Wednesday, December 5, 2001
|
Wednesday, December 5, 2001 |
|
Talking about the Beatles
By MICHAEL BOYLAN George Harrison died the other day. The world is now down to two Beatles. Surprisingly, it's the two that couldn't leave the Beatles behind. Ringo Starr, though he had an acting career starring in "Caveman" and "Shining Time Station," sings the one Beatles song he's famous for ("With A Little Help From My Friends") at every performance he gives with the Ringo Starr All Star Band. Ringo should just move to Vegas and perform that song every night. It should be Siegfried, Roy and Ringo and some tigers jumping through hoops of fire. As for Paul McCartney, he formed Wings after the band split up. Wings was the 1970s equivalent of Hootie and the Blowfish, meaning they had a couple of good songs and then fizzled out like one of Linda's tambourine solos. Paul then disappeared from the limelight for a while, made a comeback where he toured and played all of his Beatles songs (which is fine) and then made solo albums that nobody really liked. I don't have a major problem with Ringo and Paul still playing Beatles songs that's what the fans want to hear but John Lennon left the Beatles behind and did great solo work. George Harrison made a respectable solo album, which was remastered and re-released earlier this year, and then just lived a comfortable life-style with all of his Beatle money, staging benefit concerts and getting into eastern philosophy. I like the Beatles, more specifically the Beatles of "Revolver" and after. Their early material was filled with repetitive drivel and cover songs of black artists who didn't get the airplay or respect due to their color. People rail on Elvis for stealing rhythm and blues songs and sounds, but the Beatles coasted by on their foppish Liverpoolian charm. Now, here's where I'll get really unpopular. The Beatles, considered by many to be the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time, should not be thought of as such. Though they made great albums, became a worldwide phenomenon and produced one of the greatest song-writing teams of all time, they fall short of what should be the mark of the greatest rock 'n' roll band of all time. The first reason the Beatles shouldn't be considered for the lofty title is because they had a very short time together. Their recording career lasted from 1962-1970. There are a number of bands that have beat that, including the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith and U2. All of those bands aren't merely coasting on their former fame either. They consistently make new albums, experiment with new sounds and tour. They may have all been influenced by the Beatles, but they beat them in the longevity respect. Great bands stick together and don't break up because of a girl. Secondly, though the Beatles had 27 number one hits, look at the pop music landscape back then. Who was really competing with them? Were there thousands of choices in the record stores? Was there a plethora of different music styles on the radio, dividing the audience into small sections? No. There were the pop stations, playing the stuff Fox 97.1 plays today, and there were the old people stations, playing stuff like Doris Day and Bing Crosby. Today, there is pop, rap, country, rock, metal, college radio, contemporary Christian, techno, house, gospel, R&B, folk and more. And let's look at those 27 number one hits. Three of those are one phrase repeated over and over again. "She Loves You," "Love Me Do" and "I Want To Hold your Hand." Is that what people consider reinventing rock 'n' roll for the better? Should the Beatles really be thanked for loosing Herman's Hermits and Freddy and the Dreamers on an unsuspecting American public? Yes, the Beatles were the hottest thing in music for eight years, but what if N'Sync puts out a few more albums? Are we going to consider them the best band of all time? Their career will have spanned the same number of years and they are releasing hit after hit. Girls scream and go to jelly whenever they are around. I don't know who will ultimately take the title of greatest rock 'n' roll band ever from the Beatles, but it will be a group that lasted longer than eight years and appealed to a wider audience at a time when the market was seriously divided. My vote goes to U2. They have been together over 20 years, have had a number of hits, won a ton of awards, pioneered the frontiers of rock as the sound has changed in the last 15 years, traveled the globe several times over, have had three of the most successful tours of all time, and have never let a girl get in the way of their success or their friendships.
|
