The Beatles

[Insel affe]

What a load of bolleaux! And who was producing songs like Penny Lane, Help, Strawberry Fields and umpteen others that they were supposed to be plagiarising? As opposed to imitation being the sincerest form of flattery ............... cough .......... psychobilly ............. cough ........

Penny Lane: McCartney cited Dylan Thomas's nostalgic poem "Fern Hill"

Help: pop song, not actually that good that does not stray too much from 1957 Buddy Holly

Strawberry fields: whimsical pap, in line with grandma we love you.

Cough, splutter, chuckle, cough

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

What a load of bolleaux! And who was producing songs like Penny Lane, Help, Strawberry Fields and umpteen others that they were supposed to be plagiarising? As opposed to imitation being the sincerest form of flattery ............... cough .......... psychobilly ............. cough ........

Yep, every musician learns from others and takes inspiration. The Beatles were an innovative band who weren't the best musicians around necessarily, but who had an unerring ear for melody and a good song. I was never much into them until my fifties but now consider them as a seminal band. I am really an old rocker with far heavier tastes, but countless heavy rock and metal bands I like cite the Beatles as a leading or main inspiration. The music they produced was very memorable. I shouldn't worry too much about the poster on a wind-up, surely he must just want to provoke a rise. Their music has stood the test of time, and like Mahler, Beethoven and Sibelius, whom I also love, will surely be around when some other, ahem...lesser forms of music have long been consigned to the history books.

 

[GT49er]

Penny Lane: McCartney cited Dylan Thomas's nostalgic poem "Fern Hill"

Help: pop song, not actually that good that does not stray too much from 1957 Buddy Holly

Strawberry fields: whimsical pap, in line with grandma we love you.

Cough, splutter, chuckle, cough

Don't agree, but nice try!

 

[Stato]

Penny Lane is a very good example of everything that I find wrong with McCartney as a lyricist. I think of his as the 'look there's a thing' school. He just lists things that he has noticed or made up, hardly ever caring to take a deeper interest in the motivations of the people or communities he is using. For him, I suppose its probably a good move, because it allows the listener to imagine their own deeper meanings that he didn't intend. After all, when he does try to look closer, he can only produce patronising 'aren't I sensitive' stereotypical claptrap like 'Eleanor Rigby.'

Compare Penny Lane with Ray Davies's 'Autumn Almanac' a song with the similar intent of reflecting memories of the writer's home / childhood. One just goes 'street, fireman, barber, nurse doing stuff, oh I can't be bothered, here's a catchy chorus, you make up the rest', the other displays that, whilst being conflicted about the hold that the place has on him, the author has a deep love for, and understand of the people and places that made him. McCartney uses people as props to create archetypes. In the same short space, Davies gives them a history, an inner life and hints at psychological conflict, whilst also creating evocative and beautifully worded lines like 'Breeze blows leaves of a musty coloured yellow,' that have the poetry that is completely absent from McCartney's prosaic list of images. It's like comparing one of Warhol's soup tins with a JMW Turner; One thinks that the idea is enough in itself to be art, the other has an idea, but also cares deeply about form, craft and subject.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Penny Lane is a very good example of everything that I find wrong with McCartney as a lyricist. I think of his as the 'look there's a thing' school.

Yes, McCartney has never been renowned as a lyricist like a Lennon or Dylan (who is essentially a Nobel prize winning poet who can play 3 chords and blow an earsplitting harmonica to break his endless prose). The Beatles were only lyrically supreme when Lennon (and maybe Harrison) were penning them.

McCartney is a musician foremost though; a musical genius and is one of the best bass players of all time. He can play many types of instruments and has written a huge pantheon of diverse and wonderful songs.

Imagine if you held Uncle Elton up to your lyricists standards? He was so horrific at writing lyrics, he had to get a wordsmith in to do the heavy lifting, but still, he is seen as an amazing musician.

For me it’s about the music, lyrics are secondary (although when they are as bad as Oasis’, I tend to switch off).

 

[Stato]

Yes, McCartney has never been renowned as a lyricist like a Lennon or Dylan (who is essentially a Nobel prize winning poet who can play 3 chords and blow an earsplitting harmonica to break his endless prose). The Beatles were only lyrically supreme when Lennon (and maybe Harrison) were penning them.

McCartney is a musician foremost though; a musical genius and is one of the best bass players of all time. He can play many types of instruments and has written a huge pantheon of diverse and wonderful songs.

