The qualities of truly great pop
music are as constant as the laws of physics, and just as complex. It seems
that some songs, artists, albums or even moments in musical history are
destined to be elevated to the realm of legend, when some are not – but in fact
music that was great in the 1700s is still great today, as is the best music
from every generation since up to about 1999 when music became rubbish and then
Justin Bieber and collapse of civilisation and all that.
So, why does some music age well,
and some not so well? It’s hard to say but there doesn’t fundamentally need to
be an anecdotal reason for a song to become legendary, and there doesn’t need
to be a direct tap into the listener’s deepest psychological corridors. It helps,
but it’s not a necessity. But it’s there, somehow. Legend seeps into the
sounds, and flows back out in droves. The ominous foreshadowing of Mozart’s
Requiem, or the emotional passion of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony are
there for all to see, and their legend is cemented. This also applies to rock
and roll and pop. Who can listen to Otis Redding’s ‘Sittin’ on the Dock of the
Bay’ without adding to it a tragedy that Redding could never have felt as he
sang it? Or in a more subtle way, is it possible to listen to the grinding
sneer of ‘Heartbreak Hotel’ without hearing the roots of the social uproar of
the 1960s leave its calling card? Songs like Elvis’ Sun Records albums, or
Buddy Holly’s best moments survive with a kind of archaic charm that conjures
up nostalgia even in the minds of those who were born long after, and far from
the “golden age” of late 1950s America. They are basic, primitive even, but
what they lack in technical gloss, they more than make up for with crackling
energy and raw power. And therein lies the secret. For art that transcends the
moment in which it was created must truly capture the essence of that moment,
without relying on it for its fundamental merit. Bohemian Rhapsody has elevated
itself to legendary, game-changing status, but it’s not the only 5-minute-plus,
heavily guitarred operatic genre-mixing smorgasbord that Queen released. It’s
not even the only one on that album. But, it’s the one that doesn’t sound like
it’s still stuck in 1975 when you listen in 2013. Michael Jackson’s ‘Thriller’
may be the biggest selling album of all time, but it’s hard to hear it as a
piece of work that would stand up in today’s charts, so saturated is it in the
musical, lyrical and studio production tropes of the early 1980s. Except, of
course, for the songs that have truly stood the test of time. Billie Jean,
Thriller and Beat It don’t sound out of date. Yes, there are touches of the
decade that bore them, but the songs sound as alive and fresh today as they did
then. Can anyone really say that about PYT? I recently bought some “Hits of the
90s” in a mad nostalgia rush, but was left disappointed in the end. The songs
hadn’t aged at all well, and I struggled to really marry my memories of the
songs with the tired old generic cliché that seemed to be squirming out of my
iPod. That doesn’t happen when I revisit ‘Definitely Maybe’, parts of ‘Nevermind’
(not least the incredible opening of ‘Teen Spirit’) and the better moments of
U2’s late 80s/early 90s output.
The list goes on; Billy Joel’s
greatest hits are those that don’t depend on the lyrical minefields of the
singer-songwriter genre, Carole King’s Tapestry album is at its finest when
dealing with themes that go beyond the San Franciscan haze of the late 60s, and
the Rolling Stones stopped making great records the day that they decided to
adapt their style to the times, not the other way around. Prince’s finest
achievements sound now like homages to their genre, not slaves to it, and as a
final piece of proof, look at how many bands who seemed to represent the times
in which they operated still get airplay in today’s market. Anything that piggybacks
on a zeitgeist is going to be dropped in the sandbox when the generation who “loved”
it move on.
So, what’s the point of this?
Well, it’s the song “From Me To You” by those Beatles that I like. One of the
reasons I appreciate their contribution to music so much is that when you
listen back to so many of those songs, you don’t feel as though you have to
make allowances for the era in which they were produced. Abbey Road is a
particularly strong piece of evidence for this. ‘Come Together’ doesn’t sound
like a record stuck in the 60s. The intricacies of the interplay between the
guitars and the other-worldly stream of consciousness lyrics don’t sound
hackneyed after 40 years, nor do the harmonies of ‘Because’ become any less
spine-tingling with the passing of time. Even Sgt Pepper, the album that (to
many people) defined the entire decade, doesn’t sound (for the most part) like it’s
trapped there, the occasional acid-drenched moment notwithstanding.
