What makes a great Beatles song | Page 5 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

GniknuS said:

I think it’s unfortunate that Anderson hasn’t been able to address kedame’s recurring question. I have defended the guy because I think he made some valid points, but it is a bit confusing as to why he won’t answer the question. You cannot force kedame to see your point of view, she will see things differently and without coming forward with your own point, it comes off as condescension or perhaps just plain ignorance that maybe you have come up with a few clever terms but nothing to back those claims up. What’s that saying, “where’s the beef?” So prove me wrong, I’m actually quite interested to hear what you have to say.

Your post raises a few points which will be fun to address, and so I’ll contribute a few thoughts.  In order to answer Kedame’s question, we must agree upon some sort of judgmental framework.  If Kedame believes that art is to be judged based upon popularity and the emotional effects it has upon others, while I’m arguing that neither of these things matter at all in terms of the success of the work qua art, then this is such a fundamental disagreement in outlook that there is no point saying anything else until this is resolved.  As I said, we would just be talking at or past each other, rather than having a productive discussion: it’s like asking me to justify calculus when we haven’t yet agreed upon the validity of arithmetic.  If I am going to explain why I believe that John is a more excellent songwriter, I must first fully explain and justify the framework upon which that judgement rests.  In short, almost every post I’ve made in this thread is in some way an attempt to work my way towards answering Kedame’s question.  This is why I spent so much time debunking the claim that art should be judged based upon popularity or the emotional reactions of the listener. 

But I’ll make my point as a fellow musician that music is equally about the emotion brought to it both from the artists perspective and from the listeners. To prove my point, here’s a nice quote from His Other Holiness, John Lennon . 

It was great, ’cause I wrote it in the morning on the piano, like I said many times, and I went to the office and I sang it. I thought, ‘Hell, let’s do it,’ and we booked the studio. And Phil came in, he said, ‘How do you want it?’ I said, ‘You know, 1950 but now.’ And he said ‘Right,’ and boom, I did it in just about three goes. He played it back, and there it was. I said, ‘A bit more bass,’ that’s all. And off we went. See, Phil doesn’t fuss about with fuckin’ stereo or all the bullshit. Just ‘Did it sound alright? Let’s have it.’ It doesn’t matter whether something’s prominent or not prominent. If it sounds good to you as a layman or as a human, take it. Don’t bother whether this is like that or the quality of this. That suits me fine.

This quote is from the aptly titled song Instant Karma which I think could sum up John’s entire musical career. That song is so memorable because of the emotion that John brought to it, you can hear it on the record and this emotion is passed on to the listener in their own unique way.

Your language here strikes me as somewhat imprecise (or, at least, problematic).  You say that music is “equally about the emotion brought to it both from the artists perspective and from the listeners”.  Consider the word “about” in: what music is “about”.  What does this mean?  Are we asking what is the purpose of music?  If so, this seems a rather uninteresting question.  Sometimes music is used for the purpose of selling products, such as in advertising.  Sometimes music is used as a commodity itself, such as when it is sold in record stores.  Sometimes music is created for the sheer purpose of self-expression.  Sometimes music is created for the sheer purpose of self-expression, and then later used as a commodity.  And so forth.  I’m not sure that these are interesting questions.  But I would say that all music that is good qua art (as opposed to good qua entertainment, good qua commodity, etc.) is that which is a form of meaningful self-expression.

In the example you give of the exchange between Lennon and Spector, Spector’s input makes him a part of the work.   In effect, he is part of the band; one of the artists.  

Of course, I didn’t mean to suggest that the emotion of the artist isn’t important for the art: quite the contrary.  Rather, my argument was that the art does not become greater or worse depending upon the emotional reaction of the consumer.    For this reason, if someone says that some work of art is great because it makes them happy, then they would have quite missed the point.  This might speak to the greatness of the work as a commodity or as entertainment, but not as a work of art. 

So I completely disagree that lyrics don’t matter because of how half-heartedly an artist can approach a track if he doesn’t care about the lyrics. The emotion of a song doesn’t come through, and the rest of the band suffers because the energy is not there. A band can have a musical peak, but if the lyrics are crap, which Hey Bulldog ‘s are, then a critical element is lost.

Even if lyrics do affect the emotional performance of the band, this would not mean that the content of the lyrics is important for the music as a work of art.  Lots of things can affect the emotional performance of the band: like the temperature in the room; but it would be strange to say that room temperature is an important factor in judging a work of art. 

