Podcast: Play in new window | Download
2019’s Danny Boyle rom-cam featuring a Beatles subtext has inspired a lot of discussion among fans this year, given the pretext of a struggling English musician apparently being the only person on Earth who can remember existence of the group. Most of the chatter was about the film itself, but I thought there were even richer discussions to be had, using the film’s core idea as a springboard. The idea for this show was prompted by an article by my guest, Noah Berlatsky (I would encourage listeners to check it out). He forwarded the notion that buying into the film’s premise required universal agreement that 1) The Beatles were the greatest rock band ever and 2) that their music was so great that its inherent genius would be universally recognized no matter who was performing it, and when. We shall see….
There has never been a musically more diverse episode of SATB than this one: in addition to The Fabs, you will be hearing from artists ranging from Chuck Berry and Moon Mullican to R.D. Burman and Rhianna; Dee Dee Sharp and Elvis to Mobley and Nick Drake. Yet it all fits together: what it means to be a successful artist and what are the factors that result in our bestowing the term “genius” upon them.
I thought his article was pretty average and consistent with today’s left-wing academics attitude of disliking people for their success. But….he argues… some obscure musician in Denver is just as talented he argues, he just didn’t get the breaks. Then it was due to racism.. a musician in India was just as talented as the Beatles but was held back by western racism… then he goes to Buddy Holly. He was a genius he argues and if he didn’t die he would have eclipsed the Beatles. On it goes.
All of his arguments overlook one key word-synthesis. The Beatles had passion.. a passion for a variety of artists-Holly, Shirelles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins etc. They were the only ones who could synthesise those uniquely passionate influences into a unique whole.
If they were around today there is no way theBeatles could synthesise Coldplay, U2, rap, hip hop etc into something even remotely as interesting as what the Beatles produced in the 60s. This writer dislikes theBeatles for their success. Anyone could do it.. yeah, right.
I agree, this writers examples are quite literally ludicrous. The Beatles did not arrive fully formed in 1964, And then get dumped into some lets make white people famous media of the time .From Liverpool are you kidding! It comes down to this in my mind , they had the two best songwriters in the history of song and eventually a third songwriter who equalled them. Plus the two of the BEST singers in Rock N Roll history. Plus a fourth , who was the drummer who was the pefect foil as a percussionist and personality. Yes it was right time right place big time but the Beatles grabbed that and took it to the stratosphere with talent! ELVIS is the perfect anti example he was enormous but he did not have the songwriting ability at all or the vision, he was used till he dropped. Really this writer does not get it at all, he is entitled to his opinion …
Oh yeah, I agree!!
It was a well-written article and did a nice job to provoke and challenge … and I understand not everyone can love the Beatle’s music and sure he seems like a good guy and made a good guest… but part of me feels we need to report him to the Beatles-Police and have him hauled off to Beatle re-Education Camp.
I thought his article was pretty average and consistent with today’s left-wing academics attitude of disliking people for their success. But….he argues… some obscure musician in Denver is just as talented he argues, he just didn’t get the breaks. Then it was due to racism.. a musician in India was just as talented as the Beatles but was held back by western racism… then he goes to Buddy Holly. He was a genius he argues and if he didn’t die he would have eclipsed the Beatles. On it goes.
All of his arguments overlook one key word-synthesis. The Beatles had passion.. a passion for a variety of artists-Holly, Shirelles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins etc. They were the only ones who could synthesise those uniquely passionate influences into a unique whole.
If they were around today there is no way theBeatles could synthesise Coldplay, U2, rap, hip hop etc into something even remotely as interesting as what the Beatles produced in the 60s. This writer dislikes theBeatles for their success. Anyone could do it.. yeah, right.
