Bunch approvingly links to this piece of music criticism from ESPN (?), the thesis of which seems to be that the Beatles, while great for their time, haven’t aged very well. I’ll leave the rest of this rant below the fold, but suffice it to say that I don’t find this very convincing.
Obviously, different genres appeal to different people. If you’re a huge fan of noise or house or free jazz, I can understand why the Beatles might not appeal to you, even if I don’t share your musical preferences. The author of this article, however, is an unabashed fan of pop music. He admits to enjoying Blink-182, Oasis and Weezer. Leaving the merits of each band aside, they’re all famous because they record catchy pop songs. One of the bands – Oasis – has actually made a career of marrying 60s-style pop with arena rock. In fact, I’d venture that one of the most common adjectives associated with Oasis is “Beatles-esque.”
So look: if you like conventional pop music, you should probably like the Beatles. I’m not saying they have to be your favorite band, but copping to enjoying Weezer or Oasis (both of which are occasionally enjoyable, thoroughly derivative rock bands) means that some aspect of the Beatles’ immense back-catalog should appeal to your musical sensibility. Maybe “I wanna hold your hand” doesn’t hold up very well. But that’s not a reason to dismiss the rest of the band’s body of work.
If you like “Wonderwall” but not “Yesterday”, I honestly wouldn’t know what to say.Report
My first thought, when seeing it was on ESPN, was to wonder if it would be an essay on such songs as Rock and Roll Part 2, Who let the dogs out?, or We will rock you… and finish with the question “When was the last time 10,000 people sang a Beatles song at once?”Report
Like I wrote, that piece has its problems. But I have such a deep-seated antipathy toward the Beatles (probably because I have a deep-seated antipathy toward the Boomers and their constant push to have everything they loved deified) that I take immense pleasure in even middling takedowns like Shirley’s. We need fewer “The Beatles were great and here’s why” pieces; we need more “The Beatles were great in their day but let’s please for the love of god move on” pieces. I also sympathize with this graf:
It happens. I’ve been told by many, many people my age that The Beatles — The Beatles! — are their favorite band. Every time, I say, “OK, that’s cute, but you don’t have to impress me. Tell me what your real favorite band is.” Inevitably, they stick to their guns.
People my age who say the Beatles are their favorite band kind of freak me out. Not sure why. They just do.Report
And all this after Paul McCartney makes every effort to become relevant to kids these days…
(2:40 in the video)Report
That’s too bad…I really like that Jay Z/Linkin Park mashup (its use in “Miami Vice” was simply fantastic…Michael Mann has a great ear for music). And then BAM — Beatles medley/Paul McCartney. Bitter.Report
I dunno, I always liked the Beatles mashup of the Jay track better, off Danger Mouse’s The Gray Album. (here,btw)Report
But yes, Miami Vice was a beautifully videoed, terrible movie that used terrible music very well.
Then again, I’m horribly biased.Report
Miami Vice is one of the more underrated movies of the decade. There. I said it. You wanna fight about?
/slurring speechReport
To specify, I am biased against ridiculously unrealistic portrayals of Miami. So, no, it ain’t worth fighting over.Report
Except that I’ve spent an awful lot of time listening to the history of popular music since the Beatles, and in fact came to the Beatles after I had consumed a lot of what had come before– and the Beatles made the best popular music that has ever been made. Not good for its day; good compared to anything you want to stack it up against. That’s subjective, of course, but then, Shirley seems to forget that when he insists that it was good for its day, he’s just saying his subjective opinion too.
By the way, I would suggest not linking approvingly to a man who positively references Dean Koontz.Report
I mean, to each his own. I just have trouble deifying a band whose initial triumphs were based on boy band slush, and whose later triumphs swing wildly from brilliant to unlistenable.Report
Oh, also, they have the lamest drummer in the history of the instrument. Ringo Starr is right up there with the chick from the White Stripes in terms of “Worst drummer of all time in a major, well-respected act.” I give this consideration extra weight since the drums are the only instrument I’ve ever even attempted playing in a more-than-cursory way.Report
Check out the drumming on “Rain.”
Also the band who produced the White Album can be forgiven the B-tracks from Magical Mystery Tour.Report
Meg White is entirely necessary: she keeps Jack White tethered to Earth. Without him he’d be orbiting us in the stratosphere and we would be unable to hear him.Report
The Replacements’ Let It Be is better than the Beatles’ Let It Be.Report
To be fair, Let It Be is probably the weakest, most disjointed Beatles album. But The Replacements were great . . .Report
Blame that nutter/murderer Phil Spector for that one.Report
I actually thought the original Let It Be release was better than Let It Be . . . Naked.Report
Phil Spector is a legend who I will hear not a word against the work of. As for his personal life: we all know that he just should have gunned down one of the Ramones when he had the chance. Shooting your wife is lame.Report
In fact, I’d venture that one of the most common adjectives associated with Oasis is “Beatles-esque.”
Howard Stern once asked Paul McCartney if Oasis was a Beatles rip-off band. Paul (in his typical dry humor) said, “They aren’t a knockoff, but they’re certainly derivative.”
As an unabashed fan of pop music I always say that The Who is my favorite band of all time but The Beatles were the best. It’s just very, very, very hard to argue with their place in popular music. I think some of their material holds up and a lot of it doesn’t, but who says it has to?Report
Zeppellin>BeatlesReport
Fact.Report
Better plagiarists, you mean? Probably.Report
If it’s possible for a band to be more overrated than the Beatles, Zep are it.
And maybe Lynyrd Skynyrd.Report
You mean if you like pomposity and pretense? Sure. Enjoy listening to Dream Theater.Report
Actually, I love Zeppelin. I just don’t like their impact on music; it led to a ton of overproduced, preening garbage.Report
True. Though I have to say, I like my pomposity and pretense with less blues riffs and more synthesizers.
But I guess that just makes me representative of my generation. Damn.Report
I’m typically a fan of Paul Shirley and understand his sentiment but to suggest, as he essentially does, that music produced earlier is by definition inferior to music it influenced later is absolutely crazy. A thousand 80s hair bands and Led Zeppelin should make that painfully clear. I didn’t have to be alive in Led Zeppelin’s heyday to know they’re helluvalot (infinitely) better than White Lion. And I didn’t have to be alive in 1965 to reasonable argue that The Beatles were more musically diverse, interesting and, yes, wrote better songs than the decidedly one dimensional Oasis and, to use Shirley’s adjective, “boring.” Why can’t he just say that he doesn’t like The Beatles and that he finds it annoying when his peers claim that they’re their favorite band and be done with it? Why cherry-pick a couple of totally subjective examples (Stoker-Koontz?) to try to prove his opinion is right?Report
Man, if you’re gonna rip on the Beatles, at least don’t half-ass it. Take the piss like a washed-up punk rocker. Report
Which is to say, if you’re inclined to open your idol-smashing rant with “No disrespect intended…” you should really think again.Report
The Iconoclasts are a much misunderstood bunch. Constantine V’s reign saw an increase in the number of monasteries in the Empire.Report