The Beatles: Back to Where They Once Belonged
Do you like that title? I’ve been reading a lot of articles and posts today about the release of all the new Beatles stuff, and all of them use Beatle song titles and lyrics to seem hip and knowledgeable, so I thought I’d better do the same.
In fact, though, it is kind of accurate; the greatest band in pop/rock history is today “back where they once belonged” on top of the music world. I’m sure you’ve heard about the new Beatles RockBand game, and the simultaneous release of re-mastered versions of most of their albums, all being done, according to surviving members and press spokespersons, to expose a new generation of fans to their music (somebody’s making an awful lot of money from this, as well, but I’m happy to go with the “new generation” reasoning, because I really don’t care), nearly four decades after The Beatles broke up.
That’s actually the part I’ve been thinking about today: the break-up. This band that, as we’re reminded of today, changed the world in ways that are still being felt, was putting out records for about seven or eight years, no more. Isn’t that amazing? The greatest creative pop culture artistic force of the century couldn’t keep itself together even with the entire world clamoring for more. Books have been written about what broke up The Beatles, but it all seems to come down to one thing: the two geniuses who created most of their songs really didn’t like each other all that much. John Lennon and Paul McCartney met in the late 1950’s, honed their craft together, developed their playing skills, took the world by storm, became timeless entertainment legends—only to have it turn out in the end that they really didn’t have much in common outside of music, and really didn’t mesh at all as individuals.
Well, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but I always think it’s interesting how people can create utter magic musically, while not necessarily connecting personally. There are lots of examples of this in rock music history; Keith Richards and Mick Jagger rank right behind Lennon/McCartney as a rock songwriting partnership, but they’re hardly best buds. They basically take a few years off from each other befor reuniting to tour every so often (for tens of millions of dollars profit, it should be noted). As far as I can tell, Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who have never been able to stand each other, but they still tour as the only suriviving members of the original band. The chief creative forces in Pink Floyd, David Gilmour and Roger Waters, loathed each other in direct proportion to the additional tens of millions of records they would sell. (I saw on a rock documentary the other night that after they reunited for one charity show earlier this decade, they were offered $250-million to put together a single tour. They said no, after being reminded during their brief reunion how intense was their mutual dislike.) There are probably many more examples.
My point being that it’s remarkable how successful artistic collaborations really have nothing to do with being close or similar personally; sometime, in fact, just the opposite. Music is amazing that way, like there’s some kind of separate energy that creatively transcends what’s happening at the ego level. Ultimately, though, even with The Beatles, the ego side usually wins out.
That’s what’s so touching about the final rooftop concert the Beatles gave in 1969. Check out some clips, if you get a chance, maybe on youtube. Their personal feud well on its way to it’s inevitable conclusion at point, Paul McCartney and John Lennon nonetheless are like the teenagers they were when they met, celebrating their musical energy together, smiling at each other with each “right” moment they would find in the songs. There was real love in those glances, but it was a love that didn’t exist outside the music. When the show was over, so were they. It’s an old rock and roll story, by now: two geniuses in one band is usually one too many.
Comments: 10
Jim, please don't forget a few other famous examples of partners who really hate(d) each other: Simon & Garfunkel, Joey, Dee Dee, and Johnny Ramone, Oscar and Felix, Moe, Larry, and Curly, and Wragge-Johnson. And didn't the Fogerty brothers hate each other? What about Ray and Dave Davies? Barry and Robin Gibb? I think they're famous for that, as well. But what do I know, anyway?
But seriously, another excellent blog entry, Jim: as usual, you write about interesting topics. However, I must disagree with you on one small point. You write,
"It’s an old rock and roll story, by now: two geniuses in one band is usually one too many."
I think that George Harrison, too, should be recognized as a genius, and I think that it's the reason why the Beatles are so great. I don't think that two geniuses in one band is one too many; I think that the more geniuses you have, the greater the band is.
The vastly underrated Traveling Wilburys had George Harrison, Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty, and what's-his-name, the guy from E.L.O. (Oh, right, Jeff Lynne.) At least two of them, Harrison and Dylan, are recognized musical geniuses (at least by me and a few others). In fact, all five members were each capable of writing great lyrics and melodies.
The Ramones had Joey and Dee Dee, two of the greatest songwriters in rock music -- geniuses, in my opinion -- unfortunately, they, too, were vastly underrated and largely ignored; MTV & most radio stations preferred to focus on Wham! and Boy George and other crappy acts instead.
As far as i know for being a Beatle Fan all my life is that John and Paul loved each other just like some brothers do. What ended it for them was growing up and just going there seperate ways. And oh did i forget to say maybe the woman John married had something to do with them growing apart.
Excellent Blog! The Beatles had the talent and the ability to change with the times. One of the best books I've read "Here, there and everywhere, the 100 best Beatles songs" explains 100 of their songs, picked by fans. Very informative. The Beatles will live on and on.
I definitely agree with the Traveling Wilburys comment as well. George was never given enough credit. His lyrics over the years were wonderful too.
Hi, Folks.. wonderful comments.. a few responses from me.
I don't think I ended the post in quite the proper way.. what I meant was: two geniuses often turn out to be one too many IF FANS ARE LOOKING FOR A SUSTAINED, ONGOING CREATIVE PROCESS.. As with John and Paul, their musical affinities could only last as long as they were able to endure their essential personality differences. Such is the nature of genius; a shooting star, quite often; and two geniuses combining to create something as transcendent as what the Beatles had, even more rare, and even more fragile.