I agree, this writers examples are quite literally ludicrous. The Beatles did not arrive fully formed in 1964, And then get dumped into some lets make white people famous media of the time .From Liverpool are you kidding! It comes down to this in my mind , they had the two best songwriters in the history of song and eventually a third songwriter who equalled them. Plus the two of the BEST singers in Rock N Roll history. Plus a fourth , who was the drummer who was the pefect foil as a percussionist and personality. Yes it was right time right place big time but the Beatles grabbed that and took it to the stratosphere with talent! ELVIS is the perfect anti example he was enormous but he did not have the songwriting ability at all or the vision, he was used till he dropped. Really this writer does not get it at all, he is entitled to his opinion …
Oh yeah, I agree!!
It was a well-written article and did a nice job to provoke and challenge … and I understand not everyone can love the Beatle’s music and sure he seems like a good guy and made a good guest… but part of me feels we need to report him to the Beatles-Police and have him hauled off to Beatle re-Education Camp.
Ps: speaking of examples….that Rhianna song was endless, along with whoever was singing with her, was that supposed to prove she should have been the biggest superstar ever or something? Really…academic drivel…
The male singer’s name is Paul McCartney.
Ha! You got me ! Still didn’t help much to get through the song for me but love your podcasts!
“FourFiveSeconds” is an interesting beast, isn’t it? I’m guessing that recording you played is from a McCartney show circa 2015? The original recording is quite amazingly simple in its arrangement (hard to fathom why the song had TEN songwriters). I think it’s OK, I’m not exactly sure what McCartney had to do with it. Maybe the stripped down arrangement was his idea.
By the way, that leads to another possible subject for discussion. Has Macca’s various collaborations been fruitful? Are they commercial moves? In this particular case I believe that Kanye West actually respects McCartney, and Paul would be foolish not to work with him at this stage of the game. How does that compare to his work with Michael Jackson in the 80’s? (“Say Say Say” was McCartney’s last trip to number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.) How about Elvis Costello from 1988-1990 or so? Being a Costello fan, I always thought they should have put out an album all to themselves (titled “Macca and MacManus”, natch) instead of spreading the songs around their respective albums, as the various demos of the two of them performing that material together are amazing.
Once again, food for thought. Love the podcasts.
Ps: speaking of examples….that Rhianna song was endless, along with whoever was singing with her, was that supposed to prove she should have been the biggest superstar ever or something? Really…academic drivel…
The male singer’s name is Paul McCartney.
Ha! You got me ! Still didn’t help much to get through the song for me but love your podcasts!
“FourFiveSeconds” is an interesting beast, isn’t it? I’m guessing that recording you played is from a McCartney show circa 2015? The original recording is quite amazingly simple in its arrangement (hard to fathom why the song had TEN songwriters). I think it’s OK, I’m not exactly sure what McCartney had to do with it. Maybe the stripped down arrangement was his idea.
By the way, that leads to another possible subject for discussion. Has Macca’s various collaborations been fruitful? Are they commercial moves? In this particular case I believe that Kanye West actually respects McCartney, and Paul would be foolish not to work with him at this stage of the game. How does that compare to his work with Michael Jackson in the 80’s? (“Say Say Say” was McCartney’s last trip to number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100.) How about Elvis Costello from 1988-1990 or so? Being a Costello fan, I always thought they should have put out an album all to themselves (titled “Macca and MacManus”, natch) instead of spreading the songs around their respective albums, as the various demos of the two of them performing that material together are amazing.
Once again, food for thought. Love the podcasts.
Just read the above comments & now I won’t b listening. Don’t know how old the writer- interviewee- Noah is, but I was 8 years old in Dec 1963 when I first heard the Beatles. It was them & no one else could have done what they did (as much as I love Buddy). The looks, personality, best songwriters ever, singers, cool guitars & Vox Amps. They were no ones puppets.
I’ve never seen the point of publicly proclaiming one’s ignorance. You are moved to leave a comment announcing that you haven’t yourself listened to the conversation in question.
Your opinion is therefore supposed to matter to me? If you’re going to leave a comment, know what you’re talking about.
Oh yeah, I agree!!
