Thoughts on Listening to The Beatles on the BCC

Over the course of 2023 I listened a lot to the Beatles' "Live on the BBC" recordings. Which gives you an idea of how I listen. Year-end Best Of's have become meaningless to me. Whenever I check some titles from these lists out they rarely click. If they do, it's because they have a throw-back sound. Now, if I had a youthful guide to personally navigate me through the landscape, I bet I would encounter many bands that I like. The trouble is that there are so many recordings now, there really isn't any consensus to rely on. Nevertheless, I seem most interested in filling in my gaps in terms of the historical canon. For example, I really don't know Bowie's classic recordings that well. Seems more important to spend some time with that, which of course, presents an obstacle for contemporary bands, because how do you compete with Bowie? But what are you going to do? I should note that when it comes to jazz I do find tons of current stuff that I click with. Why? Maybe because they are less focused on communicating the zeitgeist of their particular subcultures? Or rather, using the zeitgeist as an ingredient instead of the whole recipe?

At any rate, those BBC recordings were from the Beatles' early years and they played mostly covers, or as many covers as originals, which is tremendous fun. Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard (Paul's specialty), the Everlys. It's astounding to think that all those recordings by those giants were a mere handful of years old then; so if the Beatles represented a second wave of rock and roll, that wave was coming on quick, nothing like two decades later or something. They also covered Motown as well as Arthur Alexander, who is little known today but who was a huge influence on 60s rock, with songs like "Soldier of Love" and "You Better Move On." John Lennon's vocals on Alexander's "Anna" strike me as one of his strongest earliest performances, and an indicator of things to come. Actually, it was hearing this that inspired me to dig deeper into their early years. One thing that does stand out among the BBC covers is their joy in covering the "girl groups" associated with the early-60s Phil Spector studio sound and aesthetic. In many ways, that particular girl group take on emotion, tonality, and melody feels like something that, with their embracing of it, really set the Beatles apart. Their X Factor?

Indeed the Beatles, as unlikely and innocuous as it seems today, were gender pioneers, pushing the edges of acceptable masculinity. Something as simple as their early "mop-top" haircuts, falling down over their foreheads, were considered transgressive and threw the guardians of culture into a tizzy over this affront to manhood. I also have seen essays from the time that expressed grave concern over the feminization of music represented by their falsetto interjections and oohs. Never mind that it was precisely these that drove their young female fans crazy and actually increased their heterosexual sex appeal. They certainly were onto something.

That said, my topic here is not the Beatles' influence on culture but their relationship to their influences. As I listened to the BBC recordings I was struck by a few things, in addition to the girl group thing. First, is that they must have been one of the funnest bar bands ever. We know they cut their teeth and honed their chops playing five sets a night in Hamburg's seaport red-light district. But basically, no matter where you are, the best bar bands are cover bands. Without a doubt, some of the most joyous and high-spirited experiences of my life have been in local bars listening to a kick ass band that wasn't above playing other people's music. The Beatles most certainly were not. Like most musicians they were motivated by love, and there is a lot to love in the first generation of rock and roll. Not least because, to my ears, the music of Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard and all the rest is the most thrilling music of the century. 

There are many reasons to play covers. The first is that this is the way to learn how songs work, and what the range of styles and maneuvers and conventions is. Bob Dylan goes so far as to say that you should learn not only the music of your main influences but also the music of their influences. In fact, as Bob has settled into the extended late period of his career, he seems more and more drawn to early 20th century modes. What made the Grateful Dead special as a "Jam" band was that they shared the same deep folk influences as Dylan. So no matter how "out there" they got, they were still grounded in the stuff that is deep in our DNA. I think one result of the movement toward the singer-songwriter and original music in the 60s is that many people forgot the roots part. That's not always bad, though. Some punk had no roots in anything, and the music just exploded from an innate reaction to society and a strong desire to be aggressively self-expressive. But the Beatles were the kind that learned their sources.

So how well did they do at this? I don't suppose they rock and rolled like Chuck Berry, but nobody did. My question was, could they rock as well as the early Stones? Keith would say no, they weren't groovy enough. But I think they could give them a run for their money. They had tons of energy and could play their asses off. The thing they could really do was sing. John and Paul of course would end up two of the greatest rock singers of all time, but George could sing too. And they never backed off from performing those intricate three part harmonies live, degree of difficulty be damned. As a studio band this was big for them and one of the places where George Martin had his biggest influence. He would work on each song's vocal arrangements for hours with them. But, yes, they were a terrific cover band.

Now here's the thing that was most interesting to me while listening to the BBC recordings. The Beatles were playing the greatest songs of the time, but when they turned to one of their own numbers, it inevitably would be better than the classics they were covering. It would have been just fine if theirs were just as good, but better? What are the chances of that? One risk that cover bands run is that when they turn to one of their own, they sound lame by comparison. This is like when writers quote Emerson. They always end up sounding worse, more boring. One aspect of the Beatles success in this regard was their sheer joy in playing their own songs. And this was certainly no small part of their appeal to the public. Remember how they always smiled when they played and sang? That wasn't fake, and you could hear it in the grooves of the records. 

The other aspect, of course, is the songs themselves. Part of my assessment of these songs as "better" might just be because of my own personal bias. Beatles songs were the songs I heard as a kid. They sounded like magic to me then and they sound like magic to me now. But there is no denying that their songs are among the best ever, with at least dozens in the canon. So there is an objective basis. They were just that good. But, curiously, they were good in ways that didn't really betray all those influences we have been discussing. They learned all those songs, but there aren't that many specific references that you hear. Many Dylan songs were constructed nearly note for note on traditional songs, though he does come up with some excellent original melodies. But with the Beatles, you mostly only hear general resonances. Yes, the effervescence of Buddy Holly. Yes, the stirring, close harmony style of the Every Brothers. But that's just a general vibe. Nothing derivative. Chuck Berry is cited as a huge influence, but their mature style doesn't show it. "Back in the USSR" was an exceedingly clever parody on Berry and the Beach Boys. "Come Together" uses the cadences of Berry's "Too Much Monkey Business." Their early rocker, "I Saw Her Standing There" does owe a lot to Berry. But the point is, they marinated themselves in the best of the rock and roll tradition, but somehow they never imitated. I don't get it. It's almost like the only things they carried through were spirit and quality. Somehow they were in touch with the thing that was really theirs and theirs alone.