The Beatles

When I first began listening to the music of The Beatles seriously, in the mid-1990s, I vaguely subscribed to the notion that "everyone loves The Beatles".  However, I soon realised that the Fab Four have their share of detractors and nay-sayers, and equally those who maintain that they are beyond criticism.

So, what are the charges most often levelled against The Beatles, and to what degree do they have some foundation?

Perhaps the most common  complaint is that they were "in the right place at the right time", and that they were no more deserving than numerous other British (and American) bands of the day. Well, they were certainly helped by circumstance, and by factors largely outside of their control. Equally, we will never know how other artists would have reacted and developed in a similar situation.

It is also difficult to deny that The Beatles had the talent, ambition and nous to capitalise on their breakthrough. Subsequent events indicate persuasively that the hype was warranted, and they could not be accused of squandering their opportunities, or lapsing into complacency.

In addition, there was ample room for other acts to flourish, so The Beatles were not really guilty of crowding out or hampering the careers of others. On the contrary, their own success helped to pave the way for their contemporaries.

Critics also point out the lack of technical musical virtuosity within The Beatles. Although a case can be made for Paul McCartney as a multi-instrumentalist,this is largely fair comment. However, such analyses miss the point. The appeal of The Beatles had little to do with conventional musical proficiency,and related more to expression,imagination, ideas and inspiration.

Working within their own limitations, and that of the recording technology of the time, often proved advantageous. One of the striking things about the Beatles' career is how seldom they descended into pretentiousness or self-indulgence. Their sense of quality control was impeccable, and they had very keen "antennae", being able to assess what worked and what didn't.

So were The Beatles necessarily doing anything musically that their fellow groups were not?  In truth, probably not. It was their unique non-musical attributes, including their social significance, which set them apart. To be fair to them,they rarely to my knowledge claimed to be particularly great musical innovators, and respected the work of other artists. In the spirit of the Sixties, the accent was on friendly competition and the exchange of ideas. This was evident in the transatlantic "communication" between the Fab Four and the likes of Bob Dylan,the Byrds and Brian Wilson.

And what of the role of producer George Martin?  Some have opined that he was the real "genius" behind The Beatles. In the early days, he was undoubtedly very important, but before long the band members, especially McCartney and John Lennon were beginning to dictate the agenda. They needed Martin to help them realise their artistic visions, and he also proved to be a valuable sounding-board for ideas. In interviews over the years, the producer himself has sought to slightly downplay his own importance.

Notwithstanding the above, it would be a mistake to under-estimate George Martin's contribution to the Beatles' success. Would the group have thrived similarly with a different producer, and achieved the same chemistry?  We will never know...

Much debate has also centred on the merits, or otherwise, of The Beatles as a live band. In the Hamburg and Cavern days they are reputed to have been a tight and dynamic outfit, although relatively little recorded evidence exists. From what I have seen and heard, they were still good concert performers during the early stages of "Beatlemania".

From 1964 onwards,audience hysteria (and screams), the primitive nature of 1960s amplification and a punishing schedule began to take their toll. The concerts became less about quality of performance, and more about a sense of "event" and spectacle. Bad habits set in, and in any event the band were already devoting their energies more and more to songwriting and recording.

In the right circumstances, The Beatles as a live band could still cut the mustard, as glimpsed in the famous rooftop performance in the film Let It Be. It would have been fascinating, if they had remained together, to see the Beatles in concert during the 1970s, with more controlled environments and better sound equipment. Alas, it was not to be....

Taste is largely subjective, but objectively one can have respect for the craftsmanship and influence of a group. Since I went through my original "Beatles phase", I have been able to put their music into perspective. Certainly, some of their work can seem tame when set against the elaborate and ambitious rock music of the 1970s, with its better sound quality. 

I have listened to lots of music in the rock/pop genres, much of it technically complex and emotionally affecting, but much of it struggles to match the optimism and life-affirming qualities of the Beatles' body of work.

The debate will no doubt go on as long as music is written and played....