Imagine if you held Uncle Elton up to your lyricists standards? He was so horrific at writing lyrics, he had to get a wordsmith in to do the heavy lifting, but still, he is seen as an amazing musician.

For me it’s about the music, lyrics are secondary (although when they are as bad as Oasis’, I tend to switch off).

It's not true that McCartney is not hailed as a lyricist. Just Google 'greatest lyricists' and you'll find someone making the argument for him. That's the irritating thing about some Beatles fans. In any and every category, they believe that the Beatles are the best. This results in polls that see Lennon and McCartney listed as great singers, when they were no better or worse than countless other Merseybeat types. It's crazy. I'm a huge fan of Elvis Costello, but I'm not going to argue that he's a better singer than Sam Cooke, Roy Orbison, Etta James, etc. etc.

Why would I judge Elton John as a lyricist? He knew he was no good at lyrics, so didn't do it. Brian Wilson was largely the same, and a much better candidate for the label 'musical genius' than is McCartney. Had McCartney done the same, perhaps some of his songs would be less irritating, but he didn't.

I'd also argue that musically, Dylan is far more than you suggest. All you need to know is the story of his response to Tom Wilson saying that Al Kooper wasn't an organ player at the sessions for 'Like A Rolling Stone'.

I should say that you are arguing with someone who suffers from what you might call 'Fablexia'*. Other than a couple of George Harrison songs, I just don't get them. I find my Albion pre-match experience particularly marred week on week by the inclusion of 'Hey Jude', perhaps the most annoyingly over-regarded pile of tosh ever recorded, so I wouldn't worry that we probably won't find a middle ground.

* (I know that technically, this takes the wrong part of the word and should really be 'Dysfabia' - It doesn't sound as good though).

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

It's not true that McCartney is not hailed as a lyricist. Just Google 'greatest lyricists' and you'll find someone making the argument for him. That's the irritating thing about some Beatles fans. In any and every category, they believe that the Beatles are the best.

Try reading the comments under any Led Zeppilin video on YouTube.

Actually, no, don't

But then, I find Eleanor Rugby an affecting reflection on the inevitably of loneliness and death in a world that doesn't care whether we live or die. Takes all sorts doesn't it?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Well this is a fun thread. The music of The Beatles was at it's best when heard at the time of issue with eager anticipation. In each of those moments, they and their music took pop forward by another leap in some way or another. In the context of their time and at their time, they were a pop culture phenomenon with a hysteria around them that has only occasionally been briefly, matched by others. Honestly, those moments can't be imagined if you weren't there at the time. Other groups of the day were inspired by them whether to write their own songs, try different instruments or generally just up their games. The Stones, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds and many others enjoyed equal moments, but The Beatles in their day stood alone. Analysing their music now, in isolation, and trying to compare it to other groups of the sixties and beyond is just fruitless. It can't be done unless you were there listening to their new music in the context of the times.

 

[Stato]

Try reading the comments under any Led Zeppilin video on YouTube.

Actually, no, don't

True, Led Zep fans are bad too.

But then, I find Eleanor Rugby an affecting reflection on the inevitably of loneliness and death in a world that doesn't care whether we live or die. Takes all sorts doesn't it?

Ah, the meaningless of existence. For that I'd take the less cloying:

"No one in the world ever gets what they want,
And that is beautiful,
Everybody dies frustrated and sad,
And that is beautiful"

Stuck right in the middle of They Might Be Giants' seemingly upbeat and throwaway debut single 'Don't Let's Start.'

As you say, like if you want to make yourself feel even more sick on Christmas morning having already done all the chocolate, it takes Allsorts.

 

[Eeyore]

I knew nothing of the Beatles really until I was eleven (1980). My dad cam into my room early one morning in December 1980 and told me John Lennon had been shot dead. My response was 'Who is John Lennon ?'

After that, for about a year, I was well into them. I think we all go through that phase.

I play a lot of their stuff now on Spotify. It took a while for their tracks to hit that platform.

I know I'm getting old as when I was born Abbey Road was still six months from release.

 

[Insel affe]

Penny Lane is a very good example of everything that I find wrong with McCartney as a lyricist. I think of his as the 'look there's a thing' school. He just lists things that he has noticed or made up, hardly ever caring to take a deeper interest in the motivations of the people or communities he is using. For him, I suppose its probably a good move, because it allows the listener to imagine their own deeper meanings that he didn't intend. After all, when he does try to look closer, he can only produce patronising 'aren't I sensitive' stereotypical claptrap like 'Eleanor Rigby.'

