(10/17/2008) There has long been a myth in popular culture that you are either an Elvis person or a Beatles person. Well, barring the fact that this notion ignores a number of incredible artists who have not much in common with either entity, it seems to be more or less true, at least in our particular case. I am an Elvis man at heart; always have been. To me, he was the absolute pinnacle. His records opened up a whole musical world to me: everything from rockabilly, to bluegrass, to straight country, to balls-out rock & roll, to opera, to pop crooning, to blues, to soul, to dixieland jazz, to gospel, to folk music, to romantic ballads, and beyond.

Well, the way I feel about Elvis, my girlfriend feels about the Beatles. To her, they are the bedrock, the very foundation, of everything that has come about in popular music over the last 40 years or so. Sometimes, we have our playful arguments over who's better, but deep down, I must admit she has a very valid point. So for her, I am going to humble myself in public (or semi-public, anyway) and say she is....right. Mostly.

Oh, that hurt.

Anyway, I willingly give credit where credit is due, and the Beatles deserve a heck of a lot of credit. For their innovations in recording techniques alone, they deserve all the praise in the world. As for their songwriting chops, I can't say anything that hasn't already been said by Beatlemaniacs the world over. It's top-notch (at least after 1965 or so) and they have an undeniable musicality to them that usually manages to sway even the most jaded of listeners, myself included. John Lennon & Paul McCartney are justifiably legendary lyricists (although, from an outsider's point of view, I think they're held in a bit too high esteem in comparison to the rest of the band; my girlfriend's favorite Beatle is Ringo for whatever reason, and insofar as I have a favorite, it's George). What's really great about the Beatles' songwriting is that their songs are quite flexible, and can be covered in any number of ways by a range of artists from, yes, Elvis (did great things with "Get Back" in his stage shows, but the less said about his cover of "Hey Jude", the better) and Johnny Cash (with his elegiac take on "In My Life") to Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles (with soulful re-interpretations of "Eleanor Rigby"). Even Frank Sinatra got in on the act with his rendition of "Something", which, just to prove how in touch he was, he claimed was his "favorite Lennon-McCartney song" (d'oh!).

The Beatles, while certainly taking a cue from Elvis, Bob Dylan, Carl Perkins, Little Richard and others, forged their own path and laid the groundwork for nearly a half-century's worth of music to come. Listen to any crappy indie band around today, and you'll hear a bunch of people straining to channel the spirit of the...Beatles. (God, I almost said "Fab Four", but I won't go that far.) But those indie bands mistake blandness for sensitivity, journal entries for insightful lyricism, half-plucked acoustic guitar chords for atmosphere. They don't have the heart that the Beatles had, and despite what you may think of their music, you can't deny that the Beatles had heart, even toward the bitter end.

Another thing--which may not matter much to some, but it means something to me--the Beatles have going for them is that, like Elvis (who often proclaimed that Fats Domino was the true "King of Rock & Roll", who said at the start that his greatest aspiration was to be as good a bluesman as Arthur Gunter), the Beatles always acknowledged their debt to the music that came before them. Even if other people often ignore that fact, having the sense to say it yourself is the sign of a class act in my book.

As for this album in particular, the "1" compilation? Well, it's the first (and so far, only) Beatles album I've ever bought (although I hope to change that soon with the news that the remastered original albums will be released in some form this year or early next year). I don't pretend to know enough about the Beatles' back catalog to tell the differences between sound on each release (the whole stereo vs. mono thing went right over my head), but this CD sounds pretty good to me. It's the songs that matter anyway, right? All the fancy-pants remastering in the world wouldn't matter if the songs were crap. The song selection on here is okay if your favorite Beatles period runs up to about 1965 or so; there seems to be a preponderance of the early stuff. I much prefer the later songs like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "One After 909", "Helter Skelter" and some other things. This track listing doesn't even have as much variety as what you might hear on any given day on a radio station. For someone who's just testing the waters, I guess it'll do.

So to sum up, while I won't be running for the president of my local Beatles fan club any time soon, I can honestly say that they are one of the best bands in history (not "THE" best; Queen and the Clash get my split vote on that one, which is another living room argument waiting to happen. But then, without the Beatles, there wouldn't have been a Queen or Clash. Where does it end?!), and they honestly deserve our praise and gratitude for both the great music they made and the great music they inspired. The end.



P.S. Honey, Elvis is still better.

Interested in buying this? Support Writing.Com by making your purchase of The Beatles 1   from Amazon.Com!

Created May 05, 2009 at 9:15pm • Submit your own review...