Having only lived in a time when the Beatles were considered untouchable sacred cows, the bad review were kinda refreshing, even fun to read. I mean...
"Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair"
Totally agree. After they broke up, and I said this in my standalone comment, but critics seemed to suffer from a delusion for decades that if the Beatles did a thing, it had to be genius and great, because of the fact that THEY WERE THE BEATLES. Yes, these reviews are fun...!
I think this is wrong-headed. The energy of the early R&B Beatles is really rare—they sang and played the hell out of songs. Some of my favorites: You Can't Do That, Twist And Shout, Little Child. The emotion, the youthful sexiness, the deadpan irony, the musicality, the fidelity to the genre, and the effervescent innovation inside the genre were remarkable. Certainly they were restless later on—but they were never quite masters again in the way they had been in the first four or five albums.
If The Beatles only contribution to music was the invention of heavy metal and progressive rock, I'd happily turn the page. Let's grant they made masterpieces in the later albums, but those inventions did not lead to any great outpourings of wonderful music in the same form by them or anyone else. How often do you wake up dying to hear A Day in the Life? As for "merely mastering what others had created" let me say that Tolstoy read Pushkin, so what? Stevie Wonder loved Duke Ellington. Artists stand on other artists shoulders always, always, always. Making new forms is something that happens, but it's secondary to making great music people want to listen to forever.
True, the later Beatles albums are inimitable. The Byrds were more influential because their innovations in folk-rock and country-rock were and are accessible to other artists and continue to to be a big part of today's music (Americana, etc...)
I love the Byrds, but as songwriters they weren’t the Beatles (except for Gene Clark who departed in 1965). They had their moments, but by 1970 with Roger McGuinn unaided by other songwriters. They made a mistake in removing Gram Parson’s lead vocals from all but 2 cuts. I recommend the Sweetheart bonus tracks album that has both the McGuinn & Parsons lead vocal versions.
Maybe - but on those first four or five albums, they were merely mastering what others had created (and what they had spent the previous 5 years or so perfecting playing hours long sets at the Cavern and other clubs, night after night). After that, they were in uncharted territory. Basically developing heavy metal ("Helter Skelter"), prog rock (much of "Abbey Road"), etc.
Great essay! Love the Beatles, and I really credit them with blowing the doors down for other creative acts to follow. My theory is that the Beatles were such a black swan event that the suits gave up trying to predict the next big thing and just gave a chance to everyone with a guitar and potential songwriting skills, giving us an incredible renaissance in popular music in the late 60s/early 70s that has not been matched since. Gradually, though, the businessmen and their formulas took back over, slowly squeezing out the creativity and artistry and leaving the mainstream record industry as it is today, dominated by formulaic hacks relying on hi-tech gimmicks rather than a real passion for music.
I dunno, I might be in the minority, but I see many kernels of truth here. "Come Together" actually was pinched from Chuck Berry; Sgt. Peppers is needlessly fussy in many spots; and the White Album is kind of a mess. As a whole, the lyrics (with some exceptions) are mostly only okay, and not nearly as rich as many of their contemporaries. They might have been wrong about the Beatles overall, but let's also keep our eyes open to the ways in which they might have been right.
1 line pinched from Chuck Berry “here comes a flat top” etc. In the sampling era, it is a facile criticism. By 1965, the lyrics were much better (several earlier songs were written when they were teenagers). Feel free to create your own version of the white album by eliminating songs you don’t like and it’s a great album.
I remember getting the Sgt soon after it dropped. What I remember best was the shop clerk saying 'Yeah, every other 13 year old kid got it too"...
and then being underwhelmed by some of it, even tho I Played It To Death. But I realized my own underwhelm was unimportant in the overall scene. It had weight and it had legs.
I'm hesitant to admit that I picked it up not at the "shop" but in the record section of the Northgate Emporium...and even more hesitant to add that I think the other thing I got that day was a Nehru shirt...
"Sgt. Peppers" is so good a 6-year old could get it. That 6-year old was me! My brother, 16 at the time, bought that album. I didn't have any preconceived notions about what an album should or shouldn't be, but that album caught my attention. I would put it on myself and would sit on the sofa with the folded album open staring at the giant photo of the fab four in their uniforms, and I pondered what it might be all about. I had no idea, but I sure loved milling it over as I listened and stared.
