Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can't find many examples in the UK of this, nor of many US bands of the era, possibly with the Beach Boys as a major exception.

Group singing - yes, some, but not multiple people rotating the 'lead singer' role. There was no 'lead singer' in the Beatles.

Many of the similar merseyside acts of the time were "so-and-so and the foobars" and such. Lead singer name with accompanying band ('rory storm and hurricanes' for example).

Oh, you mean specifically the rotation of lead singers. You might be right on that count but I view that mainly as a by-product of the fact that they would want to sing the songs that they wrote.

Yes, that's what I meant. And this was evident far earlier than them performing many of their own songs. I suspect both John and Paul were simply rather dominant forces in their own way, but it wouldn't really explain allowing George to sing lead as much as he did.

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.

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.

"Now, if they can figure out how a boy band that started out with a following of veritable teenyboppers wound up receiving near-universal adoration, I'll be really impressed."

They were a bit rougher round the edges than your modern boy band, having been playing in 'adult clubs' in Hamburg. Remember the Cavern Club was in Matthew St, not a salubrious district then.

To answer the question: right time, right place, bloody clever manager

> right time, right place, bloody clever manager

So true but I'd like to add: amazingly innovative producer (George Martin) and brilliant engineer (Geoff Emerick).

Without those two guys the Beatles recordings might have been just ordinary.

Interestingly, the fiddling by Capitol Records might have contributed to their success early on (when they weren't destroying the intended album track sequence) - for example I prefer the US mono version of I Want To Hold Your Hand over the English version.

True, and the studio test for polygram did not go well, which says something for Martin and the engineers' contributions.

I happen to be in Liverpool today, and I have just noticed that the Neptune Theatre has reopened as the Epstein Theatre, and that there is a play about Epstein on soon.

http://passingshow.tumblr.com/image/31268518032

Interesting. Thanks, both of you.

And: it'd be kind of awesome if modern boy bands had to pay their dues playing adult clubs, first. Shame that isn't part of their legacy.

Edit: I should add that I think there's something to be said for the idea of hitting that sweet spot of timing where you're not the first to do something, but you also didn't come along after everyone and their dog did it. Executing well just as the relationship between the category and a much wider audience reaches a certain viability. What springs quickly to mind–forgive me that these aren't defended, or if they're just lousy examples I'd retract upon even a little bit of thought–perhaps Facebook, Nokia's early-2000 phones, the iPhone, the iPod, Rock Band, and so on. Not the first in the space, but they executed well enough (often even better than that; I'm not saying all of the above executed only well enough), just as the category was finally becoming mature enough to fan out beyond its original market, with the product even perhaps hastening that expansion by virtue of the quality of execution.

That is to take nothing away from the strength of the product, but the strength of the product also shouldn't take away from the effects of ideal timing. I think many die-hard fans of anything would have a knee-jerk reaction to saying that lucky timing played a big role in that thing's success, but it's probably reality, and should also be OK to say without people assuming you're denigrating the thing in question.

How simpletons try to sound profound. Take something that other people like and ask "I don't get it, why is this so special? Convince me." Do your own homework.

I wasn't trying to sound profound. Had I been, I probably would have said I was "more popular than Jesus."

But, thanks for the feedback, anyway. I've been trying to simplify my life, so being called a simpleton means I must be doing something right.

>Now, if they can figure out how a boy band that started out with a following of veritable teenyboppers wound up receiving near-universal adoration, I'll be really impressed.

Ah, they did figure it out a long time ago - Beatles were writing a good music.

> This is a sincere request: can someone tell me why I should care about this?

You don't have to, no one said that this link is only for CrankyPants to enjoy, or for that matter that HN has to cater to specific interests. It is simple not to care, just close the tab and go on to the next post.

The fact is that many people think the Beatles are pretty cool and love their music, and I'm pretty sure that the kind of demographic that visits HN indeed loves the Beatles. Now you mix their music with the Fourier transform and you got a hacker worthy post, even if the article is a little fluffy. Also even if I am not the greatest fan in the world, the fact that for 50+ years no one has been able to figure out the exact chord arrangement in the song is enough to spark my curiosity. So you know, I don't enjoy every Ask HN post either, but I just move along, there is plenty of content.