It was a well-written article and did a nice job to provoke and challenge … and I understand not everyone can love the Beatle’s music and sure he seems like a good guy and made a good guest… but part of me feels we need to report him to the Beatles-Police and have him hauled off to Beatle re-Education Camp.
Just read the above comments & now I won’t b listening. Don’t know how old the writer- interviewee- Noah is, but I was 8 years old in Dec 1963 when I first heard the Beatles. It was them & no one else could have done what they did (as much as I love Buddy). The looks, personality, best songwriters ever, singers, cool guitars & Vox Amps. They were no ones puppets.
I’ve never seen the point of publicly proclaiming one’s ignorance. You are moved to leave a comment announcing that you haven’t yourself listened to the conversation in question.
Your opinion is therefore supposed to matter to me? If you’re going to leave a comment, know what you’re talking about.
Oh yeah, I agree!!
It was a well-written article and did a nice job to provoke and challenge … and I understand not everyone can love the Beatle’s music and sure he seems like a good guy and made a good guest… but part of me feels we need to report him to the Beatles-Police and have him hauled off to Beatle re-Education Camp.
I am excited to listen. Obviously all of the comments above discuss the article, but not the show. So I am looking forward to engaging!
Absolutely , listen ,this is a great show in a long line of them! My previous comments must have been misconsrued or they should not be misconstrued. I simply disagreed with the guests point but it is a great episode.
My favourite bit of the interview was after hearing him say the word “like” 629 times in the interview (I counted it..,I am joking) he started talking about his worldly & wise son. “He’s 15” Bertlasky says as if he is a child prodigy cause he listens to prog rock! Wow! It’s highly produced you know! Double wow!
The best bit was this and he only mentioned “like” twice in two sentences. “We played him Sgt Peppers and he could not have been LIKE more disgusted. He was LIKE this is complete crap.” Ok then. The child prodigy of 15 has spoken. Sgt Peppers is clearly “crap”. The evidence is in. Prog rock is the future.
The bottom line is the songs were incredible and if someone else had written them they would’ve had a lot of success. In my mind the only person they could’ve easily made this movie about would be Dylan. Because of his unique singing style his songs were covered by many many artists probably even more than the Beatles songs were.
The bottom line is the songs were incredible and if someone else had written them they would’ve had a lot of success. In my mind the only person they could’ve easily made this movie about would be Dylan. Because of his unique singing style his songs were covered by many many artists probably even more than the Beatles songs were.
I don’t really think a 15 year old in today’s world has been around long enough to fully appreciate what good music really is. When my daughter was that age she thought NSYNC was much better than the Beatles. Of course now she knows mush better and I tease her about it.
While I agree there is an element of being at the right place at the right time, the fact of the matter is that the Beatles were supremely talented and prolific individuals. And while there are talented artists today there are not 4 of them working together to create timeless music.
I don’t really think a 15 year old in today’s world has been around long enough to fully appreciate what good music really is. When my daughter was that age she thought NSYNC was much better than the Beatles. Of course now she knows mush better and I tease her about it.
While I agree there is an element of being at the right place at the right time, the fact of the matter is that the Beatles were supremely talented and prolific individuals. And while there are talented artists today there are not 4 of them working together to create timeless music.
Not the best guest I’ve heard on this show, disagreed with much of what he said about any number of overlooked musicians could’ve easily had the same success of The Beatles had they the same exposure and advantages. The musicians he initially cited as examples of this didn’t seem very interesting or had anything outstanding about them. Overall kind of a bummer of an episode all around.
Not the best guest I’ve heard on this show, disagreed with much of what he said about any number of overlooked musicians could’ve easily had the same success of The Beatles had they the same exposure and advantages. The musicians he initially cited as examples of this didn’t seem very interesting or had anything outstanding about them. Overall kind of a bummer of an episode all around.