Gary, agreement on all your other listings of two prime movers in a band who can't get along.. (I'd add the Robinson brothers in the Black Crowes as another example, as well as the Gallagher brothers in Oasis.) You're on your own as far as Wragge-Johnson. As for the Traveling Wilburys, I'd have to take them out of this discussion. As much as I love their two (I think) records, I see them more in the "special project" catagory than as an actual, ongoing "band." I don't think they ever really toured, and something tells me Bob Dylan doesn't really fit in the mold of "band member." And neither do the others.. I have to add that Jeff Lynne is hardly an afterthought when discussing this group... As I recall, he was pretty much responsible for bringing them all together and producing the material, and he's a very good singer.
As for George Harrison... definitely some genius there, as well, just overshadowed by John and Paul.. but on his own, wrote enough timeless songs to make him an all-timer all by himself.. I miss him...
It's just called "Business". Jim, speaking of artists, are you aware of a new book coming out entitled; "Drawing Autism"? It showcases artwork by international artists diagnosed with autism. Very inspiring & worth a look if you haven't seen it yet.
http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Autism-Jill-Mullin/dp/0981960006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252607654&sr=1-1
Hey Jim. I know with Bob Dylan his voice can sometimes "get in the way" of his genius (I personally love his voice)but it really fits in the Wilburys. They were a very tight band. I understand what you are saying though. The Beatles ARE music and music history. Check out that book I mentioned some time. It is very informative and fun.
Peace
Actually, Barb.. all the Wilbury's talk had me listening to "The End of the Line" all the way to work today.. that song ALWAYS picks me up! and all the sharing of the vocals really shows you how nicely all their voices blended..
but I'm with you about Dylan.. I used to think he was a great songwriter with a bad, nasaly voice.. now I think his phrasing and range are perfect, dating back to his earliest recordings.. I watched a long PBS special the other night of his appearances in the mid-1960's at the Newport Folk Festival.. man, he was great from day one!
Love talking music with you folks! And Chuck, I'll check out the autism link.. thanks!
If I may: Here are a few more famous examples of successful show biz partners who really couldn't get along: Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin, Abbott and Costello, Fred and Ethel, Lucy and Ethel, Lucy and Ricky, Lucy and Fred (I'll bet), O.J. and Nicole, Elmer and Bugs, Jim and Anonymous, Leopold and Loeb (oops, I think they really LIKED each other, come to think of it)...
Seriously, though, it really IS great talking music with you all -- especially great to talk about music with people who really know what good music is, not the garbage which passes for music today, like Eminem and Chris Brown and Madonna and Lady Gaga.
(Sure, I can appreciate the costumes which Lady Gaga wears, showing off her legs and practically revealing her cloaca for all the world to see, but as far as music goes... Yeech! And, to make matters worse, she was born in 1986! I feel so ancient -- I've got a pimple on my a$$ older than that!)
As much as I dislike Yoko (according to all the biographies, very materialistic, calculating, petty, self-centered, etc.), I don't think it's fair to blame her for breaking up the group. John was a big boy. As he once said in an interview, "No one controls me; I can barely control meself." (Or words to that effect.) They were growing apart, arguing all the time, couldn't stand the sight of each other most of the time, according to all the good and the bad books that I have read. (Sorry about that. Name that tune.) Paul, especially, was highly critical of George and Ringo's playing, even causing them to quit the group at various times (Ringo during the White Album sessions, and George during the Let It Be sessions, if memory serves.)
About this week's release of re-mastered versions of their albums: reporters on TV and columnists in magazines & newspapers are predicting that they'll sell tons of copies. Do you think this is true? I already have their albums on ancient LPs, cassettes and on CD. I really can't afford to buy a whole new set of CDs for something which I already have, especially after hearing Jimmy Kimmel say on Wednesday's show that no one can tell the difference anyway. So, until I hear them for myself first, I don't think I'm going to buy anything.
I heard Tom Petty say in a TV interview somewhere that George wanted to record a third Wilburys album, but that he (Petty) didn't find the time, and now regrets not doing it. Too bad; I'm sure I would've enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the first two.
[I probably consider the first Wilburys album to be the better of the two, but still, on the second album, songs like Poor House, Wilbury Twist, and She's My Baby are all great, and Cool Dry Place is hilarious. The reissues from a year or two ago feature rarities including a cover of the Del Shannon song Runaway -- if you don't own this set, it's available at the library -- you should check it out (literally). It also has a DVD with a half-hour documentary on the origins and history of the band, plus a couple of videos. Highly recommended.]
True, Jim, Jeff Lynne is hardly an afterthought; I just couldn't remember his name quickly enough -- I'm gettin' old, gettin' ready for the ol' Death Panels.
Of course, you're also right about the Robinson brothers from the Black Crowes and the Gallagher brothers from Oasis, although I'm not too fond of those bands. I remember when Oasis was just coming out, and people (most likely THEIR people) were predicting that they'd be "the next Beatles." What a crock! They said the same thing about The Knack back in the '70s. That's the kiss of death; there'll never be another Beatles.
Barb, I'm with you concerning Dylan: Dylan, in my opinion, really fits in with the Wilburys, although I can also see Jim's point to some degree. Or maybe I'm just being wishy-washy because it's freakin' 4:13 A.M.!
P.S.: Can't stand The Killers and Death Cab For Cutie. Make me wanna puke. Also can't stand KC & Anonymous.
If you read the book with Dylans lyrics, you can't dispute what a genius he is. I just happen to love the nasaly voice as well, Barry! I like your post, even if it is 4 am! Jim, when I listen to that Wilburys CD, I love it from beginning to end. Great stuff! "Congratulations" is PERFECT Dylan. Love talking music. Great weekend all. Glad to have you both back on the news. Missed you guys