Compare Penny Lane with Ray Davies's 'Autumn Almanac' a song with the similar intent of reflecting memories of the writer's home / childhood. One just goes 'street, fireman, barber, nurse doing stuff, oh I can't be bothered, here's a catchy chorus, you make up the rest', the other displays that, whilst being conflicted about the hold that the place has on him, the author has a deep love for, and understand of the people and places that made him. McCartney uses people as props to create archetypes. In the same short space, Davies gives them a history, an inner life and hints at psychological conflict, whilst also creating evocative and beautifully worded lines like 'Breeze blows leaves of a musty coloured yellow,' that have the poetry that is completely absent from McCartney's prosaic list of images. It's like comparing one of Warhol's soup tins with a JMW Turner; One thinks that the idea is enough in itself to be art, the other has an idea, but also cares deeply about form, craft and subject.

I like you

he can only produce patronising 'aren't I sensitive' stereotypical claptrap like 'Eleanor Rigby.'

I like this version though, a version with bollox...
https://youtu.be/hJBxfq858Mo

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Ah, the meaningless of existence. For that I'd take the less cloying:

"No one in the world ever gets what they want,
And that is beautiful,
Everybody dies frustrated and sad,
And that is beautiful"

Stuck right in the middle of They Might Be Giants' seemingly upbeat and throwaway debut single 'Don't Let's Start.'

Some might suggest that if your observations on the heartlessness of existence are "seemingly upbeat and throwaway", then you're not observing hard enough.

And by some, I of course mean me. Catchy song though

Also, personally I'd describe those quoted lyrics as "trite" and possibly "not true", since I'm not sure it is beautiful and I think that's ok.

 

[maltaseagull]

Penny Lane is a very good example of everything that I find wrong with McCartney as a lyricist. I think of his as the 'look there's a thing' school. He just lists things that he has noticed or made up, hardly ever caring to take a deeper interest in the motivations of the people or communities he is using. For him, I suppose its probably a good move, because it allows the listener to imagine their own deeper meanings that he didn't intend. After all, when he does try to look closer, he can only produce patronising 'aren't I sensitive' stereotypical claptrap like 'Eleanor Rigby.'

Compare Penny Lane with Ray Davies's 'Autumn Almanac' a song with the similar intent of reflecting memories of the writer's home / childhood. One just goes 'street, fireman, barber, nurse doing stuff, oh I can't be bothered, here's a catchy chorus, you make up the rest', the other displays that, whilst being conflicted about the hold that the place has on him, the author has a deep love for, and understand of the people and places that made him. McCartney uses people as props to create archetypes. In the same short space, Davies gives them a history, an inner life and hints at psychological conflict, whilst also creating evocative and beautifully worded lines like 'Breeze blows leaves of a musty coloured yellow,' that have the poetry that is completely absent from McCartney's prosaic list of images. It's like comparing one of Warhol's soup tins with a JMW Turner; One thinks that the idea is enough in itself to be art, the other has an idea, but also cares deeply about form, craft and subject.

From the dew-soaked hedge creeps a crawly caterpillar
When the dawn begins to crack
It's all part of my autumn almanac
Breeze blows leaves of a musty-coloured yellow
So I sweep them in my sack
Yes, yes, yes, it's my autumn almanac
Friday evenings, people get together
Hiding from the weather
Tea and toasted, buttered currant buns
Can't compensate for lack of sun
Because the summer's all gone
La-la-la la la la-la la-la la-la la-la
Oh, my poor rheumatic back
Yes, yes, yes, it's my autumn almanac
La-la-la la-la la-la la-la la-la
Oh, my autumn almanac
Yes, yes, yes, it's my autumn almanac
I like my football on a Saturday
Roast beef on Sundays, all right
I go to Blackpool for my holidays
Sit in the open sunlight
This is my street and I'm never gonna leave it
And I'm always gonna to stay here
If I live to be ninety-nine
'Cause all the people I meet
Seem to come from my street
And I can't get away
Because it's calling me (Come on home)
Hear it calling me (Come on home)
La-la-la la la la-la la-la la-la la-la
Oh, my autumn almanac
Yes, yes, yes, it's my autumn almanac




La-la-la la-la la-la la-la la-la
Oh, my autumn almanac
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!