I covered a couple of those songs just last night playing piano at the church community dinner. I still marvel at the harmony of "She's Leaving in Home" and how beautiful and sad the song is. I think it's in the mode with the flatted seventh. I can never keep their names straight.
Another good example of this I've found in my research is John Coltrane. He got raked over the coals regularly by jazz critics in the late 50s and early 60s for not being satisfied with his sound and continually pushing the envelope.
For the 50th anniversary of 'Sgt. Pepper,' there was a video in which Goldstein revisited his infamous review and blamed it partly on his own personal issues related to his sexuality and more concretely, when reviewing it in 1967, that he was doing so on a stereo system in which only one of his two speakers wasn't working, and heard only one half of the stereo mix. There are still some who slag 'Sgt. Pepper' just to be contrarian - I feel it's a cry for help.
Wow. If a person is a professional music reviewer and critic, and can’t tell when 50% of the sound reproducing elements that are present in their own personal system are not working, then I would suggest that said person simply doesn’t have what it takes to, you know, be a critical listener to music.
That’s a pretty lame excuse. He’d have been better off just saying “Yeah, I was wrong. We had no idea what to think upon our first exposure to this music.”
Timely. Earlier this morning I read a Substack from Greil Marcus where he pondered why the NYT felt Jeff Beck deserved a full page obit. And an incident where two Swedish girls asked him for his guitar after a Yardbirds show in London, bizarre anecdote, ending with him instead smashing said guitar to bits. Mr. Marcus wrote that he enjoyed that as much as any of Jeff Beck's solos. Mind you, he didn't write that back then, when maybe JB would have been too far in front for many to appreciate. But now, in his unique position as a VIP for RS and Creem and others, unable to appreciate JB's towering influence over the decades?
I never read his famous book, I know think he's a clueless moron who's annoyed me for too long. In contrast, I ALWAYS learn something interesting from Ted Gioia's musings.
Although I disagree with the take on Miles Davis, he completely changed jazz several times, in more profound ways than the Beatles shifting gears with their albums. Lot of phenomenally talented musicians in the world of jazz, nobody else came close to doing what he did.
Do you have a take on reviews to the effect “this work represents a revolution in music that will take its place in music history as the finest example of innovation in our lifetime. It will go on to become a classic.” for music now all but forgotten?
I was thinking the same. Contemporary reviews of classic '60s and '70s artists skewed overly negative - angry dudes like Lester Bangs and Robert Christgau with very definite ideas about what was kosher and what wasn't who'd gleefully trash some of the best music ever recorded - but things have swung way over the other way now. Critics are so afraid of looking like elitists or "born in the wrong generation" nostalgists that they'll routinely write about stuff that's faddish, childish or just not very good as if it's brilliant, deep and meaningful.
Although they faltered some I'm their (still current) later days, I would argue the Rolling Stones were, creatively, equally innovative; especially in the period from 1967 to 1973. Satanic Majesties, lambasted by critics and the band alike, it has withstood the test of time and serves as a pleasant reminder of the psychedelic era. From there consider Beggars Banquet, Get your YaYa's Out, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, and, yes, Goats Head Soup...and don't get me started on the Kinks; equals in every way to both The Beatles and The Stones.
Well one could argue that for most of the early 60s bands including the Beatles and they Stones...other than Dylan, very few were writing cutting edge deep stuff...but consider Jagger circa Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street....some brilliant stuff...personally I think Ray Davies of the Kinks was the first of the great 60s bands to write great lyrics...certainly everything from Face to Face forward contained amazing examples.
Davies was beyond question the best lyricist from the British Invasion. All in all, I count him the best English songwriter of that era who wasn't a Beatle.
