The Beatle Who Got Away(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The Beatle Who Got Away
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay/the-beatle-who-got-away
88 comments
The Beatles were pretty druggy and supposedly used a lot of Preludin while in Hamburg https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/21cyi8/the_beatles_in...
This article is written by Ted Widmer. Ted was a guitarist/vocalist for the Upper Crust, my favorite Boston AC/DC-influenced fops. And a White House speechwriter!
It's one of those things where, if anything was different, the arc of the Beatles would have been completely different, or not at all.
The Butterfly Effect.
The Butterfly Effect.
That doesn't necessarily mean that this exact arc was the only possible one that could turn out well, or even that it's the best one. Just as any number of small things could have derailed things and led to them being an obscure trivia answer, surely small things could also have made things even better or last longer.
If the universe is deterministic it was going to happen no matter what.
A deterministic universe is still subject to the butterfly effect. What you’re describing is fate. Which is more a spiritual belief than anything.
[deleted]
Thus the Beatles.
The Beatlefly effect!
The Beatlefly effect!
Yes, but it isn't.
It almost certainly is - there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic (the interaction between a quantum system and a classical system, "measurement") - otherwise all of the rest of quantum mechanics and classical mechanics and general relativity are fully deterministic (though chaotic).
It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic that it feels like everything "should" be.
>there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic
In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. You might as well say we've simulated lots of universe models on computers, and yet there is only a single universe model that has any chance of not being simulated on a computer (ie the one we're in), therefore all universes are probably simulated on computers. Sure, its a valid theory, but it begs the question of whether there is a universe at the bottom that isn't on a computer, or is it really an infinite line of computers stretching forever?
Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists. If it feeds up to higher layers it will have to feed through each layer of the chain, so inherently we'd expect most layers of physics to deterministic, even if it exists. Therefore our intuition from higher layers isn't helpful in predicting lower layers unless we think those lower layers are built atop even lower layers below them.
Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse (ie all events we currently see as random are simply deterministic branches within the tree of all possibilities). But effectively that means the universe isn't actually deterministic, in the same way that if you have 5 boxes with 5 numbers in them, opening a box at random is not deterministic, even though opening all 5 simultaneously without an order _would_ be. The non-determinism is what we end up experiencing, rather than what happens within the multiverse, but it's still there (well, its not from a multiverse perspective, but it is from our perspective unless and until we find a way to see outside our branch of the multiverse).
There's other deterministic theories, but pretty much every theory is untestable, so more a question of faith than science.
Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.
>there is a single phenomenon in physics that has any chance of being non-deterministic
In other words, we've managed to prove pretty much all of physics is built atop this one single phenomenon. You might as well say we've simulated lots of universe models on computers, and yet there is only a single universe model that has any chance of not being simulated on a computer (ie the one we're in), therefore all universes are probably simulated on computers. Sure, its a valid theory, but it begs the question of whether there is a universe at the bottom that isn't on a computer, or is it really an infinite line of computers stretching forever?
Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists. If it feeds up to higher layers it will have to feed through each layer of the chain, so inherently we'd expect most layers of physics to deterministic, even if it exists. Therefore our intuition from higher layers isn't helpful in predicting lower layers unless we think those lower layers are built atop even lower layers below them.
Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse (ie all events we currently see as random are simply deterministic branches within the tree of all possibilities). But effectively that means the universe isn't actually deterministic, in the same way that if you have 5 boxes with 5 numbers in them, opening a box at random is not deterministic, even though opening all 5 simultaneously without an order _would_ be. The non-determinism is what we end up experiencing, rather than what happens within the multiverse, but it's still there (well, its not from a multiverse perspective, but it is from our perspective unless and until we find a way to see outside our branch of the multiverse).
There's other deterministic theories, but pretty much every theory is untestable, so more a question of faith than science.
Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.
> Non-determinism is inherently going to be at the bottom of the "layers" of physics, if it exists.
That's exactly the thing: the bottom layer (QM) is purely deterministic. It's not even chaotic: the wave function evolves through purely linear transformations. It's much more exact than Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics from this point of view. You can actually predict the exact value of the wave function through arbitrarily many transformations, even if you don't have a very exact initial state.
However, when we try to actually use this wavefunction to measure something, we get some weird non-determinism in the middle of the model. To accept it as an actual element of reality, you have to accept that reality is not reducible: you can't explain the behavior of, say, a ball by looking at the behavior of atoms composing the ball. Essentially, you could say that the atoms behave deterministically, but the ball behaves non-deterministically, according to something like an ontological version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
This is clearly logically inconsistent, so the actual CI treats the wavefunction as not being an element of reality - but then, we can't say anything about how atoms actually behave, we can only say how they behave in relation to classical objects.