Berlatsky is one of the worst writers around. He’s basically a grifter who’s somehow conned one website after another into running one empty-headed “hot take” after another. His method is to take a simple contrarian take — something along the lines of “Ice cream tastes bad” — and gild it with vaguely woke language, so that he can get suitably self-righteous with anyone who objects to the stupidity of his argument. Speed the day when he finally gives up his “writing” career and gets a job as a plumber.
Excellently put J.D. A “grifter”… that is a good phrase for him.
This is common in today’s journalist class of attempting to remove the magic of people that are inspiring and making them appear ordinary… just like him. There are no cultural geniuses for him-Beethoven “barely above average”. Newton “overrated”, Renoir “bourgeois rubbish” and on he would probably go.
This article speaks more about his contempt for cultural leaders than anything else.
Berlatsky is one of the worst writers around. He’s basically a grifter who’s somehow conned one website after another into running one empty-headed “hot take” after another. His method is to take a simple contrarian take — something along the lines of “Ice cream tastes bad” — and gild it with vaguely woke language, so that he can get suitably self-righteous with anyone who objects to the stupidity of his argument. Speed the day when he finally gives up his “writing” career and gets a job as a plumber.
Excellently put J.D. A “grifter”… that is a good phrase for him.
This is common in today’s journalist class of attempting to remove the magic of people that are inspiring and making them appear ordinary… just like him. There are no cultural geniuses for him-Beethoven “barely above average”. Newton “overrated”, Renoir “bourgeois rubbish” and on he would probably go.
This article speaks more about his contempt for cultural leaders than anything else.
Really well put together as always! Thanks Robert!
I want everyone listen to this podcast to realize what a laughable, hipster shmuck this guy truly is. It’s always funny to me how people who clearly already don’t like the Beatles (and probably would’ve been contrarians at the time they were around) for one reason or another need to feel smart about not liking them. By the end of it he finally admits that he doesn’t even like the songs that enabled the character in Yesterday to become popular, completely invalidating his entire thesis. Most laughably, he doesn’t like the song “Yesterday”…it was an unraveling of pseudo-intelligent nonsense at its finest.
Really well put together as always! Thanks Robert!
I want everyone listen to this podcast to realize what a laughable, hipster shmuck this guy truly is. It’s always funny to me how people who clearly already don’t like the Beatles (and probably would’ve been contrarians at the time they were around) for one reason or another need to feel smart about not liking them. By the end of it he finally admits that he doesn’t even like the songs that enabled the character in Yesterday to become popular, completely invalidating his entire thesis. Most laughably, he doesn’t like the song “Yesterday”…it was an unraveling of pseudo-intelligent nonsense at its finest.
So it seems had the Beatles never existed and Bob Dylan or Kanye West, instad, had jammed out the melody to Strawberry Fields or Yesturday, they might have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. No, I think they would have shrieked with joy.
The study on popularity breeding more popularity, like a feedback loop, should also apply to all the other artists your guest mentioned who were able to achieve some level of success. But it didn’t. And that’s for a reason. Racism might be part of the reason. But lack of Beatle talent was another.
Luck and timing are necessary conditions for any artist, but we shouldn’t forget that the Beatle’s sheer talent overcame what was once thought as insurmountable bad luck and bad timing: being an English band during American Rock and Roll era – and being a Liverpool one at that, with funny accents!
ALso, as Robert (I think) briefly suggested, the definition of genius and “truly great music” might change over time depending on what society values. Beautiful melodies, energy, wit, catchiness and innovation — the ingredients that most will agree are key to great music — the Beatles were masters of that. Had critics valued roots, or lyrics more, maybe Leonard Cohen or Dylan would have topped the Beatles in acclaim. But I suspect, if that had been the case, the Beatles would have made more In my Life’s and Yesterdays and focussed less on pop songs and rock.