Yeah, right. Nothing against Ray Davies but that is hardly classical poetry.

 

[GT49er]

From the dew-soaked hedge creeps a crawly caterpillar
When the dawn begins to crack
It's all part of my autumn almanac
Breeze blows leaves of a musty-coloured yellow
So I sweep them in my sack ..............

..........La-la-la la-la la-la la-la la-la
Oh, my autumn almanac
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop, whoa!


Yeah, right. Nothing against Ray Davies but that is hardly classical poetry.

Not a bad effort that. Probably got the idea from listening to Penny Lane ................................

 

[Stato]

Well this is a fun thread. The music of The Beatles was at it's best when heard at the time of issue with eager anticipation. In each of those moments, they and their music took pop forward by another leap in some way or another. In the context of their time and at their time, they were a pop culture phenomenon with a hysteria around them that has only occasionally been briefly, matched by others. Honestly, those moments can't be imagined if you weren't there at the time. Other groups of the day were inspired by them whether to write their own songs, try different instruments or generally just up their games. The Stones, The Kinks, The Beach Boys, The Byrds and many others enjoyed equal moments, but The Beatles in their day stood alone. Analysing their music now, in isolation, and trying to compare it to other groups of the sixties and beyond is just fruitless. It can't be done unless you were there listening to their new music in the context of the times.

An oft repeated argument that ignores the fact that one of the Beatles contributions was to bring the more interesting and challenging art of some underground artists to the attention of the masses. Yes, if you were a child in the sixties, I'm sure that the Beatles were like an exciting big brother bringing home great records for you to listen to. However, they didn't do this in isolation. It was the London blues scene from whence came the Rolling Stones that championed black blues artists to white American audiences, it was the Kinks who first made a record using the sitar sound (although Dave Davies created it with guitar effects), it was Reed and Cale with their background of working with La Monte Young who introduced drone to pop music, it was Dylan who showed that pop songs could be about something other than love. It was Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters who inspired the Magical Mystery Tour, the Bonzos who spearheaded British psychedelia's obsession with the Edwardian and Victorian that flavoured Sgt Pepper. The list goes on and on.

Just because a lot of these things came to the attention of the mainstream because of the Beatles, doesn't make the Beatles geniuses. Arguing that, if you weren't there, you don't know is merely doing what many Presley, Sinatra and Crosby fans did before. I'm sure, for the individual, that it was very exciting to feel in the centre of everything, but historically, it really was nothing special. The argument would be just as valid for punk, or hip hop, or indie, or rave, or grunge, or grime. Whilst its going on it's enjoyable, but talk of genius is driven by the post hoc fallacy of a lot of people who later found themselves in positions of cultural influence and felt nostalgia for their childhoods. I wasn't there in the sixties, but my mother was. She saw the Beatles supporting Roy Orbison at the Hippodrome and the Stones at the NME awards shows. She loved them both, but she doesn't talk of them in hushed whispers as leading the cultural vanguard, only after timing, mostly male, music journalists have made them that. She saw them both as pop groups, in the same way as my kids saw McFly and One Direction.

 

[Stato]

Some might suggest that if your observations on the heartlessness of existence are "seemingly upbeat and throwaway", then you're not observing hard enough.

That would be true, but I said that the song was 'seemingly' upbeat and throwaway. I don't agree with everything that Paul Morely has to say, but remember appreciating his argument that one of the things that can make a great pop single is hiding the adult, the dark or the profound within something that seems to be insubstantial and carefree. It can speak deeply of the period between childhood and the adult world when pop music seems of most importance to us.

 

[GT49er]

An oft repeated argument that ignores the fact that one of the Beatles contributions was to bring the more interesting and challenging art of some underground artists to the attention of the masses. Yes, if you were a child in the sixties, I'm sure that the Beatles were like an exciting big brother bringing home great records for you to listen to. However, they didn't do this in isolation. It was the London blues scene from whence came the Rolling Stones that championed black blues artists to white American audiences, it was the Kinks who first made a record using the sitar sound (although Dave Davies created it with guitar effects), it was Reed and Cale with their background of working with La Monte Young who introduced drone to pop music, it was Dylan who showed that pop songs could be about something other than love. It was Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters who inspired the Magical Mystery Tour, the Bonzos who spearheaded British psychedelia's obsession with the Edwardian and Victorian that flavoured Sgt Pepper. The list goes on and on.