That's exactly the thing: the bottom layer (QM) is purely deterministic. It's not even chaotic: the wave function evolves through purely linear transformations. It's much more exact than Newtonian or Relativistic mechanics from this point of view. You can actually predict the exact value of the wave function through arbitrarily many transformations, even if you don't have a very exact initial state.
However, when we try to actually use this wavefunction to measure something, we get some weird non-determinism in the middle of the model. To accept it as an actual element of reality, you have to accept that reality is not reducible: you can't explain the behavior of, say, a ball by looking at the behavior of atoms composing the ball. Essentially, you could say that the atoms behave deterministically, but the ball behaves non-deterministically, according to something like an ontological version of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
This is clearly logically inconsistent, so the actual CI treats the wavefunction as not being an element of reality - but then, we can't say anything about how atoms actually behave, we can only say how they behave in relation to classical objects.
> It's possible that it might be deterministic, but there is not currently any basis for certainty other than the fact that so many things we've seen turned out to be deterministic
That's how empirical proof works though - you can't "prove" something conclusively based on evidence, you can only disprove it or continue to add examples of the model matching reality. That's falsifiability.
> Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse
None of these are provable either way, because we can't prove theories that rely on hidden information, like alternative hypothetical universes. The only useful thing we can do is to model observable behaviour, and as the other replier stated, we have a functioning deterministic model of QM. so going by the evidence we currently have, the universe appears deterministic and the statistical bridge between QM and classical mechanics is essentially a hack to wire up two different models.
> Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.
He didn't literally invoke god - he used god, as we often do, as a metaphor for the laws of reality.
That's how empirical proof works though - you can't "prove" something conclusively based on evidence, you can only disprove it or continue to add examples of the model matching reality. That's falsifiability.
> Currently the most widely concidered deterministic theory is that there's a deterministic multiverse
None of these are provable either way, because we can't prove theories that rely on hidden information, like alternative hypothetical universes. The only useful thing we can do is to model observable behaviour, and as the other replier stated, we have a functioning deterministic model of QM. so going by the evidence we currently have, the universe appears deterministic and the statistical bridge between QM and classical mechanics is essentially a hack to wire up two different models.
> Einstein famously agreed with your interpretation, but his invoking of god to make his case is quite appropriate.
He didn't literally invoke god - he used god, as we often do, as a metaphor for the laws of reality.
You can disprove theories based on hidden information. Locality or determinism pick one.
I'm assuming you're referring to Bell's inequality, but that has little to do with determinism. Bell's inequality says "locality or hidden variables, pick one".
In fact, "superdeterminism" can actually render Bell's inequality moot. That is, you can have locality + hidden variables + superdeterminism. You can't have locality + hidden variables + [statistical independence between the measurement settings and the state you are trying to measure].
The existence of hidden variables is also sometimes called "realism" or "counterfactual definiteness" - since if there are no hidden variables, it means that the question "what would another measurement have shown" or, equivalently, "what state were the particles in before the measurement" doesn't make sense. Indeed, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, particles don't have any meaningful classical "state" before a measurement. For example, if you chose to measure their position, they will have a position, but can have any spin; if instead you measure their spin, they will have a spin, but no definite position. You can't then ask "but what spin would they have had if I had measured their spin instead of their position" - there is no answer to that question according to CI (or, there is an infinity of answers according to MWI).
Note that superdeterminism simply means "the measurement settings on the apparatus depend on the real state of the particles". That is, the particle actually has a property lambda such that if, say, lambda=0, when the particle hits the apparatus and the apparatus is set to measure position, it will show a definite position; whereas is the the particle hits the apparatus when it is set to measure spin it will have a spin. For a different lambda, a different pair of <apparatus settings, apparatus results> will be expected.
In fact, "superdeterminism" can actually render Bell's inequality moot. That is, you can have locality + hidden variables + superdeterminism. You can't have locality + hidden variables + [statistical independence between the measurement settings and the state you are trying to measure].
The existence of hidden variables is also sometimes called "realism" or "counterfactual definiteness" - since if there are no hidden variables, it means that the question "what would another measurement have shown" or, equivalently, "what state were the particles in before the measurement" doesn't make sense. Indeed, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, particles don't have any meaningful classical "state" before a measurement. For example, if you chose to measure their position, they will have a position, but can have any spin; if instead you measure their spin, they will have a spin, but no definite position. You can't then ask "but what spin would they have had if I had measured their spin instead of their position" - there is no answer to that question according to CI (or, there is an infinity of answers according to MWI).
