January 28, 2007
Dissecting the Beatles
John Lennon was totally CyberMonkey, Paul McCartney was not.
The Beatles. The greatest rock and roll band of all time. That is an indisputable fact. I can hear some of you now (which is weird, because I'm writing it before you read it, so I'm hearing your thoughts before you've had a chance to think them . . . how very prescient of me!), saying "What about The Rolling Stones"? Yes, there are those with the opinion that The Rolling Stones are the greatest Rock and Roll band of all time . . . and they are wrong. They couldn't be more wrong. Not even Stephen Hawking himself could fathom a universe in which that would be true. You're free to hold that opinion, as long as you don't mind being wrong . . . and not just a little wrong, we're talking as wrong as wrong can be. One could even venture as far as to suggest that "This level of wrongness goes to 11".
So, now that THAT'S settled . . .
The Beatles. The greatest rock and roll band of all time. What made them so great? This is clearly a case where "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts". There's a certain synergy, or perhaps symbiosis, that took place when the four of them became one. But we don't care about that right now (and by we, I mean the royal "we", which really means "Me"). Today's lesson concerns the parts . . . what did each Beatle bring to the whole, and which ones could we say embody the spirit of all that is CyberMonkey?
First, we have Ringo. Probably not where most people would start, but most people aren't Magnificent Bastard. In a way, Ringo was always my favorite Beatle, because he never over-estimated his place in the equation. Ringo was in many ways the Jester, the link to the common man, they guy who never took the whole thing too seriously. There was a skit on Saturday Night Live many years ago about the Beatles, and the only line they ever gave the Ringo character was "I'm just happy to be here". I believe that may have come closer to capturing the spirit of Ringo than the writers may have imagined. Ringo always seemed to appreciate where he was . . . rather than resenting it, or worse, feeling like it was deserved. When the world is telling you that you're a god, it's very easy to give in to insanity. Some folks resent the fame (Cobain), others start to believe the hype and become self-important assholes (Lars). Ringo had no illusions about his own status - he's always been "happy to be here". Granted, quite a bit of his solo work is pure crap . . . but it's not like he doesn't know that.
Then we have George. The "soul" of the Beatles, George was the spiritual seeker. Truly "The Quiet One", George did his own thing, and always seemed to be the most genuine, the one least seduced by the spotlight. In addition to the great contributions George made musically, he also encouraged (often financially) his friends in their efforts, bankrolling films like Time Bandits and Life of Brian (which he saved after the original backers pulled the funding due to their fear of the controversy). He even participated in Eric Idle's hilarious send-up of the Beatles, The Rutles: All You Need Is Cash.
John Lennon. I could write pages and pages, but I won't Short and sweet - he was a bit of an ass at times. He has his own list of "Crimes Against Music", most especially letting Yoko get within a mile of a microphone (is that really her singing, or did they put kittens in a bag and beat them with hammers?). But at the end of the day, when you add up the totals, John was the fucking heart of the Beatles. He was usually called "The Smart One", but I disagree. That was Paul (settle down, Monk-let! Have patience, all will be explained . . .). John was the heart - his music, his lyrics, all came from the heart. He never really cared what anyone else thought, he was "The Artist". Look at the post-Beatles work, Paul wrote some good hits and tons of fluff, but he never wrote anything comparable to "Imagine". John was the real CyberMonkey in the bunch!
And that leaves us with . . . Macca. Paul McCartney. "The Cute One". Maybe he was cute, I'm not one to judge that. What do I care who's cute? McCartney was a genius at writing pop music. Notice I didn't say good music. Paul could write good music. But John was better at writing good music. Paul was brilliant at writing "pop', as in popular, music. And yes, my lil' Monk-lets, there is a difference. Pop music is popular. Good music is good, and while the two aren't mutually exclusive, they are different. Paul was the pop guy, John was the artist. Even when Paul wrote a "good" song, he would always throw in something that just flat ruined it. Example? The downright embarrasing ending of Hey Jude (Jude jude hey judey judey judey judey owwwwww). Furthermore, take some of Paul's best Beatles tunes, and the "genius" part of the song is all John. "We Can Work It Out" has a great lyric and melody that is all Macca, but the bridge (Life is very short, and there's no time...) is pure Lennon. Don't get me wrong, I'm a McCartney fan. I'm just facing the truth . . . McCartney was no CyberMonkey.