The Mystery Tour

By Paul Flower on Sep 11, 09 11:56 AM

I was intending to avoid writing about The Beatles, but this week it would appear that they're very hard to avoid. In some respects this should probably make us sad, the fact that we're still talking about a band who split up almost forty years ago, but it also gives us an opportunity to reappraise them.

I am no Beatles aficionado, I am unaware of the minutiae around their existence, break-up and recording sessions. Indeed - as a perfect example of this - until watching a BBC documentary earlier this week I had no idea that the album Abbey Road was recorded after Let It Be. They were, of course, released the other way around.

The one outstanding thing about The Beatles, for me at least, is something that has always amazed me dating back to my earliest interest in music (let's call that 30 years). In fact it's two outstanding things - their progression and their productivity. They are two things that seem to remain un-matched throughout popular music.

I would like you to read the next sentence slowly, in fact read it twice and take it in. The Beatles released twelve original studio albums, thirteen EPs, and twenty-two singles (mainly featuring original music not found on their albums) in just eight years between 1962 and 1970.

Even discounting the singles/Eps (which would be foolish), twelve albums - one of which was a double - in eight years is an incredible bout of productivity. It goes from incredible to unbelievable when you think about the musical progression that the band undertook.

Let's say we were to discount the four albums released in 63/64 because they contain a lot of cover versions and are heavily influenced by the rock n' roll/r 'n' b that the band grew up with. Starting with Help, released in August 1965, the band started to become a truly original songwriting and performing powerhouse. Within four months they'd released Rubber Soul, a truly great album, and some eight months later came Revolver.

I accept that the social and economic and cultural and whatever conditions may have been different in those times and there may be sound commercial reasons why bands don't release material in such short bursts these days, but even given those thoughts how many bands do you think are capable of it?

It could be competently argued that the volatility of the marketplace, the fickle nature of fans and the nervousness of record labels might have prevented many artists from making the transition from simple pop band to heavyweight rock stars. I have argued this point repeatedly in the past, but currently I'm moving towards the belief that very few would actually have had the ability. Love Me Do to Strawberry Fields in five years?

In the interests of making this a scientific process, or as scientific as I'm capable of, let's try some comparisons. I love Radiohead. I probably like Radiohead a lot more than I like The Beatles and, you might say, that they made huge leaps in style going from Pablo Honey to The Bends to OK Computer. In cultural terms you could say they might be the closest but with only 7 albums released in 14 years, they're positively slack. Even if we contemplate halving The Beatles output so that we take two of their albums for every one of Radiohead it would mean that Radiohead should have been capable of Sgt Pepper at the time they were releasing Kid A and 'The White Album' by the time of Amnesiac. I'll leave that thought with you.

In terms of actual progression though perhaps a fairer comparison is to a pop band with longevity, The Beatles were very teen-friendly-pop when they started recording. In that instance maybe the closest comparison should be to someone like Take That? Yes, I'm partly doing this to amuse myself but after five studio albums do we think that Take That's next release will be as good as Rubber Soul? Or if we apply the same two for one process it would mean that Take That would have to release the equivalent of Abbey Road or Let It Be next. I'm no Derren Brown but I can assure you that this aint gonna happen.

I'm not trying to compare vastly different musical styles - if I could do that I'd be judging the Mercury Music Prize - just making a point about how the music industry has changed, not for the better. You can try it with any artist you like (I chose a few at random and it's an amusing way to spend 30 minutes if you're that way inclined), and maybe only Bob Dylan bore any comparison. If you find others I'm happy to hear of them.

So, if anyone asks you why The Beatles were important. I guess you send them here.

Here every week
Randomly here and there