Note that superdeterminism simply means "the measurement settings on the apparatus depend on the real state of the particles". That is, the particle actually has a property lambda such that if, say, lambda=0, when the particle hits the apparatus and the apparatus is set to measure position, it will show a definite position; whereas is the the particle hits the apparatus when it is set to measure spin it will have a spin. For a different lambda, a different pair of <apparatus settings, apparatus results> will be expected.
Superdeterminism also gets rid of the need for photons etc. If you’re instruments are running a predetermined script they can just as easily be playing back a movie as having an actual detector.
Really though it’s just another flavor of non-localism that gets around FTL.
Really though it’s just another flavor of non-localism that gets around FTL.
Not necessarily, superdeterminism is a concept, not a specific theory/model. You have specific models that can basically explain anything at all as a "grand conspiracy", but you can also have models that don't.
There are no useful, testable "superdeterministic" models yet, to be fair. But they can, in principle, exist. Again, all that this requires is a model where the measurement settings depend on the hidden variables themselves.
There are no useful, testable "superdeterministic" models yet, to be fair. But they can, in principle, exist. Again, all that this requires is a model where the measurement settings depend on the hidden variables themselves.
That’s the problem, we aren’t talking about a specific theory so you need to toss in all the suddenly possible models under stuff super determinism allows.
Excluding the ultimate “grand conspiracy” stuff that only applies to scientific instruments it posits that basically every interaction between any particle is following a predetermined script. You can of course still have photons etc, but like two actors in a play such particles don’t need to be having a conversation.
The idea also extends into all sorts of strange and untestable territories such as our universe being a copy of a prior one that operated on different principles.
Of course none of that means such an idea is false, just that it’s currently as unproductive as saying god did it.
Excluding the ultimate “grand conspiracy” stuff that only applies to scientific instruments it posits that basically every interaction between any particle is following a predetermined script. You can of course still have photons etc, but like two actors in a play such particles don’t need to be having a conversation.
The idea also extends into all sorts of strange and untestable territories such as our universe being a copy of a prior one that operated on different principles.
Of course none of that means such an idea is false, just that it’s currently as unproductive as saying god did it.
To be fair, going by pure empiricism, it makes more sense to say that the world is non-deterministic. QM only matches observations iff we assume that the measurement process is truly non-deterministic. The Schrodinger equation can only be used, in practice, to measure probabilities, we don't know of any way to use to predict exact results.
However, philosophically speaking, this is unsatisfactory, since the behavior of the macroscopic world must somehow be reducible to the behavior of its constituents. If Schrodinger's equation were non-deterministic itself, we wouldn't have a problem - we could simply say "the world is nondeterministic, as far as we can see". If it at least was non-linear, with a possibility of chaotic effects, we could say "the world is probably deterministic, but it's impossible to measure it accurately enough to predict any definite outcomes" - but this is not the case.
So, we are stuck with this weird dichotomy between philosophy&logic on one hand and empirical observations on the other. MWI does give an out, but it has extra assumptions that are not directly justified any more than the Born rule (an observer only observes one world), and, more importantly, while it reproduces the Born rule in concept, it neither can derive it quantitatively.
Even worse, MWI can't explain how the classical world, where certain specific quantities are definite for all objects, arises out of the quantum world - the preferred basis problem. For example, a world where we observed some balls having a definite position, but others having a definite spin but not definite position, would be consistent with QM and the Born rule - and this indeed can happen in an experiment with particles. And yet we observe the same observables for all classical objects in our day to day lives.
However, philosophically speaking, this is unsatisfactory, since the behavior of the macroscopic world must somehow be reducible to the behavior of its constituents. If Schrodinger's equation were non-deterministic itself, we wouldn't have a problem - we could simply say "the world is nondeterministic, as far as we can see". If it at least was non-linear, with a possibility of chaotic effects, we could say "the world is probably deterministic, but it's impossible to measure it accurately enough to predict any definite outcomes" - but this is not the case.
So, we are stuck with this weird dichotomy between philosophy&logic on one hand and empirical observations on the other. MWI does give an out, but it has extra assumptions that are not directly justified any more than the Born rule (an observer only observes one world), and, more importantly, while it reproduces the Born rule in concept, it neither can derive it quantitatively.
Even worse, MWI can't explain how the classical world, where certain specific quantities are definite for all objects, arises out of the quantum world - the preferred basis problem. For example, a world where we observed some balls having a definite position, but others having a definite spin but not definite position, would be consistent with QM and the Born rule - and this indeed can happen in an experiment with particles. And yet we observe the same observables for all classical objects in our day to day lives.
I suppose it depends on whether we're simply stuck at too high a resolution of measurability due to Heisenberg uncertainty - either subatomic behaviour has a legitimate statistical factor, or we simply can't look low enough to see the deterministic factors (yet?)
