The Beatles, 1962-1966 (1973)

Where bought? I didn't buy this. I came into possession of it in my teenage years along with a number of 7" records. I think they used to belong to my mum, though I don't particularly associate this record with her as much as I do the David Bowie and ABBA 7" records I came into ownership of.

Do I like the Beatles? Yes. Absolutely. They were fine tunesmiths and generous of wit and melody. Though their image was carefully managed and crafted, they seemed like a decent bunch of guys who developed a restless thirst to develop from being a straight-up beat group to something much more interesting - without disappearing into indulgence or self-parody.

Three slight problems dog my loving the Beatles as opposed to liking them and thinking them pretty spiffy in parts: i. I grew up in the North West at the time of Oasis, which led to several Beatles revivals and reissues and reappreciations (trips to the Beatles Museum in Liverpool, etc.) ii. I now live in Liverpool, which at times can feel like a mausoleum dedicated to the band and iii. the early stuff isn't markedly better than several peers. 

As such this earlier years compilation has nearly a side-and-a-half of material that I've heard so many times that I fail to generate much enthusiasm. 'All My Loving' may as well be Cliff Richard and the Shadows to me; ice cream chords, sweet sentiments, nice playing, and so what.

Midway through Side B we hit 1964 and there's a great expanded focus to the songwriting that comes in increments: 'A Hard Day's Night' is not entirely dissimilar to the material on Side A, except that glorious opening chord, the post-chorus/bridge, and the textural use of voices makes it sound like they've begun to figure out how to push things further along. Then they strip nearly everything out of 'And I Love Her' but a gentle Latin flavour, allowing the voices to make the sentiment feel more authentic than the chart-botherers singing similarly sweet nothings.

Once we hit 'I Feel Fine' there's an unbroken run of 15 great songs (not quite to the end of the record, which finishes with 'Yellow Submarine'). Only one of them - 'Ticket to Ride' - is north of 3 minutes (by eleven seconds). All of them deliver something new to the pop equation with a laser focus.

Recently I've read and re-read the Italian critic Piero Scaruffi's opinion on the Beatles, which is surely one of the most hostile anywhere in print. It takes aim as much as rock and roll criticism as much as the band itself, and is worth a read just as a counterpoint to the historical project of Beatles worship:

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics, instead, are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers.

So far, I have to agree. Even the contemporary outlets such as Pitchfork and Rolling Stone which count knowledgable historians amongst their contributors continue to play the game of pop/rock music and celebrity. 

 
But you also sense that Scaruffi is holding his dagger behind his back here: yes, rock critics have historically been a weak bunch, but why are you saying this here?: 

The convergence between Western polyphony (melody, several parts of vocal harmony and instrumental arrangements) and African percussion - the leitmotif of US music from its inception - was legitimized in Europe by the huge success of the Merseybeat, in particular by its best sellers [...] in such a fashion, they rendered it accessible not only to the young rebels, but to all. Mediocre musicians, and even more mediocre intellectuals, bands like the Beatles had the intuition of the circus performer who knows how to amuse the peasants after a hard day's work, an intuition applied to the era of mass distribution of consumer goods.

Every one of their songs and every one of their albums followed much more striking songs and albums by others, but instead of simply imitating them, the Beatles adapted them to a bourgeois, conformist and orthodox dimension. The same process was applied to the philosophy of the time, from the protests on college campuses to Dylan's pacifism, psychedelic drugs, or Eastern religion. Their vehicle was melody, a universal code of sorts, that declared their music innocuous. Naturally others performed the same operation, and many (from the Kinks to the Hollies, from the Beach Boys to the Mamas and Papas) produced melodies even more memorable, yet the Beatles arrived at the right moment and theirs would remain the trademark of the melodic song of the second half of the twentieth century.

Their ascent was branded as "Beatlemania", a phenomenon of mass hysteria launched in 1963 that marked the height of the "teen idol" of the late 1950s, an extension of the myths of Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. From that moment on, no matter what they put together, the Beatles remained the center of the media's attention.

It's a rather harsh and myopic piece that does nonetheless contain a few brutal truths. I'm of the opinion that i. marketing and good timing can only get you so far ii. copying things is harder than you'd think, especially when you consider the breadth of material that the Beatles produced iii. so why does this still mean so much to so many people. I'd recommend you read the whole thing.

Anyway, I played this through in full and even if all the above (and in the article) is true, I still liked it a lot once we got out of the nascent beat group days. A keeper.