Lets talk about the lyrics in Hey Bulldog .  The lyrics serve at least two major functions: (1) serving as a platform for the vocal contribution to the sound (the music); and (2) as a piece of language and verbal communication.  My argument is that only the first function matters for the music as art, while the second function is meaningless in this respect.  We might inquire into the value of the lyrics as a form of verbal communication of ideas or self-expression, but this is simply a different type of art from the musical content. 

Now, in the first respect, the lyrics in Hey Bulldog get the job done.  They are a fine platform for Lennon’s vocals, and so in that respect allow Lennon’s vocal performance to contribute to the sound.  In the second respect, I think that Lennon’s lyrics are very bad.  They are mostly meaningless, and where there is meaning it’s too reminiscent of Lennon’s “wife-beater” songs.  I don’t blame Lennon for this, however, because rockers tend to be really bad writers.  If Lennon had been a poet instead of a musician, then it's safe to say that he would have been a failure as an artist. 

Which would bring me to the song I consider the best OVERALL effort, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds . Starting from the brilliant chord sequence, the song is in 3 different keys, the verses are in A, the bridge is in Bflat I believe, and the chorus is in G. Paul’s opening paints a mysterious picture, and we are soon taken away to a foreign land that probably looks a bit different to everyone, but perhaps bears certain similarities. This is supported by John’s distant voice and mystical lyrics, Paul’s playful “frolicking” bass line and George’s supporting riff during the bridge. Ringo then takes us back to reality for the most basic rock and roll chord progression in the most basic rock and roll time in the chorus. Paul’s range in the chorus is truly remarkable. The Beatles took themselves to a completely unique place musically, I haven’t heard a song that is in any way like that one, and we the listeners are left with endless interpretations.

I think this is a very fair point: sometimes the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.  I also think this is a fine potential counter-example to my theory.  Perhaps a Beatles song can be great even without a characteristically excellent or first-rate performance from one of the members.    

rather than listening and arguing with one guy who claims to know so much more than the rest of us,

But of course, I made no such claim.  Quite unfair. 

no one perspective is right

I can’t agree with this.  It seems to me that two perspectives have been thoroughly debunked during the course of this discussion; viz., that the greatness of a work of art should be judged by its popularity or by its emotional impact on others. 

But in fact, I haven't made any “defamatory statements”.  I've pointed out where I have felt people made various errors in their reasoning, but the fact that this was perceived as personal attacks is just not my fault.  As Kant pointed out, it behooves every person to assume rational conduct on the part of others, and so I was morally obligated to treat everyone here as if they were emotionally mature adults. 

MeanMrMustard posts a few of my arguments and requests, presenting them as insults or personal attacks, when in fact it's really quite obvious that they are nothing of the kind, and are in fact criticisms of various arguments and perspectives.  This is hardly “spewing acid,” it's just basic adult discourse.  But if you would like to see actual examples of “defamatory statements” and “spewing acid,” you need look no further than the hysterical responses to my posts on virtually any page.  For instance, Paulbass's very first post consisted almost entirely of threats and personal attacks, such as: “clown” and “arrogant punk”.  These are not mere criticisms of my arguments (such as I've made), they are outright insults on the very first page. 

Again, I would suggest that you contrast my perfectly civil rebukes of peoples' arguments with the following personal attacks against me in this thread:  “insane and seriously stupid,” “you're scum. Pure, evil scum,” “clown,” “big-headed freak,” “COMPLETELY ignorant,” “The guy is just pathetic and deserves our pity,” “Arrogant bastard,” “jerk,” “bastard,” “ignorant ass,” and so forth.

Those are insults.  That's “spewing acid”. 

Feel free to contrast those comments with my own, where you will notice that I refrained from any personal attacks or insults, instead keeping my criticisms to peoples' arguments and perspectives on art.  For these reasons, I must say: sorry, but I really see no reason at all why I should apologize for anything.  I've done nothing worse than point out what I perceived to be errors in reasoning and bad arguments.  Of course, these are not “insults” or “spewing acid,” it's the foundation of rational and mature conversation. 

Bjway said:

I don't usually get into these big spirited argument things, but I have a couple to say. Anderson you say that popularity (which is based on opinion) does not make a song great. That John's writing and Paul's bass make a great Beatles song and that without at least one of those elements a song is not as great, and that this is true whether the song is popular or not. Yet your belief that a song must have these elements is a matter of opinion or popularity.