This is straying into territory I can only hypothesise in though - for all I know the latter option may have already been ruled out. Does this dilemma map onto hidden variables vs Copenhagen interpretation?
My primary point of reference for these things is philosophical as I have an only-slightly-above-pop level of understanding of QM and am leaning more on second order cybernetics and epistemology to reason about observer-system interaction.
This is straying into territory I can only hypothesise in though - for all I know the latter option may have already been ruled out. Does this dilemma map onto hidden variables vs Copenhagen interpretation?
My primary point of reference for these things is philosophical as I have an only-slightly-above-pop level of understanding of QM and am leaning more on second order cybernetics and epistemology to reason about observer-system interaction.
I tend to think of The Beatles as a fantastic world-spanning pachinko game. Once Ww2 ended and a mass boom of young people with disposable income crossed with new mass media markets and advances in recording distribution technology, it was inevitable that some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power. Heck, even the stadiums were a modern combination of improved building methods with rebar and plain postwar excess.
it was inevitable that some act or another
would be the first-to-market with catchy
tunes and stadium-filling star power.
Post-WWII acts with catchy tunes and star power were already abundant before the Beatles. They were not special in that regard.
What was unique about the cosmic accident that was the Beatles?
1. Happened to be paired with a (initially reluctant) producer of classical music
2. Achieved worldwide fame and chart dominance (this part is not unique, but its place in the sequence of events is crucial)
3. Somehow this popularity crossed over into the US, the world's largest market, when American response to prior British acts was lukewarm at best
4. After achieving worldwide superstardom, decided to push the boundaries of pop music
5. Conveniently had a producer who could help with and encourage this transformation
6. Decided to give up touring at the height of their fame, to focus exclusively on studio albums, and were able to do this thanks to already having achieved megastardom and financial independence
7. They accomplished all of this in, essentially, a single decade and then called it quits
8. Having three world-class songwriters in one group that started out as a cover band is a very low-probability event. The number of excellent, instantly recognizable, songs that they wrote over a period of 7 years (1963-1970) is insane.
Also relevant was the UK art school system, which up until the 80s or so was a practical career path for creative working class kids.
There was also the dole (unemployment benefit) system which provided just enough cash to allow bands and musicians to start a career without being forced into a full-time job.
A ridiculous number of high profile UK musicians from the 60s and 70s came through art school or adjacent courses like architecture, not music college.
There was also the dole (unemployment benefit) system which provided just enough cash to allow bands and musicians to start a career without being forced into a full-time job.
A ridiculous number of high profile UK musicians from the 60s and 70s came through art school or adjacent courses like architecture, not music college.
> 3. Somehow this popularity crossed over into the US
Death of a young president and a country in mourning. Another unlikely event in history that happened exactly at the right time.
Death of a young president and a country in mourning. Another unlikely event in history that happened exactly at the right time.
This was a really good answer but I also don't think it invalidates the GP's point. There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do. Your answer explains some of how The Beatles became more than the average pop group but they still ("She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah") started off as just a (boy band) pop group.
She loves me, yeah, yeah, yeah
It's She loves _you_, yeah, yeah. Little quirks like that (using second person) set the early Beatles records apart from contemporary boy bands and were a forebode of that they were more than just a boy band.
There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do.
Pop was already big, see Elvis. If The Beatles were not as exceptional as they were, they would have maybe two or three hits and disappear, like most bands of the time. They were exceptional songwriters, who stood relevant for almost a decade, because they infused new ideas (e.g. from avant garde) into pop music. In contrast to e.g. Frank Zappa, they were able to convey these ideas to a large audience.
Around 1969-1970 they started to loose their edge. After a wildly experimental period (~Revolver to Magical Mystery tour) they slowly returned to more conventional Rock & Roll (see e.g. the album Let It Be). If they hadn't broken up in 1970, they would've probably become less relevant after then. E.g. even though McCartney's songwriting was still good in the 70ies, the world had moved on (disco, punk, etc.), with the ex-Beatles becoming less and less relevant. Except perhaps Lennon, who would work with more contemporary artists like Bowie.
It's She loves _you_, yeah, yeah. Little quirks like that (using second person) set the early Beatles records apart from contemporary boy bands and were a forebode of that they were more than just a boy band.
There was a particular set-up at a particular time that meant that pop music was going to go very big and that explains more of The Beatles phenomenal success than your very interesting points do.
Pop was already big, see Elvis. If The Beatles were not as exceptional as they were, they would have maybe two or three hits and disappear, like most bands of the time. They were exceptional songwriters, who stood relevant for almost a decade, because they infused new ideas (e.g. from avant garde) into pop music. In contrast to e.g. Frank Zappa, they were able to convey these ideas to a large audience.
