In Search of Beatles Rock but not Pop

Ben campbell has it right when he suggests that the Beatles music must be put in context. I was 18 when the first Beatles album "Meet the Beatles" came out -- to me it was a revelation! I had nothing like it before, and it blew me away! And then, in a short period of time, the artistic leap to Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, Abbey Road! But, still to this day if I had to pick one beatles album for a desert island it would be "Meet the Beatles" Music, obviously, impacts each of differently and that is the real answer; i.e., todays music from grung to rap will never be my favorites although I certainly find selected groups and songs enjoyable. Perhaps music strikes us most deeply when it is associated with youth and/or significant events in our life! Happy listening.

Please understand that part of the Beatles genuis stems from the ability to mature with their audience. The market place at the time the Beatles first came to fame would probably prohibited their latter stuff to come first. And it couldn't happen any way. The Beatles were amongst the pioneers in the mature pop music of their era. They were a voice both reflecting and leading a radically new culture. If not for their early success we may never had the opportunity to hear their latter stuff. I think you will find in time that even their "sappy commercial pop lovey dovey" stuff is brilliant. There are exquiste harmonies and a unique for the time fusion of folk, rock, blues and other musical styles. Just because something is commercial doesn't mean it can't have artistic attributes. Think in terms of a beautifully illustrated comic book. While the early stuff may not be their best it certainly has merit and can be beautiful to listen too. Give it a chance.

I'm curious how old you are, CW. Rock fans who grew up on a diet of the "heavier" sounds that followed The Beatles may find that their music doesn't seem to "rock out" enough for them. In their day, The Beatles did often get represented as one side of a dichotomy, with The Rolling Stones on the other, as the "light" to The Stones' "dark". As a big fan of both, I can say there is some truth to this characterization, but that it really misses the point.

"Rock" music as the art form we know would have been inconceivable without The Beatles happening first. All other groups and artists, The Stones included, were in their day continually playing catch-up and second fiddle to The Beatles. The Beatles were, are, and forever will be, by far the most important single thing to come along in Rock & Roll after its beginnings with Elvis and Chuck Berry. They mark the divergence of what came to be known simply as "Rock" from Rock & Roll's roots in Rhythm & Blues, Country & Western, Pop, and Soul musics that came before, and with it Rock's establishment as an Art Form, no longer just a passing teenage fad.

They did this by integrating everything that had preceded them with a talent, flair, eclecticism, capacity for evolution, timeliness, and sheer songwriting originality and genius, totally unprecedented in the music before them and not matched since. The important thing to realize is that although they did not blaze every Rock path that formed in the 60's (and every path taken since, BTW, does have its roots in this seminal decade), the ones they did not, such as those pioneered by The Velvet Underground, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, and even their British Invasion mates like The Stones and The Who, would not have come to be without The Beatles' inspiration and example.

Just as songwriters, Lennon and McCartney wrote so many high-quality, notable, and well-known tunes, and with such incredible variety, that casually interested listeners like yourself will frequently complain that although they like a lot of Beatles songs, there are a lot they can't seem to get into. Contrast this with most other groups or artists, where folks tend either like the bag that they work in and therefore dig them, or don't (but for maybe a song or two).

Yes, it is also true that, contrary to what some have thought, not every single Beatles song is an uncontestable masterpiece. But their batting average is orders of magnitude beyond most other prolific artists nonetheless. And though they were not the first Rock & Roll performers to write their own songs (Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Brian Wilson all had success at this before The Beatles arrived on the scene), they did set the standard, observed ever since, for the self-contained group which both writes and performs all its own material.

