3 ms·

Are you asking why The Beatles are so highly acclaimed, or why people obsess over somewhat mundane minutiae in their work? To the former, The Beatles are a uni

by Tycho 14y ago

Are you asking why The Beatles are so highly acclaimed, or why people obsess over somewhat mundane minutiae in their work? To the former, The Beatles are a unique case because they had two major songwriting talents in the same band. This is a freak occurrence that you don't really find anywhere else (although arguably with HDH and with The Stones, but they had spectacular results too). The synergy between them pushed Lennon and McCartney to even greater heights than a master songwriter would typically reach on his/her own, and also attracted and inspired talent from others: George Martin and George Harrison, and to a lesser extent Ringo. That's the how, although their body of work speaks for itself. People obsess over the minutiae because so many people have heard their records, compared to other records which might be equally or more cleverly/mysteriously produced.

colomon 14y ago
You should add Queen to that list, too. Makes your "uniqueness" statement a little weaker, but I think it strengthens your overall point: having more than one great songwriter in a band is a really potent combination.
mynameishere 14y ago
Fleetwood Mac had three, all pretty equal in quality. The Doors had two, not quite so equal though.
mgkimsal 14y ago
Not JUST two major songwriting talents, but performers. Really, in the early days, when they were doing more covers, George had a pretty equal share of the spotlight. One could easily be a fan of any one of the band, and you'd be able to hear one of 3 of them sing during a concert (less so in later years). Doesn't matter how much of a Bill Wyman or Charlie Watts fan you were, you'd never hear them sing ("in another land" notwithstanding!) The songwriting combo was killer, but even before that, I think they were fairly unique in sharing 'front man' duties throughout a set. Very few bands do that even today, mostly because they can't really pull it off - the Beatles could. Having more than one main singer/frontman is something I think often gets overlooked in the Beatles' story appeal.
- Tycho 14y ago
  I think that was another one of their many idiosyncrasies. But lots of bands have interesting idiosyncrasies: IMO none of the other unique attributes/talents of the Beatles were nearly as significant/remarkable as the fact that through chance some teenagers, two of whom later turned out to be genius songwriters, started a band together. Because they are historically top of the pile, all their interesting characteristics come under focus, but I feel people make the mistake of attributing their status to this plethora of qualities. This makes their story seem like either an inexplicable serendipity or a mass delusion, but really it's easy to explain as just one chance occurrence on which everything else rests.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree. The songwriting aspect, while critical, imo isn't enough. The fact that they were both (all?) charismatic, good looking, and good singers is inextricably tied up in their success, along with the songwriting. Even in the early days, their covers became their own because of their vocals and playing abilities. And while I agree that most of their characteristics come under scrutiny, the ability for 3/4ths of the band to function as competent singer is something which is still rarely even attempted in most bands.
    - Tycho 14y ago
      From what I can tell, the ability of 3/4ths of the band to sing well was a lot less remarkable for the time period. Nowadays it would really set a band apart but back then guitar bands with vocal harmonies was trending. Most such bands just didn't have any songwriting power. Plus when you consider that McCartney was the only really gifted vocalist, it's not that remarkable. Their perceived charisma and attractiveness stems from their status, which was earned through superior songwriting/record-making. It's hardly suprising that two genius songwriters managed to develop good instrumental abilities, attract other talent (a great drummer, a great producer, a great guitarist), put out records with great vocal arrangements, and bring out the best in covers. And be worshipped by the public. Those things are almost inevitable. The only surprising thing was that they ended up in the same band.
CrankyPants 14y ago
Good question. I realized I was a bit vague about that, though I suppose both have crossed my mind. The former would seem to beget the latter, though. In terms of the two major songwriting talents in the same band argument, that's pretty interesting, and, as the thread you inspired amply demonstrates, is a pretty interesting way of looking at a number of bands, and even seems to have examples in non-musical endeavors. I wonder how much of that's due to just having two people who can generate more good ideas than one, how much is an undefinable chemistry between the two, and how much might actually because there's a good amount of self-regulation that occurs that way: if I were a songwriting genius, I'd possibly (probably?) be pretty unresponsive to taking criticism, but if I respected the crap out of the songwriting talents of the person making the critique, then that'd be a totally different dynamic.
- Tycho 14y ago
  Well great songwriters (especially rock stars) probably have egos that get in the way of collaboration with their equals, i.e. being in a band together. The fluke of the Beatles was that they both started collaborating as school boys, and both turned out to be top tier songwriters. This also let them develop a healthy working relationship (when The Beatles split up I don't think their talent diminished, at least not for another 5 or 6 years, but there was much weaker quality control and not as much variety in there albums). With respect to the other bands mentioned, I don't think they can claim to have multiple top-tier songwriters. Maybe in the 3-5 classic songs range but not in the 10-30+ range.