Around 1969-1970 they started to loose their edge. After a wildly experimental period (~Revolver to Magical Mystery tour) they slowly returned to more conventional Rock & Roll (see e.g. the album Let It Be). If they hadn't broken up in 1970, they would've probably become less relevant after then. E.g. even though McCartney's songwriting was still good in the 70ies, the world had moved on (disco, punk, etc.), with the ex-Beatles becoming less and less relevant. Except perhaps Lennon, who would work with more contemporary artists like Bowie.
GP stated that the Beatles were inevitable, that somebody would have come along with catchy songs and "star power."
That part of the GP's post makes little sense to me. There were plenty of post-WWII (and pre-WWII) popular music stars who fit that description.
Yes, an endless parade of popular music stars was inevitable, but something like the Beatles wasn't. Pop would have evolved with or without them, of course, but their impact was insane.
That part of the GP's post makes little sense to me. There were plenty of post-WWII (and pre-WWII) popular music stars who fit that description.
Yes, an endless parade of popular music stars was inevitable, but something like the Beatles wasn't. Pop would have evolved with or without them, of course, but their impact was insane.
> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power
The thing about the Beatles is that even after they stopped filling stadiums, they turned to experimental and innovative musical techniques that changed the face of popular music forever.
Their best and most beloved work all came after Beatlemania ended... any attractive boy band with a catchy beat could've fulfilled your conditions, but the Beatles were so much more than that.
The thing about the Beatles is that even after they stopped filling stadiums, they turned to experimental and innovative musical techniques that changed the face of popular music forever.
Their best and most beloved work all came after Beatlemania ended... any attractive boy band with a catchy beat could've fulfilled your conditions, but the Beatles were so much more than that.
> any attractive boy band with a catchy beat
No need to beat around the bush : surely you mean the Stones.
No need to beat around the bush : surely you mean the Stones.
Really he means the 1000 other bands that weren't the Stones or the Beatles. Those two have large catalogs that are played today and will be played 100 years from now.
she
But my use of the phrase "boy band*" was a mistake, because I was thinking of Elvis more than anyone else.
Though I do have to wonder what would've happened if Herman's Hermits or some other Merseybeat band came to the US in 1964 instead of the Beatles.
But my use of the phrase "boy band*" was a mistake, because I was thinking of Elvis more than anyone else.
Though I do have to wonder what would've happened if Herman's Hermits or some other Merseybeat band came to the US in 1964 instead of the Beatles.
And we owe a lot to Dylan's influence (both musically and chemically).
The thing that amazes me about the Beatles is that they were led by a musical genius. And then a second member of the band achieved the same level of musical genius (some would say an even greater level of genius). And then within a few years, a third member of the band that was just the rhythm guitarist demonstrated that he also achieved an astonishing level of musical genius. Especially for that time, this was incredibly unlikely.
I think Ringo is never given enough credit for his role in the band. While not the flashiest player, he laid down the groundwork of what a pop drumbeat is.
Also, watching Get Back it become painfully apparent that Ringo is the elusive glue person without whom the Beatles probably would have fallen apart years prior.
Also, watching Get Back it become painfully apparent that Ringo is the elusive glue person without whom the Beatles probably would have fallen apart years prior.
This is the true role of a great drummer. To play what is needed and nothing more or less. Sometimes to be quiet and stay in the background, sometimes to be loud and take up space, sometimes just to crack a joke and break the tension when things start to get off track.
It really shines through in Get Back - Paul, John and (to a lesser extent) George are flailing about, causing drama but Ringo just patiently sits behind his drums and as soon as anyone starts playing he's there to pick up the beat.
My musician friends were offended at the Beatles’ musicianship watching that film.
It’s hard to realize that being great isn’t good enough, you need lightning to strike and you need to be there when it happens.
It’s hard to realize that being great isn’t good enough, you need lightning to strike and you need to be there when it happens.
Interesting. The biggest thing I took away from it was how unplanned everything was.
I can no longer listen to a Beatles album and ask "why did they decide to do this, and then that?" as I used to. Now I know that nobody had a plan: they had an infinite series of accidents and then edited -- or not.
I can no longer listen to a Beatles album and ask "why did they decide to do this, and then that?" as I used to. Now I know that nobody had a plan: they had an infinite series of accidents and then edited -- or not.
It's almost like there's some truth to the "Trying to make dozens of shitty pots actually produces better pots than trying to make a single perfect pot".
Iteration eats inspiration for breakfast.
https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality...
Iteration eats inspiration for breakfast.
https://austinkleon.com/2020/12/10/quantity-leads-to-quality...
In a winner-takes-all game, there's iteration, but there's also a single top act, and a tremendous combination of skill, luck, and manipulation in ending up on top.