Also, its strawman and unfair and just so cheap to have the Beatles as they were in 1969 or 1964 compete with music today — because all the sounds we hear today evolved from so much that the Beatles set in motion. So how are they to compete with themselves and all that they spawned? But, instead, lets be more fair and teleport the talent and energy and ambition of the 4 Beatles to today and let them absorb the innovations and growth of the last decades — and I’d bet you that all those Beatles songs would have been reimagined by that four-headed monster until they were unimaginable and more powerful than ever thanks to all the new influences to absorb. Maybe George would be studying beats instead of sitar, maybe Paul would be doing a bit of rap instead of Little Richard screaming, and then there’d still be those inspired melodies to work with (there’s a reason why sober music scholars in universities are studying those melodies today and being blown away academically). Yes, the Beatles wouldn’t sound at all like what’s on the radio right now, as your guest argues so dismissively — but it would be because they were surpassing it, innovating and laying new trends, as they did back in their day.
The talent, drive and synergy of those four were a force of nature, probably a divine force. What they had was, for a few short years, something malleable to the times and able to overcome bad luck and bad timing, and also able to capitalize on opportunities like no one else ever did. Nothing can compare to it. What they had for those few years was pure spooky.
The primary sin of the Beatles was sharing the same gender and skin tone as this author Noah. White guilt is a bad look.
So it seems had the Beatles never existed and Bob Dylan or Kanye West, instad, had jammed out the melody to Strawberry Fields or Yesturday, they might have shrugged their shoulders and moved on. No, I think they would have shrieked with joy.
The study on popularity breeding more popularity, like a feedback loop, should also apply to all the other artists your guest mentioned who were able to achieve some level of success. But it didn’t. And that’s for a reason. Racism might be part of the reason. But lack of Beatle talent was another.
Luck and timing are necessary conditions for any artist, but we shouldn’t forget that the Beatle’s sheer talent overcame what was once thought as insurmountable bad luck and bad timing: being an English band during American Rock and Roll era – and being a Liverpool one at that, with funny accents!
ALso, as Robert (I think) briefly suggested, the definition of genius and “truly great music” might change over time depending on what society values. Beautiful melodies, energy, wit, catchiness and innovation — the ingredients that most will agree are key to great music — the Beatles were masters of that. Had critics valued roots, or lyrics more, maybe Leonard Cohen or Dylan would have topped the Beatles in acclaim. But I suspect, if that had been the case, the Beatles would have made more In my Life’s and Yesterdays and focussed less on pop songs and rock.
Also, its strawman and unfair and just so cheap to have the Beatles as they were in 1969 or 1964 compete with music today — because all the sounds we hear today evolved from so much that the Beatles set in motion. So how are they to compete with themselves and all that they spawned? But, instead, lets be more fair and teleport the talent and energy and ambition of the 4 Beatles to today and let them absorb the innovations and growth of the last decades — and I’d bet you that all those Beatles songs would have been reimagined by that four-headed monster until they were unimaginable and more powerful than ever thanks to all the new influences to absorb. Maybe George would be studying beats instead of sitar, maybe Paul would be doing a bit of rap instead of Little Richard screaming, and then there’d still be those inspired melodies to work with (there’s a reason why sober music scholars in universities are studying those melodies today and being blown away academically). Yes, the Beatles wouldn’t sound at all like what’s on the radio right now, as your guest argues so dismissively — but it would be because they were surpassing it, innovating and laying new trends, as they did back in their day.
The talent, drive and synergy of those four were a force of nature, probably a divine force. What they had was, for a few short years, something malleable to the times and able to overcome bad luck and bad timing, and also able to capitalize on opportunities like no one else ever did. Nothing can compare to it. What they had for those few years was pure spooky.