Just because a lot of these things came to the attention of the mainstream because of the Beatles, doesn't make the Beatles geniuses. Arguing that, if you weren't there, you don't know is merely doing what many Presley, Sinatra and Crosby fans did before. I'm sure, for the individual, that it was very exciting to feel in the centre of everything, but historically, it really was nothing special. The argument would be just as valid for punk, or hip hop, or indie, or rave, or grunge, or grime. Whilst its going on it's enjoyable, but talk of genius is driven by the post hoc fallacy of a lot of people who later found themselves in positions of cultural influence and felt nostalgia for their childhoods. I wasn't there in the sixties, but my mother was. She saw the Beatles supporting Roy Orbison at the Hippodrome and the Stones at the NME awards shows. She loved them both, but she doesn't talk of them in hushed whispers as leading the cultural vanguard, only after timing, mostly male, music journalists have made them that. She saw them both as pop groups, in the same way as my kids saw McFly and One Direction.

Yes, we get it. You don't rate The Beatles.

 

[Pevenseagull]

Yes, we get it. You don't rate The Beatles.

Seem the case.

I'm not a massive fan but I reckon 'She's Leaving Home' is pretty good.

That said is it really a 'The Beatles' song seeing a a none of them play any instruments on it?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

An oft repeated argument that ignores the fact that one of the Beatles contributions was to bring the more interesting and challenging art of some underground artists to the attention of the masses. Yes, if you were a child in the sixties, I'm sure that the Beatles were like an exciting big brother bringing home great records for you to listen to. However, they didn't do this in isolation. It was the London blues scene from whence came the Rolling Stones that championed black blues artists to white American audiences, it was the Kinks who first made a record using the sitar sound (although Dave Davies created it with guitar effects), it was Reed and Cale with their background of working with La Monte Young who introduced drone to pop music, it was Dylan who showed that pop songs could be about something other than love. It was Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters who inspired the Magical Mystery Tour, the Bonzos who spearheaded British psychedelia's obsession with the Edwardian and Victorian that flavoured Sgt Pepper. The list goes on and on.

Just because a lot of these things came to the attention of the mainstream because of the Beatles, doesn't make the Beatles geniuses. Arguing that, if you weren't there, you don't know is merely doing what many Presley, Sinatra and Crosby fans did before. I'm sure, for the individual, that it was very exciting to feel in the centre of everything, but historically, it really was nothing special. The argument would be just as valid for punk, or hip hop, or indie, or rave, or grunge, or grime. Whilst its going on it's enjoyable, but talk of genius is driven by the post hoc fallacy of a lot of people who later found themselves in positions of cultural influence and felt nostalgia for their childhoods. I wasn't there in the sixties, but my mother was. She saw the Beatles supporting Roy Orbison at the Hippodrome and the Stones at the NME awards shows. She loved them both, but she doesn't talk of them in hushed whispers as leading the cultural vanguard, only after timing, mostly male, music journalists have made them that. She saw them both as pop groups, in the same way as my kids saw McFly and One Direction.

An admirable demonstration that you can't be expected to understand if you weren't there. Thank you.

 

[Stato]

Yeah, right. Nothing against Ray Davies but that is hardly classical poetry.

Its all subjective of course. For me the lines:

"This is my street and I'm never gonna leave it
And I'm always gonna to stay here
If I live to be ninety-nine
'Cause all the people I meet
Seem to come from my street
And I can't get away
Because it's calling me (Come on home)"

send a shiver down my spine every time, summing up the dilemma of generations of post war working class children who moved into the middle classes through education or success. Its the repeated theme of work by Jack Rosenthal, Alan Bennett, Dennis Potter, Alan Sillitoe, Hanif Kureshi, Seamus Heaney. The feeling of being part of, and yet simultaneously outside of, your childhood, home and family, the feeling of being drawn and yet repelled by what was once yours and is now gone. The longing for an unrecoverable childhood, the attraction and the fear of settling for a life of security, but foregoing ambition. It's a key theme of 'Citizen Kane', of 'The Godfather'. Actually, framed in terms of an obsession with coming to terms with father figures, it is a key theme in a good part of Hollywood cinema, yet few writers have ever said it so succinctly and with such sympathy for the previous generation.

It's mine, and I can't get away. Yes, that about covers it.

By the way, does NSC have a pseud's corner? Asking for a friend.