It's not as if the team making the most pots always wins. Though the winner often makes a lot of pots.
It's not as if the team making the most pots always wins. Though the winner often makes a lot of pots.
I wonder though how representative Get Back was for a Beatles recording session. The band was clearly imploding and in contrast to prior albums, they didn't have a lot of songs prepared yet. There are the famous Esher demos that were recorded before The White Album. And even though they are acoustic, a lot of songs seem to be worked out already. Of course, they've put all kinds of extra touches on them in the studio, but they'd work pretty well for "The White Album - Unplugged".
I was surprised how even under the circumstances stuff comes together pretty quickly. Like how McCartney makes up the main melody of Get Back in seconds while jamming, as if he is just picking it out of the air (assuming that it wasn't staged for the camera). Then once Lennon puts his mind to the sessions again, there is clearly a very strong chemistry between Lennon and McCartney where they are just having fun and tweaking and evolving the songs at a rapid pace.
I was surprised how even under the circumstances stuff comes together pretty quickly. Like how McCartney makes up the main melody of Get Back in seconds while jamming, as if he is just picking it out of the air (assuming that it wasn't staged for the camera). Then once Lennon puts his mind to the sessions again, there is clearly a very strong chemistry between Lennon and McCartney where they are just having fun and tweaking and evolving the songs at a rapid pace.
I got a similar feeling from the documentary. Some of those songs seem so perfect, as if they were born that way - but the actual creative process was messy, with various wrong turns it could have taken, fumbling around in the unknown.
I also feel like I understand better how miracles like Sgt. Pepper happened - not by careful planning or having a clear design at the start, but taking the time, day after day, working on ideas, noodling and joking around, sometimes arguing with each other, sometimes discovering happy accidents.. And every take is different!
I also feel like I understand better how miracles like Sgt. Pepper happened - not by careful planning or having a clear design at the start, but taking the time, day after day, working on ideas, noodling and joking around, sometimes arguing with each other, sometimes discovering happy accidents.. And every take is different!
First Ringo, then later Billy Preston.
Indeed. Watch Sina's youtube video on Ringo Starr where she explains the very special style he had and what makes his drumming stand out.
Listing the Beatles in order of genius is a fun game and endlessly debatable but it’s not clear to me who you are referring to respectively. It reads as if the first two you mention are Paul and John in some order, but that would leave the “rhythm guitarist” to be George, but he is more often described as the lead guitarist. If this was bait, you got me!
Paul was already a musical genius — and the two, Lennon and McCartney, needed each other to feed off of. One pushed the other, completed the other's "middle eight", encouraged, made jealous. John and Paul were, each of them, 90% of an amazing band. It's a beautiful thing they found each other.
And all those geniuses lived in the same area
So you’re saying that you think John Lennon was the last one to be considered a musical genius?
No he is clearly saying that George Harrison is the last one, because he genuinely hit his peak after the Beatles disbanded (in my opinion).
I got that - but George wasn’t “just” the rhythm guitarist, he was the lead. On top of that, playing rhythm guitar is far more important than lead :)
> some act or another would be the first-to-market with catchy tunes and stadium-filling star power
Yes, but The Beatles were at least an order of magnitude better than anyone could have reasonably expected.
Yes, but The Beatles were at least an order of magnitude better than anyone could have reasonably expected.
Definitely. Especially surprising for a long time to me, given that their early songs seem really simple (She loves you...). And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs. So even before they published the first album they had a routine of hundreds of songs from memory. I think this cannot be underestimated as a foundation on which they built in their later years.
Compare that to today, where someone who picks up a guitar learns two songs and can get into a rabbit whole on youtube learning all about jazz harmonies, and song-composing, yet will lack the routine that these guys had when their career really launched.
Compare that to today, where someone who picks up a guitar learns two songs and can get into a rabbit whole on youtube learning all about jazz harmonies, and song-composing, yet will lack the routine that these guys had when their career really launched.
And while that may be true, what one must realise is that the Beatles kind of started out as a cover band, as a "live juke box" really playing in clubs.
Funny thing from the recent Rubin/McCartney interview series: McCartney mentioned that they'd play with other bands the same night and that there was always the risk that another band did a better cover of a song that was also on their set list. So, they started writing their own songs to avoid that other bands would play the same songs that night.
Funny thing from the recent Rubin/McCartney interview series: McCartney mentioned that they'd play with other bands the same night and that there was always the risk that another band did a better cover of a song that was also on their set list. So, they started writing their own songs to avoid that other bands would play the same songs that night.
[deleted]
A big difference is the source material. The Beatles didn’t have a very wide exposure to music, but they had a very deep one.