Hi Ted - long-time reader, first-time commenter here! Really interesting piece. Two things: 1. Sometimes a critic has a standpoint that should be taken into account when reading their opinions - there's a bit of "well of course he would say that" involved. A writer like Nick Cohn definitely had an agenda - he liked raw rock and roll, whether it was Little Richard or the My Generation-era Who, and early 60s Brill Building pop, and thought everything turned to crap with the arrival of psychedelia when rock started getting intellectual ideas above its station (a theory he expounds in his 1969 book Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom, a hugely entertaining read even if you disagree with its central thesis, which I very much do). I suspect his Beatles review was born out of that over-arching idea. 2. I quite like the idea that now-revered artists got a hard time *at the time*, in so far as those reviews give us a fuller picture of what the era they were working in was like: nostalgia can be a form of curation, people (often inadvertently) cut out the bits of history they don't agree with or that don't sit with latterday opinions and come up with a version of the past where eg. every Beatles release was greeted with blanket praise and taken for the work of hugely influential genius it was subsequently proven to be. A wholehearted recommendation here for Jon Savage's book 1966: The Year The Decade Exploded, where he takes a year often thought of as a period of huge invention in rock and pop, goes back to the primary sources, and finds endless writers, fans *and even other musicians* carping and moaning and complaining that rock and pop music has become terrible, is on a dismal and apparently irreversible downward slide etc. etc. It's fascinating and eye-opening, even as you boggle at some of the opinions being expressed. Anyway, that's my two cents - keep up the excellent Honest Broker work!
Mr. Cohn and Mr. Goldstein were somewhat deaf. They were not part of the counter culture of the 60's nor did they want to be. If they had taken any drugs, the drugs were either mediocre or did nothing for the ears and minds of these critics. I would not want to break bread with them. They would probably bore me to death.
Great article Ted. My musical hero, Frank Zappa said he created music that he wanted to hear. If you got it, fine, if you didn't, fine. I have never let a music critic's words steer me away from listening to an artist. I always trust my ears. I have noticed that an early negative review (music or film) by a high profile critic, tends to produce more negative reviews. Monkey-See, Monkey-Do syndrome?
I remember the 1st review I ever got for something. It was in a national mag & a well known critic. I sent in a tune - mistakes & all. And I was surprised, opening up the mag a few months later & there was my name. Talk about critic ! This guy Savaged me. I don't know if he was trying to do me a favor or was having a bad day but savaged is the word that comes to mind. He was very very cruel & deliberate - knowing I was a newbie. Funny thing though - for someone so "sophisticated" why did he work behind a nom de plume ? I was shocked & I didn't put anything out there for anyone for some time.
Funny thing is, just last week I heard something in a newer movie & thought - where have I heard this ? It was very much like what I had done. I didn't realize, but darn - it was pretty good & also cinematic. And for the barebones recording rig I had at the time - not bad. My sin was not the music I had done, it was technology I had. Not great but the best I could afford.
I've never been interested in anything other than "Populist Criticism" and barely at that.. I'd only check something if I wanted someone else's opinion because the piece of art was rare.. But I do enjoy the disparity between truth and .... whatever...
Rolling Stone would say how a band like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin were garbage and wouldn't last 6 months, and when they triumphed, RS would hire new writers to say how great they were. It's a business. Quid pro quo. Richard probably didn't get an interview with them, and probably got one with The Doors (who I love). As for Pepper, I think it's not even close to the best Beatles album. I love reading things before history revises, but even George Martin thought songs like "Lovely Rita" and "Getting Better" were subpar throwaway songs. I love "A Day In The Life".
I especially appreciate this article because I lived through that time as a kid and very much remember how little love the Beatles got throughout their career from the industry. Only the fans got it, and got it right away. I think there was some resentment among the establishment about how this band just showed up without permission. They weren’t invited or wanted. They were rejected in England until a comedy and classical album producer took them on. They only thrived at first through word of mouth. Even when they took off in England, the US subsidiary label just sat on them for a year until some DJs took an interest on their own. They were like this garage band that never fit in and never did what the suits wanted them to. They didn’t win many awards and there was this odd reticence to acknowledge their brilliance. There was this really odd contrast between this cold shoulder from the establishment and their wild popularity among music listeners. I’m in my 60s now and still burned up about it lol.
Remember, by 1963, rock and roll was thought to be an all but dead form. But I don't remember there being all that much critical disdain for The Beatles' music upon second exposure. In fact, I remember that a lot was made at the time of the fact that "they write their own songs." And by early 1966, with Rubber Soul's success, and "adult" singers' beginning to cover Yesterday, there seemed to be a suspension of the previous dismissiveness any of the adult critics may have treated them with.
Ella Fitzgerald seemed to "get" them right away. I know she recorded Can't Buy Me Love and A Hard Day's Night.