Now me saying this, or even its being true, is not going to - and is not supposed to - make you "like" The Beatles more than you presently do. I, for instance, generally like a lot of 20th century classical music much better than I do Mozart, even though I realize that one could not have come to be without the other. I acknowledge his genius even as I admit that it affects me less than it does others. When it comes to The Beatles, there is no "escaping" the Pop aspect of their work - either in the Tin Pan Alley sense of the word as it applies to song-craft, or in their literal popularity worldwide and their attitude towards fame and success. They were trying to be liked by as many people as they could and still touch them all artistically and emotionally. The Beatles did not engage, for the most part, in the willfull obtuseness that so many lesser-talented groups or artists have cultivated in their quests for "exclusivity" among their audiences. The Beatles didn't want a narrow, self-conscious, self-congratulatory audience, separate from other audiences by age or preference. They had what it took to have the whole world as an audience - and they knew it.

So you get songs old people can like, and songs kids can like (many of which, BTW, display a sense of humor that's almost entirely missing in today's simultaneously pretentious and sophomoric Rock). Musically, you get Rock both hard and soft, along with everything from good old Rock & Roll, to Folk Rock, to Experimental Rock, to Psychedelic Rock, to an amazing collection of what can only be described as Original Standards Rock, and all featuring a combination of singing, playing, arranging, and production that is without equal.

But perhaps more importantly, especially from the post-Beatlemania middle period onward, you get genuine, personal, intelligent, wise, and challenging artistic communication in almost every piece, that combined with the musical innovation, creates an impressionistic whole which makes most other artists' output seem disappointingly literal, posturing, and earthbound by comparision. Whereas other groups may have stood for more for rebellion, or sex, or fun, or violence, or drugs, or jamming, or dancing, or simply a fad of the moment, The Beatles always, first and foremost, stood for - and successfully embodied in their art - love. All of those things were representations of freedom, which defined the era - but only love is completely universal for everyone all the time. That is why The Beatles legacy still to this day towers over everything else in Rock.

Thank you everyone for so many thoughtful replies. Zaikesman -- superb post!

Your point about every song being an uncontestable masterpiece is exactly what I was talking about and why I was wondering if I was missing something, so your comments were a bit of a relief. Perhaps some people take Beatlemania a bit too far which I am sure was also fueled by John Lennons death.

But like your nod to Mozart, I am happy to "acknowledge (their) genius" and do want to spend more time with them and will try to take all of these comments on board.

FYI, I was born in 1964, high school 82, college 86, which ,to my mind, makes me somewhat musically homeless. The Beatles, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin were a bit before my time.

I thought I was pretty cool listening to Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin in 3rd grade on my Soundesign "stereo" with plastic speakers but probably didn't get it as much as I thought I did at the time.

In Junior High and High school, "new wave" was gaining in popularity -- bands like Devo, the B-52s, Talking Heads, Joe Jackson, Elvis Costello were popular where I grew up in Virginia Beach -- a wannabe California with a strong surfing pop cultural vibe despite the tiny waves and with suburban "old school" skateboard ramps made with stolen plywood.

Further to musical homelessness, my taste seemed to be stuck in between these two genres of pop/rock. I wasn't quite old enough to be versed in Hendrix, but a lot of the pop/new wave stuff that was considered so cool by my peers I found pretentious and lacking in legs.

So I was also listening to a bit of jazz, a bit of classical and curiously exploring some dreadful "audiophile" recordings and performances which I nonetheless loved for their "ear candy" qualities. (By that time, I had upgraded the Soundesign system -- a Technics receiver with Infinity Qa's was quickly replaced with Hafler amps and Maggie MG-1b's.) I also really loved Stevie Wonder who was certainly on the pop charts but by no means considered "cool" at the time.

If anyone has any opinions on the darker, more psychadelic Beatles albums/songs to focus on, I will continue my tour there. I would also be curious -- with no disrespect to the songwriting genius that was involved, what songs/albums would Beatles fans agree are the sappiest/poppiest?

To Cwlondon's original request ... the understanding of the Beales' music & evolution ...

Some good insight can be found in two books written by Walter Everett ... "The Beatles as Musicians." These two volumes are not always as easy read, but they help put the music into perspective.