Bert Bailey ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>>...  barring a few superb, mostly early forays (Money, Twist & Shout,
>>Dizzy Missy Lizzy), the Beatles were central to pop music but _very_
>>peripheral to rock n'roll, which went near dormant during their reign.
>>For that, in the 60s, we must look to others.

Deryk Barker replies ...

>I tend to agree with you, although I think you understate the case to be
>made for them as rockers.  Revolution?

I think that the Beatles started our as rockers, and under the influence of
George Martin, their classically trained producer, rose to a higher level,
some are calling pop --- raising the sure to be debatable and ultimately
irresolvable issue - what is the difference between rock and pop?

To me they created a new genre of so called pop, perhaps art pop or art
rock.  They proved throughout that they could rock when called upon, but
began to see themselves as artists, rather than entertainers.  As Stirling
said in his excellent essay

>The use of the term "classical" then is a matter of consciousness, and
>no one was conscious of the need to have an elite music, until such time
>as the popular music could become a powerful force on its own terms.

There is a human tendency, explained by social psychology, that is
described as this.  The group will expand its norm to try to keep deviants
(envelope pushers) in the group.  But if the deviation becomes too great,
the deviant is cast out, and the group's norm returns, not only to its
original position, but actually shrinks to prevent the deviant (now seen as
a deviant and not welcome because of the group's perception that they were
rejected) from reentering the group.  Thus, as the Beatle's music became
more "weird", the definition of "real" Rock and Roll contracted to keep the
Beatles out, now seen as deviants, despite Back in the USSR.

The songs When I'm 64, Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Honey Pie (great chord
changes, BTW) were merely examples of their incredible scope.  Its as if
they could write anything, any style, and message, any emotion.  The songs
above are great musically but being McCartney based, suffered from his lack
of skill with words that Lennon demonstrated again and again.  A good pop
song starts with a good poem expressing truths about the human condition.
Significant truths, not "Oh baby, baby, I miss you so".  This was true for
the songs by the great masters, poems set to music.

Here are some examples of the Beatle's finest (I would call classical-ish),
IMHO, with some significant thoughts

"She's Leaving Home", (How could she do this to me... we gave her everything
money could buy)
"A Day in the Life" (I saw a film today, oh boy, the English army had just
won the war, a crowd of people turned away, but I just had to look, having
read the book)
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps" (with all these mistakes we must surely be
learning, still my guitar gently weeps [fact is we aren't learning anything
by our mistakes]
"Strawberry Fields Forever" (Living is easy with eyes closed,
misunderstanding all you see)
"Taxman" (my advice to those who die, declare the pennies on your eyes)
"Eleanor Rigby" (Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one
will hear)
"Hey Jude" (For don't you know that its a fool who plays it cool by making
his world a little colder)

Its thoughts like these, even with mediocre music that makes good pop.
Unfortunately, good music to a bad poem does not have the same effect -
When I'm 64, Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Honey Pie

I wonder if music schools teach this kind of stuff.

I had thought at the time that rock/pop had changed forever with these
kinds of songs, but then came Disco Duck.  I wonder if it is possible to
get back to where they left off.  Probably not.  Its like trying to get
back to Mozart and Beethoven.  Entropy is uni-directional.

Bill Pirkle