They grew up in an era when American R&B was literally revolutionizing the musical culture of Britain. And in crossing the pond and being selected by disc jockeys with rabid audiences, there was a distillation that took place.
So the Beatles in their youth were not just exposed to some American music - they were listening to the absolute best R&B ever created, and way more of it than most white kids in America were getting.
It’s fascinating that this sort of convergence of all the most incredible aspects of American roots music had to take place outside of the US, create genres like Skiffle (unheard of in America), and spit out kids like Paul McCartney who would go on to “invade” America with a sound that was familiar to US ears and yet something else entirely.
The magic still happens - see Amy Winehouse, the Scoundrels - but these are sort of like subsequent moon landings, despite being amazing in their own right.
They grew up in an era when American R&B was literally revolutionizing the musical culture of Britain. And in crossing the pond and being selected by disc jockeys with rabid audiences, there was a distillation that took place.
So the Beatles in their youth were not just exposed to some American music - they were listening to the absolute best R&B ever created, and way more of it than most white kids in America were getting.
It’s fascinating that this sort of convergence of all the most incredible aspects of American roots music had to take place outside of the US, create genres like Skiffle (unheard of in America), and spit out kids like Paul McCartney who would go on to “invade” America with a sound that was familiar to US ears and yet something else entirely.
The magic still happens - see Amy Winehouse, the Scoundrels - but these are sort of like subsequent moon landings, despite being amazing in their own right.
Agree, but let's not forget that American kids were beginning to also get served some R&B tailings served up to them by the likes of Elvis and Buddy Holly, etc.
My point is really that what Americans mostly heard on the radio - Elvis and Buddy Holly etc. - were _products_ of the R&B canon. Owing to the particulars of how R&B was appreciated in the UK, which was quite unique to the UK, the Beatles had deeper access to the source material.
Yeah I think it was all those years of practice that made them really good simply as a band that were essential for when they later started getting recognized as composers.
Indeed. There's knowing something having learned it from somewhere, and then there's KNOWING that thing, having used it for years. There aren't really short cuts to that second level.
But isn't that Elvis? Or is your argument that Elvis's appeal wasn't as wide as the 1964 Beatles Mania?
Or do you believe it's the difference that a decade makes? Kids born post war were only at most 10 when Elvis rose to prominence, while they'd be teenagers or upwards of 20 once the Beatles hit.
Or do you believe it's the difference that a decade makes? Kids born post war were only at most 10 when Elvis rose to prominence, while they'd be teenagers or upwards of 20 once the Beatles hit.
The article paints a picture of playing shows at an absolutely insane frenetic pace, averaging two shows a days for months at a time, in unfamiliar places, not even knowing the language, with demanding and wildly varying audiences. Having been in a band and gigging around my local town, a bit, I can’t even imagine touring in another country and doing multiple shows per day month after month - especially as a fresh band just starting out and barely knowing the instruments. There’s no question this ‘trial by fire’ would have killed some bands and propelled others. While it’s true that some act or another would make it, it’s also true that the spoils may have gone to one of the bands that was working the hardest and trying the most things. In HN parlance, what they did was a huge extended and very hands-on A/B test, gathering a lot of data to figure out what works and what doesn’t. I guess my point is to at least somewhat acknowledge that they really put in the work, and not frame it as pure luck.
Yes, but not that many catchy tunes. There's just too much combinatory magic there.
> young people with disposable income
I think that was no the case of The Beatles, but of the Rolling Stones.
I think that was no the case of The Beatles, but of the Rolling Stones.
it could've been The Monkees
Except The Monkees couldn't play. They had to learn to play & sing. Their songs were written by others.
They all could play and sing before The Monkeys. It was just that the instruments that some of them played were not necessarily the instruments that their characters in the show were supposed to play.
Davy Jones was a singer before The Monkeys. He had a single make the Billboard Hot 100 in 1965, and a couple singles that made the top 10 that year in Australia. He could also play drums. But he was also short and it wouldn't work out well visually to have him on drums.
Micky Dolenz had a band of his own in the early '60s where he played guitar and was lead singer, and also wrote songs. But his character in the show played the drums, which he had never played.
Mike Nesmith played guitar and bass and sang in several folk and country bands before The Monkeys, and wrote songs. His song "Different Drum", written a year or two before The Monkeys, became a hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1967. He had offered that song to the producers of The Monkeys but they didn't want it.
Peter Tork played piano, base, guitar, and banjo long before The Monkeys and had spent a lot of time doing folk music in New York.
They were allowed to have some songs the wrote on their albums. The first two albums each included one Nesmith song and one song Nesmith cowrote.
Their 3rd included 3 Nesmith songs, 2 songs that they all wrote, a Dolenz song, a song Tork cowrote, and one that all 4 cowrote with one other person.
