of the actual music they were making, which was fine. Good. Occasionally great. But not the greatest, not the divine messengers the Beatles Cultist believes them to be.
And in the end, a pop group. Like Rory Storm and the Hurricanes. As Ringo said. Bless him.
She Loves You for starters, and there’s many more, and Strawberry Fields Forever is a great single. A great psychedelic pop single. Your ‘ so much else happening at the time’ ? Of course there was. An ocean of wonderful music, and the Beatles were not just part of it, but a global cultural tsunami, with the talent to match.
It is after all, your subjective view point, and mine, re the quality of their work. Neither of us can lay a claim to unimpeachable fact.
Cripes, Rob. “She Loves You”? 1962 was a pretty thin year, but this is hardlyin a different league, musically, to:
“Green Onions” – Booker T. & the M.G.s
“He’s a Rebel” – Crystals
“Don’t Ever Change” – The Crickets
“Crying in the Rain” – Everly Brothers
“Return To Sender” – Elvis Presley
“Sweet Little Sixteen” – Jerry Lee Lewis
“Because of Love” – Billy Fury
“Your Cheatin’ Heart” – Ray Charles
“The Wanderer” – Dion
… and so on. Nobody would chose 62 as a defining year of the sixties, though, and if you were to list the top hundred whatever from the sixties, it’s unlikely that any of these (or others not mentioned) would feature.
(If you want to make lists of following years, be my guest – as we get deeper into the sixties, and pop music breaks out of the fifties legacy, the Beatles singles get weaker in context, not stronger)
PPS And please, no more of that tired old internet cliché “it’s all subjective, anyway”. You’re a keystroke away from an emoticon.
I don’t do lists, and yes IT IS ALL SUBJECTIVE 🙂
Rob, have you changed your moniker?
Personally, I don’t think it is wise to always assume that one’s own opinion in these matters is necessarily always the correct one….
OK, HP, I’d save Ringo. He’s the cuddliest, nicest, most down to earth and had a tough childhood. After all his time in hospital as a kid, it would be crushing (SWIDT) if his life were to be so miserable and short.
He could then hook up with Eric and form Cream, then Blind Faith. Would rid the rock world of boring drum solos. Or he could go back to Butlins with Rory Storm. Would be interesting to ponder what his next moves would be.
As for your attempts to decry the influence and quality of output of the Fabs – I await your take on the ’50s. Billy Lee Riley greater than Elvis?
Influence, no. Just the opposite. Quality of output: very high, for the most part. Like many groups.
The Beatles singles get stronger in each year, up until the final decline, and quite frankly, compared to most of the ones you’ve listed above, She Loves You was a joyous shout of fresh air.
Return To Sender ? The Wanderer ? … yeah. Right (subjectively speaking).
As regards Bingo and HP’s comments, there’s no doubt that there’s a Keeper of the Sacred Flame fanaticism surrounding the Beatles and this is, no doubt, partly, explained by a desire of those who were around then to idealise and cling to the memory of their youth. The account by HP of the excitement surrounding their releases has enormous resonance with me. They had an enormous impact on the US scene and influenced and were admired/worshipped by probably all of the other artists you mention. Overall, I think they kept their standards incredibly high throughout their brief career, constantly attempted to improve and innovate rather than churn out the same old stuff (unlike others) and didn’t have the variability in quality that every other artist you mention had.
I’d question the assumption that it’s all just going to fade away to nothing. The Beatles were a global phenomenon and still retain some of that popularity. It wasn’t just some UK fad. A Beatle said a few years ago that they’d now got the grandkids buying their albums. They’re certainly turning up in their hordes across the world to see Macca and I don’t think that’s just to see a museum piece.
I have an eclectic collection of music, so I must be one of the few who’s listened to a great deal of music outside of the Fabs.
As someone who was there, they were a godsend in terms of bringing huge excitement to my life (and millions of others) and brightening up a drab scene considerably. I loved them dearly and the memory of that love remains. It’s all a bit ‘blue, remembered hills’, but that doesn’t make the memories any less warm or precious (to me).
My memories, too. I wish I could remember more clearly the time my Mum took me to see them, but what I can remember is probably the most important aspect; the music didn’t matter. It was a genuine happening, a huge public release of excitement. Those were the times. I do find it a little weird that some people, who weren’t even around at the time, take on the faith of the Beatles, turn them into a belief system, make gods of them. Not even the Beatles thought that highly of the Beatles: they quit.
Never saw them, but the jampacked Saturday afternoon matinee of A Hard Day’s Night was a total screamfest. Joined in myself after twenty minutes. That was an event.
“The Beatles” was an event. A phenomenon. You were either lucky enough to witness it happen, and have the memories to enjoy, or you have to come to it from a distance, loaded with baggage and significance.
Regarding his questioning of Beatles records, my judgement is that all this comes down to HPS’s failure to understand pop music. He makes the often made mistake of considering rock to be superior. He is second to none among Afterword scribes at articulating his thoughts in an engaging, entertaining manner and I salute him for this but time and time again his assessment of the actual music is found wanting.
I’m sorry I’m such a disappointment to you, Sven. It’s not just my failure to understand pop music that’s the issue here – although it’s charitable of you to suggest it – it’s my failure to understand anything. Everything. I can put my hand on my heart and say I understand nothing of what is happening here. I’m tapping away on my keyboard, producing a string of letters, in response to similar actions made by you in the recent past. Apparently, we’re on something called “the internet”. I understand none of this. All I can do is try to arrange a chaotic universe in some kind of order, putting that which makes no sense at all – for instance, your comment – aside, because I can never hope to understand it in the brief time allotted to me on this earth.