I may have been laying it on a little thick because I was a little kid and couldn’t believe the big shot adults were belittling these amazing artists on national tv ie the ridiculous Mitch Miller. These artists were different because it felt like we had found them instead of some music executives. And it might be surprising today to find out that they weren’t showered with awards - far from it. The author and others dug up critical reviews from esteemed publications and that’s how I remember it. It seemed like sour grapes and just sounds silly now. I guess the adjective I remember best is “mannered” because it just bothered me so much. It’s like they went out of their way not to give them credit. But in the end, excellence wins. I do think that by Sergeant Pepper, they got the message that there was something exceptional going on. But by then, the band was almost ready to disappear. I remember musicians of all stripes being into them very much. It was just the establishment with their grudges. In England, they had a hard time being taken seriously at first because of their working class accents. In America, they were considered nobodies too by many of the people who supposedly mattered. I guess it goes to show that you should stick to your creative vision and not get discouraged even when it seems the world is against you.
Having only lived in a time when the Beatles were considered untouchable sacred cows, the bad review were kinda refreshing, even fun to read. I mean...
"Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair"
LOL
Totally agree. After they broke up, and I said this in my standalone comment, but critics seemed to suffer from a delusion for decades that if the Beatles did a thing, it had to be genius and great, because of the fact that THEY WERE THE BEATLES. Yes, these reviews are fun...!
I think this is wrong-headed. The energy of the early R&B Beatles is really rare—they sang and played the hell out of songs. Some of my favorites: You Can't Do That, Twist And Shout, Little Child. The emotion, the youthful sexiness, the deadpan irony, the musicality, the fidelity to the genre, and the effervescent innovation inside the genre were remarkable. Certainly they were restless later on—but they were never quite masters again in the way they had been in the first four or five albums.
If The Beatles only contribution to music was the invention of heavy metal and progressive rock, I'd happily turn the page. Let's grant they made masterpieces in the later albums, but those inventions did not lead to any great outpourings of wonderful music in the same form by them or anyone else. How often do you wake up dying to hear A Day in the Life? As for "merely mastering what others had created" let me say that Tolstoy read Pushkin, so what? Stevie Wonder loved Duke Ellington. Artists stand on other artists shoulders always, always, always. Making new forms is something that happens, but it's secondary to making great music people want to listen to forever.
True, the later Beatles albums are inimitable. The Byrds were more influential because their innovations in folk-rock and country-rock were and are accessible to other artists and continue to to be a big part of today's music (Americana, etc...)
I love the Byrds, but as songwriters they weren’t the Beatles (except for Gene Clark who departed in 1965). They had their moments, but by 1970 with Roger McGuinn unaided by other songwriters. They made a mistake in removing Gram Parson’s lead vocals from all but 2 cuts. I recommend the Sweetheart bonus tracks album that has both the McGuinn & Parsons lead vocal versions.
Maybe - but on those first four or five albums, they were merely mastering what others had created (and what they had spent the previous 5 years or so perfecting playing hours long sets at the Cavern and other clubs, night after night). After that, they were in uncharted territory. Basically developing heavy metal ("Helter Skelter"), prog rock (much of "Abbey Road"), etc.
the pudding hair got me, too LOL
Great essay! Love the Beatles, and I really credit them with blowing the doors down for other creative acts to follow. My theory is that the Beatles were such a black swan event that the suits gave up trying to predict the next big thing and just gave a chance to everyone with a guitar and potential songwriting skills, giving us an incredible renaissance in popular music in the late 60s/early 70s that has not been matched since. Gradually, though, the businessmen and their formulas took back over, slowly squeezing out the creativity and artistry and leaving the mainstream record industry as it is today, dominated by formulaic hacks relying on hi-tech gimmicks rather than a real passion for music.
I dunno, I might be in the minority, but I see many kernels of truth here. "Come Together" actually was pinched from Chuck Berry; Sgt. Peppers is needlessly fussy in many spots; and the White Album is kind of a mess. As a whole, the lyrics (with some exceptions) are mostly only okay, and not nearly as rich as many of their contemporaries. They might have been wrong about the Beatles overall, but let's also keep our eyes open to the ways in which they might have been right.