Their 4th included a Nesmith song, a Tork song, one cowritten by Nesmith, and one cowritten by Jones.
Their 5th included 3 by Nesmith, and one he cowrote, and 2 that Jones cowrote.
The rest are fairly similar.
Davy Jones was a singer before The Monkeys. He had a single make the Billboard Hot 100 in 1965, and a couple singles that made the top 10 that year in Australia. He could also play drums. But he was also short and it wouldn't work out well visually to have him on drums.
Micky Dolenz had a band of his own in the early '60s where he played guitar and was lead singer, and also wrote songs. But his character in the show played the drums, which he had never played.
Mike Nesmith played guitar and bass and sang in several folk and country bands before The Monkeys, and wrote songs. His song "Different Drum", written a year or two before The Monkeys, became a hit for Linda Ronstadt in 1967. He had offered that song to the producers of The Monkeys but they didn't want it.
Peter Tork played piano, base, guitar, and banjo long before The Monkeys and had spent a lot of time doing folk music in New York.
They were allowed to have some songs the wrote on their albums. The first two albums each included one Nesmith song and one song Nesmith cowrote.
Their 3rd included 3 Nesmith songs, 2 songs that they all wrote, a Dolenz song, a song Tork cowrote, and one that all 4 cowrote with one other person.
Their 4th included a Nesmith song, a Tork song, one cowritten by Nesmith, and one cowritten by Jones.
Their 5th included 3 by Nesmith, and one he cowrote, and 2 that Jones cowrote.
The rest are fairly similar.
"Headquarters" says it all.
It's bizarre how much you know about a band whose name you can't spell. Autocorrect?
It's not that the Monkees 'couldn't play' - that show biz act was selected for visual appeal while management had the Wrecking Crew studio a list create the pop songs. It was brilliantly successful business.
The Beatles were arguably an earlier incarnation of this - a v rough and ready covers band propelled to 'stardom' by Epstein and heavily produced, notably by George Martin. Just like Jimmy Miller's shaping of the Rolling Stones in their glory years it's the people behind the curtain who transition these acts into the big league.
(The Jones Stones were a very good UK R&B covers band in their early years just as the Beatles were originally a rock and roll covers band)
The Beatles were arguably an earlier incarnation of this - a v rough and ready covers band propelled to 'stardom' by Epstein and heavily produced, notably by George Martin. Just like Jimmy Miller's shaping of the Rolling Stones in their glory years it's the people behind the curtain who transition these acts into the big league.
(The Jones Stones were a very good UK R&B covers band in their early years just as the Beatles were originally a rock and roll covers band)
All bands need help in one form or another. The Beatles understood this, and would get help as needed (even Eric Clapton contributed). Michael Jackson got Quincy Jones to produce his breakout albums. The Monkees believed they didn't need help, and could do it all on their own. "Headquarters" was the result. It's a very weak album.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the Monkees were given the greatest opportunity dropped in their lap, and completely muffed it. They just weren't smart enough to compete with The Beatles.
In my not-so-humble opinion, the Monkees were given the greatest opportunity dropped in their lap, and completely muffed it. They just weren't smart enough to compete with The Beatles.
The thing is the Beatles actually wrote their material - the Monkees sang tin pan alley tunes written by Carole King et al and played by the wrecking crew. They never had management or support to do anything creative themselves except mug for the cameras. Show biz vs musicians...
They did launch a lot of careers though, like Louie Shelton's https://youtu.be/7L6Vin-5188
They were ahead of their time in that regard.
The Monkees were way ahead of the curve with music videos.
In case anyone was unaware (like I was until a month ago)..."Beatles" is a pun that I never picked up on (beat - like the musical unit of time => 'beat'les).
I guess I don't run into enough beetle related situations in my life that anyone or anything corrected me.
I guess I don't run into enough beetle related situations in my life that anyone or anything corrected me.
It's also a tribute to their favorite band: Buddy Holly and the Crickets.
I always thought it was an ironic pun, Beatles -> beat less
As if the biggest rock band of all time didn't have any beat!
Whenever I try to tell anyone how I like the joke, they look at me like I'm crazy and tell me I made it up myself
I'm not sure if it was actually intended or not, but it's a pretty good pun regardless!
As if the biggest rock band of all time didn't have any beat!
Whenever I try to tell anyone how I like the joke, they look at me like I'm crazy and tell me I made it up myself
I'm not sure if it was actually intended or not, but it's a pretty good pun regardless!
Yes, it is that. Watch out when the Beetles come to town. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047677/
[deleted]
There's the xkcd 10000, and then there's this.
Its a great little film - plus excellent soundtrack featuring Dave Grohl, Mike Mills and others