Steam — being there, for the start at that age and growing up with their music evolving year by year… you are so lucky. (sorry I didn’t mean to reply to you earlier but to another person)
Steam — being there, for the start at that age and growing up with their music evolving year by year… you are so lucky. (sorry I didn’t mean to reply to you earlier but to another person)
Sometimes when we are white males like Noah and we see injustice in the world, we feel we have to “do something.” Sometimes we want revolution and to save the oppressed around the world, but sometimes we do not have access to Trump or Bezos. Instead, we do what we can in our space. In our minds, we may believe that engaging in a cultural purge will bring about revolution and justice. Unfortunately, it is only a proxy revolution; the prisons remain full, the imperialist wars continue, the rich get richer, despite our best efforts to re-educate the old-timers on their cherished idols like the Beatles. But sometimes when we are white saviors like Noah, we may get lucky and study history, and we see how our attempts at cultural purges turn on not only us, but also the oppressed we are trying to save. Just ask China. Also, clickbait, emotionally charged pieces that white saviors like Noah compose produce high web traffic and are quite profitable, and are therefore quite capitalist. It’s a paradox.
Looks like Noah is prone to composing clickbait, emotionally charged pieces that produce high web traffic and therefore high profit for corporate media outlets such as the Guardian. Don’t take this clown seriously. Remember, Noah, be careful when you play white savior and try to institute a cultural purge. Those purges will not only turn on you, but also the oppressed you are trying to save. Just ask China.
I think Mike has put it very well in his Dec 17 comments – and especially the point that The Beatles influence pervades everything that came afterwards, and not just the music itself but also the popular music industry and the people listening to it. It seems a little ironic that one of the guest’s key mistakes is that he seems to consider The Beatles as “just another band that that made it very, very big” – a fallacious understatement uttered by a Mr John Lennon in his infamous 1971 rant. The Beatles were so much more…why else are we still discussing them (as well as listening to them) 50 years on?
Sorry I’m late to this, I rediscovered The Beatles after watching Yesterday a year ago last summer. I’m thankful the movie reignited that interest in me and I’ve been devouring as many books, podcasts, etc., about The Beatles as time allows. I enjoy SATB very much and I feel fortunate RR puts so much effort into producing it. I’m particularly excited that other Beatle podcasts are by younger fans who got the bug after watching Anthology on TV in 1995.
Anyway, the guest on this episode seemed unaware or ignorant of the time – hours, days, weeks, months, years – the Beatles spent improving their playing in Hamburg and all over the UK before Beatlemania exploded. I get the impression he is aware of some of their important milestones, yet I also get the impression he considered them a prepackaged boy band. It seems reasonable to assume his 15-year old son got some prompting before listening to Sgt. Pepper’s for the first time.
As others have pointed out, the trend of the ‘contrarian hot take’ has become easier to spot and call out, and hopefully that trend is about to end.
I think Mike has put it very well in his Dec 17 comments – and especially the point that The Beatles influence pervades everything that came afterwards, and not just the music itself but also the popular music industry and the people listening to it. It seems a little ironic that one of the guest’s key mistakes is that he seems to consider The Beatles as “just another band that that made it very, very big” – a fallacious understatement uttered by a Mr John Lennon in his infamous 1971 rant. The Beatles were so much more…why else are we still discussing them (as well as listening to them) 50 years on?
Sorry I’m late to this, I rediscovered The Beatles after watching Yesterday a year ago last summer. I’m thankful the movie reignited that interest in me and I’ve been devouring as many books, podcasts, etc., about The Beatles as time allows. I enjoy SATB very much and I feel fortunate RR puts so much effort into producing it. I’m particularly excited that other Beatle podcasts are by younger fans who got the bug after watching Anthology on TV in 1995.
Anyway, the guest on this episode seemed unaware or ignorant of the time – hours, days, weeks, months, years – the Beatles spent improving their playing in Hamburg and all over the UK before Beatlemania exploded. I get the impression he is aware of some of their important milestones, yet I also get the impression he considered them a prepackaged boy band. It seems reasonable to assume his 15-year old son got some prompting before listening to Sgt. Pepper’s for the first time.
As others have pointed out, the trend of the ‘contrarian hot take’ has become easier to spot and call out, and hopefully that trend is about to end.