1 line pinched from Chuck Berry “here comes a flat top” etc. In the sampling era, it is a facile criticism. By 1965, the lyrics were much better (several earlier songs were written when they were teenagers). Feel free to create your own version of the white album by eliminating songs you don’t like and it’s a great album.
I remember getting the Sgt soon after it dropped. What I remember best was the shop clerk saying 'Yeah, every other 13 year old kid got it too"...
and then being underwhelmed by some of it, even tho I Played It To Death. But I realized my own underwhelm was unimportant in the overall scene. It had weight and it had legs.
I’m guessing that’s you speaking from our Miller Creek/TL days, Bern.
Yup.
I'm hesitant to admit that I picked it up not at the "shop" but in the record section of the Northgate Emporium...and even more hesitant to add that I think the other thing I got that day was a Nehru shirt...
"Sgt. Peppers" is so good a 6-year old could get it. That 6-year old was me! My brother, 16 at the time, bought that album. I didn't have any preconceived notions about what an album should or shouldn't be, but that album caught my attention. I would put it on myself and would sit on the sofa with the folded album open staring at the giant photo of the fab four in their uniforms, and I pondered what it might be all about. I had no idea, but I sure loved milling it over as I listened and stared.
I covered a couple of those songs just last night playing piano at the church community dinner. I still marvel at the harmony of "She's Leaving in Home" and how beautiful and sad the song is. I think it's in the mode with the flatted seventh. I can never keep their names straight.
The Beatles loved the ol' mixolydian :)
Another good example of this I've found in my research is John Coltrane. He got raked over the coals regularly by jazz critics in the late 50s and early 60s for not being satisfied with his sound and continually pushing the envelope.
For the 50th anniversary of 'Sgt. Pepper,' there was a video in which Goldstein revisited his infamous review and blamed it partly on his own personal issues related to his sexuality and more concretely, when reviewing it in 1967, that he was doing so on a stereo system in which only one of his two speakers wasn't working, and heard only one half of the stereo mix. There are still some who slag 'Sgt. Pepper' just to be contrarian - I feel it's a cry for help.
Wow. If a person is a professional music reviewer and critic, and can’t tell when 50% of the sound reproducing elements that are present in their own personal system are not working, then I would suggest that said person simply doesn’t have what it takes to, you know, be a critical listener to music.
That’s a pretty lame excuse. He’d have been better off just saying “Yeah, I was wrong. We had no idea what to think upon our first exposure to this music.”
I'm not sure Goldstein wasn't being disingenuous there and to be fair, in the video where he re-listens to it, he does admit he got it wrong.
Well played Robert
There was a person I used to work with who spouted off about how 'Sgt. Pepper' was overrated - it spoke volumes about him.
Timely. Earlier this morning I read a Substack from Greil Marcus where he pondered why the NYT felt Jeff Beck deserved a full page obit. And an incident where two Swedish girls asked him for his guitar after a Yardbirds show in London, bizarre anecdote, ending with him instead smashing said guitar to bits. Mr. Marcus wrote that he enjoyed that as much as any of Jeff Beck's solos. Mind you, he didn't write that back then, when maybe JB would have been too far in front for many to appreciate. But now, in his unique position as a VIP for RS and Creem and others, unable to appreciate JB's towering influence over the decades?
I never read his famous book, I know think he's a clueless moron who's annoyed me for too long. In contrast, I ALWAYS learn something interesting from Ted Gioia's musings.
Although I disagree with the take on Miles Davis, he completely changed jazz several times, in more profound ways than the Beatles shifting gears with their albums. Lot of phenomenally talented musicians in the world of jazz, nobody else came close to doing what he did.
Do you have a take on reviews to the effect “this work represents a revolution in music that will take its place in music history as the finest example of innovation in our lifetime. It will go on to become a classic.” for music now all but forgotten?
I was thinking the same. Contemporary reviews of classic '60s and '70s artists skewed overly negative - angry dudes like Lester Bangs and Robert Christgau with very definite ideas about what was kosher and what wasn't who'd gleefully trash some of the best music ever recorded - but things have swung way over the other way now. Critics are so afraid of looking like elitists or "born in the wrong generation" nostalgists that they'll routinely write about stuff that's faddish, childish or just not very good as if it's brilliant, deep and meaningful.
Christgau & Bangs were right more than wrong.
Yeh the NME used to do that all the time, for their friends.