Now I’m sitting drinking cold lager by the beach in Karpathos this all seems unimportant. What is the difference between rock and pop anyway? Who knows. You could be right you could be wrong.
Pop cares about giving you a good time. Rock cares about looking important.
For rock n roll, see pop.
Great aphorism there Bobster. I found that as I get older and care less about looking important / cool, the less patience I have with rock and the more time I have for pop.
I’ve just finished writing a press release for The Bohicas. Gee, I hope it doesn’t make them sound like a bunch of wankers.
“Sometime in the late ’60s – probably around the time The Beatles decided to grow moustaches – rock and roll started to really ponder the big ideas in life. Songs got longer, lyrics more impenetrable, brows more furrowed and before you knew it Rick Wakeman was staging a musical about King Arthur on ice. Of course, that’s not to say there’s no place for a bit of intellectualising in music. It’s just that sometimes the best music bypasses the brain and hits you straight in the gut. You don’t need a degree in classical literature to fully ‘understand’ Boredom by Buzzcocks, for instance. Try as you might, there’s no hidden meaning to unlock in Sheena Is A Punk Rocker.
“The stuff that inspires me has to be immediate,” says The Bohicas’ singer Dominic McGuinness, sipping a pint after the band’s residency at infamous Soho den, The Social. “I haven’t got the patience or the brains to absorb and digest a great book or a clever film. It has to be like [clicks fingers] a baseball bat. That’s what we try to do with The Bohicas. It’s immediate. A series of sucker punches.”
They’re both just different styles of music. Neither is more virtuous than the other.
Well where’s the fun in that?
It’s part of my proposal that we should all accept that, ultimately, this stuff is just totally subjective and we should all stop talking about it, maybe close down the blog and go bowling instead.
The bowling is the fun bit.
Well ten pin is fun – dos it’s about having a good time, whereas crown green bowls takes itself more seriously – it features more chin stroking, beards and self importance..
Lot of ball-rubbing in both, mind.
You’re worrying me, Bingo. ‘Films are only acting.’ ‘Music is all subjective.’ It’s like that bit in Waterloo when the infantryman wails, ‘Why do we kill each other!? Why!?’ moments before he’s cut down by the cavalry.
Cavalry are just geezers on horses, aren’t they? And swords only hurt if you, like, allow them to hurt?
Some great moments in music came out of people trying to be important and make art – being pretentious, so I wouldn’t knock that. Though Robert Wyatt did consider it absurd proggers thinking they could improve on I Heard It Through The Grapevine.
Now enjoying a g’n’t on the balcony, listening to nothing but the waves, beads of sweat breaking out on my brow. Still a moment for The Afterword while the wifi is working.
Ticket To Ride is my favourite Beatles single. It marks a change of approach musically, lyrically and in terms of actually making records. John came up with the melody in December 1964 but the song was completed with Paul during an afternoon long writing session at John’s house on February 14th 1965. It was recorded as the first song for the upcoming Help! movie the following day in three hours.
After seven chirpy perfect pop singles, Ticket To Ride is gloomy, angry and disbelieving. It begins with the line “I think I’m gonna be sad,” and concludes with “My baby don’t care.” This is a song mourning the end of a relationship, one ended by the woman because she wants to be free. Unbelievably, for Beatles fans, she finds that John brings her down.
After two albums of mainly acoustic guitar, Ticket To Ride buzzes with electricity. It begins brightly enough with George’s jangling Rickenbacker introduction but the music soon gets heavy. The riff is picked out by two guitars. George strums A chords to add depth. Paul is credited with coming up with the drum pattern, which mimics the riff in its stuttering ‘Arabic’ rhythm. Even so, Ringo’s delivery is dramatic, replete with rolls and thundering floor toms. Paul adds harmony vocals and some neat lead guitar towards the end of the lines in the verses, building a tension that is eventually broken by a 4/4 section (‘she oughta do right by me’), sharpened by Ringo’s switch to the symbols. The final coda is effectively a new melody (“my baby don’t care”), driven by John’s falsetto vocal and Paul’s colourful guitar licks. It took the song beyond the standard three minute mark for a single and defies the DJ to edit out this surprise ending.
The recording method was different, representing greater experimentation in exploiting studio techniques. The Beatles rehearsed the tune with the tape rolling, then re-spooled for a take. The first take fluffed at the start but take two was good. It was a rhythm track, drums, bass and two guitars. They had used overdubs before but not as many. There are double-tracked vocals, extra rhythm and lead guitars and handclaps and tambourine.
Ticket To Ride represents a move from pop music to rock, it tackles unusual lyrical themes and it effectively starts to use the studio as an instrument. It is the sound of a pop group growing up.
It, also, is a true group effort. All four Beatles make crucial contributions to the final result. Remove any one of them and you wouldn’t have anything like the same record. It still sounds great today. Every moment is packed with detail and little nuances so that the listener (I’m sure I’m not the only one) remains interested even after hearing it many thousands of times.
I notice no-one has posted the song, which is well worth another listen.
http://youtu.be/zUxs8Q6V6-4
In answer to your question, HP, I’d let them all die. The Beatles were far greater than the sum of their parts. It would be cruel for only one to survive. Besides, isn’t there a chance the piano could crush me?
Rock, pop, and roll.
Phew!
A pedant etc.
It’s in A flat.
But, of course. The flat bit adds to the low mood.
But has anybody considered if the piano was the last one on earth, and that nobody knew how to make another? Would you save the piano or a beatle?
I choose Lennon but let Chapman take his place at the last minute, problem solved.