Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey

A reporter on the all-news/talk radio station in D.C. reported that December 8th marked the 25th Anniversary of John Lennon's death. Part of his report was that, " Lennon, member of the Beatles---arguably one of the most influential musicians in the 20th century..."

STOP

Huh?

Does he mean that they were influential musicians, or, that they were one of the most influential groups on music of the 20th Century?

There is a difference.

Why do so many people confuse "popular" with "influential?" The two are not necessarily the same. The Beatles were absolutely influential on American culture, and yes, music is one part of cultural identity, but that's reverse logic and misses the point. What I'm getting at is that to qualify as one of the most influential musicians of a given time period you must be more than just really really popular.

I'm not naive. Certainly over the course of the 1960s they branched out and really challenged the ear of the popular music listener so that some of what they produced was very "sophisticated" [out-there, or revolutionary, however you want to take that] at least for popular tastes. Regardless of its level of "sophistication", though, people are still humming every track of the Sgt. Pepper album, so much so that "catchy" doesn't do it justice. However, the reporter wasn't implying that John Lennon was one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century, although I would argue that he was more so than the group was, the reporter was stating, and almost as an ad lib, like, hey everyone knows this but, "the Beatles were arguably one of the most influential musicians of the 20th century."

I must, however, separate their cultural influence from their musical influence. The first overshadows the second to such an extent it's sometimes hard to historically put into context what brilliant musicians the Beatles were. Richie Unterberger does it well, though, when he writes:

"....[The Beatles] synthesized all that was good about early rock & roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting. They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed its own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral. As singers, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive vocalists in rock; the group's harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements. They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon."

Even some of that paragraph points to their pioneering work as media giants as much as it does their musical contributions.

Let's also not forget that were it not for Astrid Kircherr, a groupie, suggesting their trademark haircuts, or Brian Epstein, their manager, for polishing them up with suits and ties and holding them together until his tragic death, or, Ed Sullivan who put them on T.V., or, producer, George Martin, for turning core Beatle ideas into masterpieces of music. ( Martin deserves more than just some credit for their overall and eventual musical influence.) But how about simply the fact that throughout their career, their commercial success was number one and their exploration of musical frontiers was second? (For example: Even with all that success they still felt compelled to make a completely random film: Magical Mystery Tour.)

I guess that's the way it is in the music business, in reality, you only get to do what you really really want to do when you've reached a phenomenal amount of commercial success. So given the chance to stop touring and retreat to the studio what they produced was, at times, more than brilliant than ever before. But what launched the Beatles was not just their amazing knack for a sing along melody, but their brilliant use of 20th century technology to sell their image. In this way, the Beatles absolutely influenced music of the 20th century, and beyond, as it's impossible to argue that some musicians today get to the top of the charts with musical talent alone. (Read:Brittany Spears.) The Beatles are hardly the Anna Kournikova of music though. The dudes can perform, they can write, make no mistake, but their image evolves into an icon of culture and cultural identity and it almost completely overshadows their pure influence on music of the 20th Century.

Were the lessons of the Beatles to the Stones or the Byrds really about music or marketing?

The Beatles were definitely well marketed, using television and film to further their image, and unfortunately that always keeps their music second in terms of influence. Was "All You Need is Love" popular for pushing musical boundaries or because it spoke to the cultural identity of a generation in one exquisite phrase? In the mid-1960s, the enormous popularity of the Beatles actually ends their live performing, as touring becomes very tiresome with fans cheering so obsessively that it drowns out the singing. Then, when they finally retreat to the studio, sure to write some of their best stuff, well, yes with all of their success they earned the right to experiment, they had finally gotten the commercial monkey off their back, but as much as I love "Yellow Submarine", and I do, that's the best that can be said of 1966. So, musically the were starting to venture away from their early rock influences that laid the foundation of their first hits, but they still got plenty of headlines, especially after Lennon remarked about their place in relation to Jesus. oops. Were their headlines mostly about the music? No. Their image consistently took over their music for headlines. Unfortunate, but true.

I contest that the shape of 20th century music was influenced infinitely more by so many others. So much so, that I'm not even sure that the Beatles make the top ten.....maybe. Just because something is popular...such as the Beatles were...and the coined term Beatlemania explains it all (I just checked and there were 447,000 hits on Google for Beatlemania)...they were popular because the music they played was, especially early on, catchy, and catchy just doesn't fit the bill when in comes to changing the course of music as we know it. Changing the course of how we perceive musicians, maybe. Changing the course of the Beach Boy's careers, maybe. Changing popular culture, one that elevates celebrities to an unhealthy level, definitely. Overall influence on 20th century music and music of the 21st? Survey says?.... "Ennnnn".

Popular music has always been "catchy", hence what makes it popular. The Beatles performed music that was upbeat and hummable. They did a great job of drawing on their musical influences (early rock and Motown) to write original material as well as juice up some R&B songs and it certainly caught on quickly. One could easily remember the refrain.... "She loves you ya, ya ,ya." But was it the music that really drew us in, or was it the image? By definition, a popular song includes a refrain that repeats and, if it's any good, people remember it. Great job, Beatles, but please thank Steve for launching that one. "I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee."

Of course now we're talking about a whole different century...Foster died about 100 years before the Beatles landed in America. And Foster's songs are not P.C. But I digress.

My main objection to heralding the Beatles' influence on music is that they actually did more to launch the other elements of modern day celebrity. They sold their image as well (read: hair) and that is what made them morph from musicians to cultural icons. Would the Beatles have been as popular without T.V? Doubtful. So consider their cultural influence as how they made their mark on our memories, but as far as their mark on music; it's there, but somewhere on the list, and lower than most people would say, I think. That's unfortunate in a way because, as I stated earlier, they really are a darn good bunch of musicians. They did have more than just "some" influence on music. But, again, it's hard to separate music from culture. However, let's briefly eliminate the POP part of popular music.

(Okay, so, the man did say, arguably, after all, and I am arguing)...here's my partial list....

I would give the 20th Century nod (in no particular order) to John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Cole Porter, Louis Armstrong, Frank Sinatra, Mahalia Jackson, George and Ira Gershwin, Scott Joplin, heck even Elvis, Madonna and Curt Cobane (and these folks especially were image sellers, too) before I gave a thought to the Beatles. And that's just popular music, what about Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, John Cage, and Phillip Glass and their influence on 20th Century music? Being a popular musical group doesn't mean that you necessarily changed the direction of music which the other people I listed most certainly did. (You may be thinking, well even Sergei advertised with Victor Talking Machine Company (RCA Victor)... but was he trying to sell his music or his image along with it?)

Beatles, I love you, you wrote hit after hit after hit, and I can sing right along with you, but I can't give you the nod for the most influential musicians of the 20th century. You are on the list, no doubt, just a lot further down, okay? TIME gives you the nod, though, and more individuals read TIME than my blog, so well, score one for the Beatles! *wink*