In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>>In article
And a very good question it is...just when did the Beatles stop
being Beatles? :-)
It's not a trick question for everyone, but for me it is. I'm one
of those old sticks-in-the-mud who thinks there are some things
you just can't put behind you.
Oh, no reflection on the Boys' cumulative and separate desires
over the years to grow beyond their Beatles personae. That's as
it should be; that's the natural progression. And one of the
curious facets of being a Beatles fan for the past twenty-seven
years, for me, is the fact that I *can* feel some sympathetic
tug in my heart for their nonstop frustration over being just pop
idols. To a great extent, I have to admit that I and my ilk have
been responsible for their discomfort; fans and fanatics became
part of the partnership that urged those four young men to play
a role that, perhaps, they had outgrown before they even took
it up.
The real seer of the group, a one-time electrician's apprentice,
mentioned that all things must pass. Of course he was right; that's
as it should be. And when the Beatles gradually broke up during the
years 1968-1970, the final blow, for me, wasn't much of a blow. I
felt measurable relief when they called it quits in 1970. It was
time to move into new realms. It was no fun to be at a party where
the principal players were in such pain.
I had a tendency too to think of "Let It Be" as not quite a
Beatles work; and clearly Paul's "Another Day" or George's
sterling production and playing on Ringo's "It Don't Come Easy"
were no longer Beatles' songs. How hard they all struggled to
throw off the old ties. I admire them for it. I even have cheered
them on, in my more lucid moments.
But what all four men found, I believe---eventually after their
own separate struggles, from all available evidence---was that
some experiences of life, art, music can never be renounced. And
perhaps their struggle to get beyond their collective past became
such a monument that they---and those of us fans still left---focus
on the nearer "failures" rather than the totality of their architectural
wonder.
"Ex-Beatles"? It has a false ring to it, somehow. Yes, of course
there's been the Plastic Ono Band and Wings and session work and
guest appearances...and undeniably "Watching The Wheels" and "When
We Was Fab" have the clear message of artists who have acknowledged
their change over the years---their distance from former incarnations.
Some analysts take it much further, suggesting that the Beatles
ceased to be Beatles as early as the White Album, which arguably
shows the results of internal fragmentation. "Martha My Dear" a
typical Beatles song? It has Macca's personal stamp so clearly
that only a novice would mistake it for the work of another.
But the more distance we have from their music, the more clearly
we can see their individual personalities in even the earliest
compositions. And paradoxically, those individual early works---
"Don't Bother Me", "All My Loving", "Not A Second Time"---are also
so purely "Beatles" tunes, with the indelible impression of each
musician's contribution, that it seems each songs exists simultaneously
in two worlds: one of individual genius, and one of group talent.
When you try to find the point at which one leaves off and the
other begins, you virtually can't find the seam.
I think it has become clear to the gentlemen in question, over the
years, that a certain weave of those early days would always
be a part of their artistic fabric. Sure, I know that "Cloud
Nine" and "Flowers In The Dirt" stand on their own as commendable
solo accomplishments. But it's another paradox: the songs carry
the trace of Beatles music even as they fail to fulfill the best
promise of that musical output all those years ago. Even as we
take pride in the so-called Ex-Fabs for not falling into music
and personal devastation, like some other talented but unfortunate
cases (the late Gene Clark and Del Shannon come to mind), our
standards are very harsh indeed. And the question at the back of
everyone's mind (albeit unasked) is: why can't they, solo, put
out songs as good as that erstwhile group?
It's a terrible trick question, really. And sometimes I think
the Ex-Boys have begun to deal with it more deftly than a lot
of their fans. It's unanswerable whether John would have come
to terms with his inevitable Beatles heritage, but the flickerings
of creativity that emerged from 1975 to 1980 suggest to me that
he might well have. Ringo had no choice, really, but to come to
terms; it was his major talent in life to be a part of a band
that made musical history, and to be an unobtrusive but essential
cog in that machinery. George seems to have made the healthiest
adjustment, accepting the immensity of his years with the group
while humbly and cheerfully (and not without his cynical goodnatured
wisdom) making music and art in its monumental shadow.
Paul still fights it, naturally; he's two-faced. :-) And of two
minds: if his only possible fame must be bound with the past,
he'll give us part of it...while sensibly trying to create an
output beyond it. Nothing of what these men do now is anything
close to the Beatles. But we---and they---shouldn't expect it to
be that way. Nor should we expect them to be so very different. :-)
No matter what you love in life---and there *was* a time when
the Beatles loved their work as Beatles---you never lose the
touch of it; you never can cast off the experience of creating
something new. If, as I suspect, the living members of that
group have learned this...and learned to accept the rich layers of
their past, contributing a blinding luster to overwhelm present
talent...then they are, in a sense, still Beatles. Not Ex-Anythings,
by any means. They remain the sum of their history, in a sense:
still Quarrymen, still Beatles, always solo. But all of it is still
a part of their souls...and a part of ours, who loved and even now
still love their music.
--
Click here to return to saki's index.
>>Sort of...he didn't do Let It Be, but they weren't really still the Beatles
>>at that point.
>
>If they weren't the Beatles, then who were they? Were they still the Beatles
>during Abbey Road? Should we consider the moment they stopped touring or
>writing together as the cutoff point for Beatledom?
It'll be the usual rubbish but it won't cost much.
saki (reachable by email at [email protected])
Click here to return to the rmb home page.