The philosopher John Searle introduced the concept of “institutional facts”.  These are facts that are true given a certain framework.  For instance, it's merely a fact — within an accepted framework of logic — that modus ponens is a valid deductive argument.  Is it merely a “matter of opinion” that modus ponens is a valid deductive argument?  Well, someone can deny it.  Someone can refuse to accept the terms involved, or insist upon other terms.  In which case, those of us who accept the framework of logic would either have to try to reason with the person (convince him or her to accept our framework) or ignore them (because if we can't accept this foundation for discussion, communication on the topic is pointless). 

The same thing is going on here.  Is it “merely a matter of opinion” that a great Beatles song must feature a bass line which consists in an excellent form of self-expression from Paul?  Not if we accept a common framework from which to judge such matters.  We can also judge various proposed frameworks, and reason through which frameworks make the most sense (i.e. which framework we ought to accept). 

Through these methods of reasoning, we can come to agreement and mutual understanding regarding things like morality, laws, government, art, and so forth.

Let's say for example (I don't actually think this) that I think the bass in Hey Bulldog is too all over the place and tries to add too much to the song and that this makes a potential great song mediocre. Then by my standard, this song is not a “great” song whether or not it is popular with people like you because Paul tried too hard.

In that case, it could be that we are operating under two different judgmental frameworks.  In order to come to some mutual understanding and agreement, then, we would have to engage in a rational and mature argument, trying to persuade each other to adopt the other's way of thinking.  Otherwise, we would simply be talking past each other or at each other: productive conversation is impossible.  This is similar to conversations in ethics.  For example, when people have some serious dispute over ethics (consider the abortion divide) this is often because the two sides are operating under very different ethical frameworks.  The only way progress can be made is with rational debate and trying to find common ground.  This is no different.  

You state your opinion as if it is a fact and that is why most of us have a problem with you.

This seems more like a fault on your part rather than mine.  But perhaps you can explain what is so offensive and objectionable about believing that one's positions on art are factual.  

Also the idea of just showing up to this board and saying “This is a fact and is true no matter what you say because I say it is” really is not a good impression. At all.

Of course, I said no such thing. 

GniknuS said:

Taken from the artists perspective, the question must be raised as to why an artist creates music in the first place. I am a musician and I don't really know why I go through the trouble of the rather expensive and time consuming process. It's fun I suppose, but even when it's not fun there's something that drives me. Take another step back, why spend the time to even learn an instrument? Most artists that I have heard, including the Beatles, have said their reason was to essentially get laid, but what happens when it gets hard? (sorry, horrible, horrible pun)…What I mean is, what is the reason to continue when it becomes difficult? Certainly girls can't be the answer forever, so is there something innate and unique to an artist that makes him or her continue when success is anything but guaranteed? So when a group such as the Beatles breaks through, there are all of these different pressures both internally and externally. The pressure to be great and push your craft to new levels and the outside pressure of dealing with fans expectations. To me, when both these criteria are met and pushed to a height never before seen, a truly great piece of art can be admired.

I completely agree with nearly everything in this paragraph.  Just to clarify a possible obscurity, when I use the word “self-expression,” I don't just mean that the artist puts his or her emotions, personality, and feelings into the song (although that's a part of it).  Self-expression is also an expression of the artist's skill, talent, or genius.  So when I say an “excellent and creative instance of self-expression,” and you say “pushed to a height never before seen,” I think we're pretty much saying the same thing.  Let me give another example.

After Rubber Soul , Brian Wilson felt motivated to create Pet Sounds in an effort to compete with the Beatles.  The Beatles, in turn, were so blown away by Pet Sounds, that they were motivated to create Sgt. Pepper .  I fully agree that these “external” pressures pushed these great artists to new heights; i.e. it pushed them to excel and express their talent, skill, and genius more fully than ever before. 

And  we might contrast this with the earlier “just wanna get laid” Beatles; despite the obvious talent in the early Beatles, they never really managed a truly great work of art.  They produced some really incredible songs, and displayed skill and talent, but it wasn't until later — when they were really motivated to push themselves as artists — that they really managed more full expressions of their genius. 

So anyway, I think we mostly agree. 

Interesting take on “Penny Lane ,” by the way.  I'll give it a listen later when I have the chance.  I've always thought that song reminded me too much of a TV sitcom theme, like the tune from “Full House” or what have you.  Maybe I missed something interesting.