Although they faltered some I'm their (still current) later days, I would argue the Rolling Stones were, creatively, equally innovative; especially in the period from 1967 to 1973. Satanic Majesties, lambasted by critics and the band alike, it has withstood the test of time and serves as a pleasant reminder of the psychedelic era. From there consider Beggars Banquet, Get your YaYa's Out, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, and, yes, Goats Head Soup...and don't get me started on the Kinks; equals in every way to both The Beatles and The Stones.
Read the lyrics to Satisfaction and tell me Jagger was a good lyricist. Only Don’t Worry Baby has such a great tune with such weak lyrics.
Well one could argue that for most of the early 60s bands including the Beatles and they Stones...other than Dylan, very few were writing cutting edge deep stuff...but consider Jagger circa Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street....some brilliant stuff...personally I think Ray Davies of the Kinks was the first of the great 60s bands to write great lyrics...certainly everything from Face to Face forward contained amazing examples.
Davies was beyond question the best lyricist from the British Invasion. All in all, I count him the best English songwriter of that era who wasn't a Beatle.
Agreed...possibly without peer.
Hi Ted - long-time reader, first-time commenter here! Really interesting piece. Two things: 1. Sometimes a critic has a standpoint that should be taken into account when reading their opinions - there's a bit of "well of course he would say that" involved. A writer like Nick Cohn definitely had an agenda - he liked raw rock and roll, whether it was Little Richard or the My Generation-era Who, and early 60s Brill Building pop, and thought everything turned to crap with the arrival of psychedelia when rock started getting intellectual ideas above its station (a theory he expounds in his 1969 book Awopbopaloobop Alopbamboom, a hugely entertaining read even if you disagree with its central thesis, which I very much do). I suspect his Beatles review was born out of that over-arching idea. 2. I quite like the idea that now-revered artists got a hard time *at the time*, in so far as those reviews give us a fuller picture of what the era they were working in was like: nostalgia can be a form of curation, people (often inadvertently) cut out the bits of history they don't agree with or that don't sit with latterday opinions and come up with a version of the past where eg. every Beatles release was greeted with blanket praise and taken for the work of hugely influential genius it was subsequently proven to be. A wholehearted recommendation here for Jon Savage's book 1966: The Year The Decade Exploded, where he takes a year often thought of as a period of huge invention in rock and pop, goes back to the primary sources, and finds endless writers, fans *and even other musicians* carping and moaning and complaining that rock and pop music has become terrible, is on a dismal and apparently irreversible downward slide etc. etc. It's fascinating and eye-opening, even as you boggle at some of the opinions being expressed. Anyway, that's my two cents - keep up the excellent Honest Broker work!
Mr. Cohn and Mr. Goldstein were somewhat deaf. They were not part of the counter culture of the 60's nor did they want to be. If they had taken any drugs, the drugs were either mediocre or did nothing for the ears and minds of these critics. I would not want to break bread with them. They would probably bore me to death.
Take it away, Allan Sherman (sung to Pop Goes the Weasel)
"My daughter needs a new phonograph.
She wore out all the needles.
Besides, I broke the old one in half.
I hate the Beatles.
She says they have a Liverpool beat.
She says they used to play there.
Four nice kids from offa the street.
Why didn't they stay there?
What is all the screaming about?
Fainting and swooning.
Sounds to me like their guitars
Could use a little tuning.
The boys are from the British Empire.
The British think they're keen.
If that is what the British desire,
God Save The Queen.
No daughter of mine can push me around.
In my home I'm the master.
But when the British come to town,
Gad, what a disaster.
Little girls in sneakers and jeans.
Destroyed the territory.
'Twas like some of the gorier scenes
From The West Side Story.
Of course my daughter had to go there.
The tickets are cheap, she hollers.
I was able to pick up a pair
For forty-seven dollars.
When the Beatles come on stage,
They scream and shriek and cheer them.
Now I know why they're such a rage,
It's impossible to hear them.
Ringo is the one with the drum,
The others all play with him.
It shows you what a boy can become
Without a sense of rhythm.
There's Beatle book and T-shirts and rings,
And one thing and another.
To buy my daughter all of those things,
I had to sell her brother.
Back in 1776
We fought the British then, folks.
Parents of America,
It's time to do it again, folks.