The reason I said it was a sincere request is because I honestly wanted people to try to convey why they find the Beatles so compelling. It wasn't a commentary on the degree to which I enjoyed that post, however much I may have carelessly let it look like one. I hope that's clear.

Just the idea that for over half a century a bunch of serious musicians have been trying to exactly duplicate this chord and have been unable to do so perfectly is interesting, yeah. If someone just laid out that premise I'd think it unlikely that it'd be so difficult to duplicate. I get that. Thanks for helping me see that aspect of it a bit more clearly.

What I don't get is why people have been trying for over a half a century to duplicate a chord arrangement. If they said it was for the challenge of it, sort of THX-style, then I get that. But if it's largely because it was played by the Beatles, then that seems a bit strange to me.

Again, thanks.

For what it's worth, their production at the time was innovative even if their music was not so much. Their promotion was also innovative, and the band was careful to continuously popularize the innovations of better musicians, earning an undeserved reputation as innovators themselves.

So, I've never cared for most of their songwriting. A few exceptions, but, for the most part, not so much.

I heard a song of theirs once in the late 90s, and thought, "holy crap, this sounds like it was made 30 years later," in the same chronologically impossible way that some Can "sounds like" some Radiohead.

I haven't even thought about that since then, but your comment reminded me of that, and I think you're onto something. Whether they were ahead of their time production-wise, or just highly influential, could probably be argued to death, but there's no denying that Beck wouldn't sound like Beck were it not for the Beatles.

>Now, if they can figure out how a boy band that started out with a following of veritable teenyboppers wound up receiving near-universal adoration, I'll be really impressed.

Or you could, you know, buy one of the tens of books in the history of the Beatles, the sixties music scene, and their contribution to it. Or ask any musician you consider serious (a jazz guy perhaps?) for the importance of their music.

>This is a sincere request: can someone tell me why I should care about this?

It's a social bookmarking site. The other users cared enough about this to have it upvoted. You do not "have to" care about it. That's not how social bookmarking works.

>If the homeless guy on the corner–sorry, make that two homeless guys, with one on the piano to get that extra bit of dissonance–had been first to play this as people walked by, I can't imagine it would have amounted in much interest, appreciation, acclaim.

If those homeless guys managed afterwards to write several fabulous records and have a big cultural influence on a whole era, then people would be interested in that initial sound too.

In the way people are interested in anecdotes from the early UNIX days of which they could not care less if they happened to some random programmer in the 90s.

Books: Time seems unrelenting enough that I'm not interested in reading tens of books about bands whose music I don't already love. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

I'm related to a serious (professional and quite successful at it) musician, with an incredibly solid background in jazz, and he can't explain why he's so head-over-heels for the Beatles. He's tried, to no end, but it usually goes along the lines of, "they were just so...perfect. Every sound, every little thing, they just had something that nobody else has." Plus all the standard stuff of, "they're incredibly influential!", which thing I don't deny, though I don't find it sufficiently satisfying a response, either. I don't mean to trivialize influence, but influence isn't, by definition, inherently good. For all I know, we'd have better music now if it weren't for them. (The argument for that is easier than it might be for some other influential songwriters, but getting into that isn't my intent.)

Social bookmarking: I asked why I "should," not why I "have to." Important distinction. Mine was an invitation for smart people (which tend to be in longer supply on this site than on many others) who tend to have reasoned tastes to try to explain to me why they're fans. Saying the records are "fabulous" is fine, but: why? Say it's wholly a matter of taste, and I'm OK with that, but then I don't understand why so many Beatles fan act like I'm the antichrist for not being madly in love with their music. It happens pretty often that, in this pop culture, someone expects me to love some Beatles song/Cirque show/something as much as they do, and upon the discovery that I don't, they usually presume that I'm some kind of insane. Which seems odd, if it's all just a matter of taste. But if it isn't, I'd like reasoned answers (and this thread is not without some good contributions).