The Beatles, though, do represent
to many the definitive sound of the 1960s in British music. This, of course, is
a remarkably myopic view of a decade that had as much variety and high quality
output as it did badly dressed tree-hugging flower children. But, somehow, in
our collective consciousness, the sound of 60s Britain came from Liverpool.
Some of their earlier output does manage to get away from the clichés they
helped to create, (‘In My Life’, ‘Yesterday’, ‘Norwegian Wood’) but it takes
until 1965 and ‘Rubber Soul’ before you can start to say the band created truly
great music. Many songs before that album have got touches of genius in their
fabric, but it’s hard to think of a Beatles song released before 1965 that
doesn’t sound heavily entrenched in the generic stylings of ‘60s music’. Maybe
there’s a case to be made for ‘Not a Second Time’ from ‘With The Beatles’,
perhaps ‘Baby’s in Black’ but it’s tenuous at best. So how come their early 60s
songs have reached the highest echelons of people’s consciousness? No matter
what your personal feelings about The Beatles, it’s still hard to reach the age
of 10 without having been made aware, somehow, of who they were and the songs
they sang. So why are they still so present, and do they deserve it? Well, for
me (as detailed in an earlier couple of blogs about ‘Long Tall Sally’ and ‘Twist
and Shout’) the key is in the power and energy of those early songs.
The best early Beatles songs are
the ones that have that frenetic pace and energy that drives them along so
wonderfully. These are the songs that rise above the pitfalls of recording in
1960s Britain. For example, shoddy quality of the recording (particularly
evident on b-side songs like ‘Thank You Girl’ or ‘I’ll Get You’) or the poor
technical musicianship (hear the guitar tunings on ‘I’m Down’ or ‘Don’t Bother
Me, not to mention McCartney’s questionable handling of some of the low vocals
on ‘Hold Me Tight’) or just the lack of quality in the songwriting (‘PS I Love
You’ and ‘Love Me Do’ amongst others). Many songs from those early albums fall
into at least one, and in some cases more, of these traps, but their best work
escapes them because of its consistent energy, enthusiasm and power. See ‘I Saw
Her Standing There’, ‘All My Loving’, ‘A Hard Day’s Night’, ‘Can’t Buy Me Love’,
and many others for examples of how good songs are elevated to greatness by the
conviction of their delivery. And, of course, The Beatles were a great singles
band. Look at the list of singles they put out in their first 5 years alone –
it’s almost the Bhagavad Gita of genius pop songwriting. Except, for me, their
1963 mis-step, ‘From Me To You’.
Only their second number 1 hit,
it’s hard to escape a feeling that the song was ensnared by some of their other
failings, while simultaneously benefitting from their burgeoning popularity, therefore
entering the folklore of great Beatles songs somewhat unconvincingly, almost
shuffling to the back, knowing full well it doesn’t quite merit its place on
that particular pedestal. The harmonica (never John Lennon’s forte) is
unimpressive, the melody, while not unpalatable, isn’t much to write home
about, the lyrics are functional and the chords are unimaginative for the most
part. There’s a nice change to Gm7 in the middle 8, which is enjoyable,
although not prominent enough on the record, and it’s a good natured sort of
romp, but when you stand it up against their other ‘great’ work from that era,
it doesn’t come anywhere near the musical sophistication of ‘This Boy’ or ‘Ask
Me Why’, the lyrical intrigue of ‘If I Fell’ or ‘Not a Second Time’, the
harmonic triumph of ‘Tell me Why’ or ‘She Loves You’, or the sheer steam-train
excitement of ‘Boys’ or ‘I Saw Her Standing There’, or countless others. It
just sits there in the Beatles canon as the runt of the litter. It’s charming,
but its greatest strength is simultaneously its biggest weakness, which is that
it harks back to a time of innocent charm, collarless suits, moptop haircuts
and holding hands with a girl, and it singularly fails to thrill, sneer, seduce
or threaten in the way that the Beatles could do so comprehensively. It’s not
that there aren’t other songs from this time that suffer from the same
problems, but this is the most high-profile, and in a career that was based on
innovation and invention, it stands out as something of a blot on an otherwise
seemingly immaculate canvas.
No comments:
Post a Comment