by Tycho 14y ago

colomon 14y ago

You should add Queen to that list, too. Makes your "uniqueness" statement a little weaker, but I think it strengthens your overall point: having more than one great songwriter in a band is a really potent combination.

mynameishere 14y ago

Fleetwood Mac had three, all pretty equal in quality. The Doors had two, not quite so equal though.

mgkimsal 14y ago

Not JUST two major songwriting talents, but performers. Really, in the early days, when they were doing more covers, George had a pretty equal share of the spotlight. One could easily be a fan of any one of the band, and you'd be able to hear one of 3 of them sing during a concert (less so in later years). Doesn't matter how much of a Bill Wyman or Charlie Watts fan you were, you'd never hear them sing ("in another land" notwithstanding!) The songwriting combo was killer, but even before that, I think they were fairly unique in sharing 'front man' duties throughout a set. Very few bands do that even today, mostly because they can't really pull it off - the Beatles could. Having more than one main singer/frontman is something I think often gets overlooked in the Beatles' story appeal.

Tycho 14y ago
I think that was another one of their many idiosyncrasies. But lots of bands have interesting idiosyncrasies: IMO none of the other unique attributes/talents of the Beatles were nearly as significant/remarkable as the fact that through chance some teenagers, two of whom later turned out to be genius songwriters, started a band together. Because they are historically top of the pile, all their interesting characteristics come under focus, but I feel people make the mistake of attributing their status to this plethora of qualities. This makes their story seem like either an inexplicable serendipity or a mass delusion, but really it's easy to explain as just one chance occurrence on which everything else rests.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree. The songwriting aspect, while critical, imo isn't enough. The fact that they were both (all?) charismatic, good looking, and good singers is inextricably tied up in their success, along with the songwriting. Even in the early days, their covers became their own because of their vocals and playing abilities. And while I agree that most of their characteristics come under scrutiny, the ability for 3/4ths of the band to function as competent singer is something which is still rarely even attempted in most bands.
  - Tycho 14y ago
    From what I can tell, the ability of 3/4ths of the band to sing well was a lot less remarkable for the time period. Nowadays it would really set a band apart but back then guitar bands with vocal harmonies was trending. Most such bands just didn't have any songwriting power. Plus when you consider that McCartney was the only really gifted vocalist, it's not that remarkable. Their perceived charisma and attractiveness stems from their status, which was earned through superior songwriting/record-making. It's hardly suprising that two genius songwriters managed to develop good instrumental abilities, attract other talent (a great drummer, a great producer, a great guitarist), put out records with great vocal arrangements, and bring out the best in covers. And be worshipped by the public. Those things are almost inevitable. The only surprising thing was that they ended up in the same band.

CrankyPants 14y ago

Good question. I realized I was a bit vague about that, though I suppose both have crossed my mind. The former would seem to beget the latter, though. In terms of the two major songwriting talents in the same band argument, that's pretty interesting, and, as the thread you inspired amply demonstrates, is a pretty interesting way of looking at a number of bands, and even seems to have examples in non-musical endeavors. I wonder how much of that's due to just having two people who can generate more good ideas than one, how much is an undefinable chemistry between the two, and how much might actually because there's a good amount of self-regulation that occurs that way: if I were a songwriting genius, I'd possibly (probably?) be pretty unresponsive to taking criticism, but if I respected the crap out of the songwriting talents of the person making the critique, then that'd be a totally different dynamic.

Tycho 14y ago
Well great songwriters (especially rock stars) probably have egos that get in the way of collaboration with their equals, i.e. being in a band together. The fluke of the Beatles was that they both started collaborating as school boys, and both turned out to be top tier songwriters. This also let them develop a healthy working relationship (when The Beatles split up I don't think their talent diminished, at least not for another 5 or 6 years, but there was much weaker quality control and not as much variety in there albums). With respect to the other bands mentioned, I don't think they can claim to have multiple top-tier songwriters. Maybe in the 3-5 classic songs range but not in the 10-30+ range.