When they come back, here's how we'll begin,
We'll throw 'em in Boston harbor.
But please, before we toss 'em all in,
Let's take 'em to a barber."
Allen... the Weird Al of our day!
Tom you're in rare form today ;-)
Great article Ted. My musical hero, Frank Zappa said he created music that he wanted to hear. If you got it, fine, if you didn't, fine. I have never let a music critic's words steer me away from listening to an artist. I always trust my ears. I have noticed that an early negative review (music or film) by a high profile critic, tends to produce more negative reviews. Monkey-See, Monkey-Do syndrome?
I remember the 1st review I ever got for something. It was in a national mag & a well known critic. I sent in a tune - mistakes & all. And I was surprised, opening up the mag a few months later & there was my name. Talk about critic ! This guy Savaged me. I don't know if he was trying to do me a favor or was having a bad day but savaged is the word that comes to mind. He was very very cruel & deliberate - knowing I was a newbie. Funny thing though - for someone so "sophisticated" why did he work behind a nom de plume ? I was shocked & I didn't put anything out there for anyone for some time.
Funny thing is, just last week I heard something in a newer movie & thought - where have I heard this ? It was very much like what I had done. I didn't realize, but darn - it was pretty good & also cinematic. And for the barebones recording rig I had at the time - not bad. My sin was not the music I had done, it was technology I had. Not great but the best I could afford.
As for the mag & the critic -both gone.
I've never been interested in anything other than "Populist Criticism" and barely at that.. I'd only check something if I wanted someone else's opinion because the piece of art was rare.. But I do enjoy the disparity between truth and .... whatever...
Rolling Stone would say how a band like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin were garbage and wouldn't last 6 months, and when they triumphed, RS would hire new writers to say how great they were. It's a business. Quid pro quo. Richard probably didn't get an interview with them, and probably got one with The Doors (who I love). As for Pepper, I think it's not even close to the best Beatles album. I love reading things before history revises, but even George Martin thought songs like "Lovely Rita" and "Getting Better" were subpar throwaway songs. I love "A Day In The Life".
I especially appreciate this article because I lived through that time as a kid and very much remember how little love the Beatles got throughout their career from the industry. Only the fans got it, and got it right away. I think there was some resentment among the establishment about how this band just showed up without permission. They weren’t invited or wanted. They were rejected in England until a comedy and classical album producer took them on. They only thrived at first through word of mouth. Even when they took off in England, the US subsidiary label just sat on them for a year until some DJs took an interest on their own. They were like this garage band that never fit in and never did what the suits wanted them to. They didn’t win many awards and there was this odd reticence to acknowledge their brilliance. There was this really odd contrast between this cold shoulder from the establishment and their wild popularity among music listeners. I’m in my 60s now and still burned up about it lol.
Remember, by 1963, rock and roll was thought to be an all but dead form. But I don't remember there being all that much critical disdain for The Beatles' music upon second exposure. In fact, I remember that a lot was made at the time of the fact that "they write their own songs." And by early 1966, with Rubber Soul's success, and "adult" singers' beginning to cover Yesterday, there seemed to be a suspension of the previous dismissiveness any of the adult critics may have treated them with.
Ella Fitzgerald seemed to "get" them right away. I know she recorded Can't Buy Me Love and A Hard Day's Night.
I may have been laying it on a little thick because I was a little kid and couldn’t believe the big shot adults were belittling these amazing artists on national tv ie the ridiculous Mitch Miller. These artists were different because it felt like we had found them instead of some music executives. And it might be surprising today to find out that they weren’t showered with awards - far from it. The author and others dug up critical reviews from esteemed publications and that’s how I remember it. It seemed like sour grapes and just sounds silly now. I guess the adjective I remember best is “mannered” because it just bothered me so much. It’s like they went out of their way not to give them credit. But in the end, excellence wins. I do think that by Sergeant Pepper, they got the message that there was something exceptional going on. But by then, the band was almost ready to disappear. I remember musicians of all stripes being into them very much. It was just the establishment with their grudges. In England, they had a hard time being taken seriously at first because of their working class accents. In America, they were considered nobodies too by many of the people who supposedly mattered. I guess it goes to show that you should stick to your creative vision and not get discouraged even when it seems the world is against you.
Someone said: a new idea is an antigen.