The Beatles Comedy

”Rabbi Winkler wrote: The Zohar says “There is no wisdom as wholesome as that wisdom that comes out of silliness. Never stay up on the barren heights of cleverness, but come down into the green valleys of silliness.”

What they did best was nuttyness, a distinction without a difference perhaps. I have seen Yellow Submarine (in the theater at the time of its release so I don’t remember all that much!). I remember an early “music video” in which The Beatles are playing leapfrog over a well-dressed gentleman leaning over something on the sidewalk. It has no particular meaning but it’s amusing as is their capering on an anonymous beach in striped vintage bathing dress. These had nothing whatsoever to do with the songs. But you watch it and you enjoy their enjoyment of what they are doing.

I have to suppose that outside of The Beatles’ natural style of wisecracking, the style of physical comedy demonstrated in the clips and movies may have been more the idea of Sir George Martin then anyone else. Martin was the head of the Parlophone record label who offered The Beatles a recording contract after they had been turned down by just about everyone else. Although he was a trained musician (piano, oboe), he went to work for EMI record company, where he recorded such comedians as Peter Sellers and Spike Mulligan. Sellers as well as a very broad assortment of music from light pop to symphonic. I know he did a good bit of intellectual comedy but also indulged in what I call “romps”; a special way of handling mostly physical comedy without much attention to plot, continuity or, indeed, story at all.

The Beatles at that time were barely older then schoolboys and you can see in A Hard Days Night comedy recalling a kid grabbing someone’s hat and playing keep-away. Adolescent boy fun is funny, so long as it’s not your cap! Added in was as lovely a Keystone Cops sequence as anyone’s ever seen and Ringo’s threnody on the canal is way beyond criticism. Was Ringo consciously playing the Little Tramp? He says he was so hung over that morning that merely walking took all his time so I can suppose it was simply one of those miracles

]Not that The Beatles film depends on either physical comedy or on adolescent boy fun, the writing in some places in A Hard Days Night is delicious. John’s conversation with the plump lady in the hall wherein the “him” John does or doesn’t look like is left undefined is surely a triumph of underwriting – so terribly hard to do! However, it took the eye of an artist (or a really good cameraman) to see the possibilities of 4 skinny young men in black clothes romping in a mowed field. Is it funny? Not exactly; but it makes you feel good and feel good about the actors.

It’s very amusing to read the slightly offended surprise of the movie critics reviews. (Both in the original release and the more recent re-release to theaters.) While some of the sources say that the script was carefully written to be easy for inexperienced non-actors, Ringo’s “hiding behind a smokescreen of bourgeois clichés” isn’t my idea of an easy line! I have seen the I Am the Walrus cut in Magic Mystery Tour and it lacks the spontaneity and fun which are not entirely absent from the rest of the piece. It seems to me that there was too much self-consciousness and an attempt to get some sort of message across. I do find the lyrics of Walrus over studied and artificial. I feel sure that Ringo is right in that by broadcasting it in black and white the BBC ensured it’s critical disaster. On the other hand, the particular magic that made The Beatles is beginning to fail because the group is beginning to fail to be a group. Even in Sgt. Pepper you can see that there’s a bit of a hitch in their interpersonal harmony. It comes back here and there but many of the clips show three bored session musicians trying to get the ‘great one’ through one last take.

The Beatles comedy at its best a combination of innocent fun and sophisticated badinage that transport the viewer to the world of everyone’s dreams, one which never existed. I find reviews that name it as archtypical of its time and yet it survives to this time and people without my memories enjoy it now.

Reporters

The current lack of intelligence and accuracy in print and broadcast media is less surprising and depressing if you are aware of the very high degree of ignorance, stupidity and prejudice that greeted the Beatles at almost every news conference in 1964. The reporters – most were “hard news” reporters resentful at being taken off the current story of graft in city hall and neither they nor anyone else had any idea of why pop singers would be holding a news conference anyway – had any clue why they were there. Elvis didn’t do news conferences except for the one when he got drafted (at which Tom Parker did all the talking.) It is pretty obvious that their editors hadn’t given them much background and evidently none of the reporters had even read the features in Life and Newsweek that had appeared a few weeks earlier nor seen the brief, patronizing mentions by Cronkite or Jack Parr. Actually, Beatlemania WAS “hard news” but they never seemed to be able to catch on to that.

For the entire three years the Beatles toured America, some reporters retained a belief that the Beatles wore wigs, presumably because it was impossible to bathe or sleep with hair so long. Going by some of the questions, American men at that time believed that having a penis prevented hair from growing even though it’s obvious that the reporters themselves paid somebody to cut theirs off every few weeks (hair that is).

The unpalatable fact is that very few American reporters ever managed to improve their side of the exchange. The Beatles themselves made of their news conferences very good theater indeed – so good that it is still quite amusing to watch them make complete fools of the reporters and their inability to think of a single new question. Once the Beatles made a huge success around the world, British reporters by and large realized that they had more then a tongue-tied pop star in the Beatles and fewer and fewer of them neglected to educate themselves at least a little, at least enough to think up one or two questions that hadn’t been asked at least 1,000 times before.

You’d think the American press might have wised up after the multitudes of really great shots the Beatles had scored on them but somehow it never really happened. I suspect that 50 years later Ringo and Paul still get asked what they will do when the “bubble bursts” despite the fact that they are not only rich but also qualified to draw their old age pensions. They still get asked if the Beatles are going to get together again and although Paul’s divorce isn’t yet final, they are asking him if he’s going to marry any woman who managed to get caught by a photographer standing next to him.

Between the questions nobody can answer – “What made them so much more popular then any other group?” – and the questions they’d answered everyday for years – “Which one of you writes the songs?” and the questions too silly to answer – “How do you sleep with all that hair?” – they finally even got tired of showing everyone which side of the microphone the fools were. The mindless stories these reporters produced may have satisfied editors as ignorant as the reporters but they couldn’t possibly have drawn much approval from the fans. This has no doubt contributed to the general lack of respect for a once admirable and admired profession now unembarrassed to ask stupid politicians even more pointless questions then they asked the Beatles! Unfortunately, politicians have perfected their ability to give answers even more stupid then the questions!

Highly Miscellaneous

 I’m not in the mood to edit or to produce something all harmonious and put together today so here are some snippets of OPINION culled from my notes.

I’ve seen a number of discussions about what songs John had on his jukebox. Ever think what might be on Paul’s? Or more practically, what isn’t? I’d guess everything from madrigals to cloud chamber bowls and grand opera to Spike Jones and then some.

 “Arguing with a fanatic [is] about as profitable as arguing with a drunk and far more dangerous.” Sun wolf in The Ladies of Mardigan by Barbara Hambly Oops, that isn’t a Beatles snippet!

Of all the heinous things John did to Julian, I really think the most evil was to appropriate the song Paul wrote for Julian (Hey Jude) and say it was about John and Yoko despite Paul telling John who it was for. John’s self-absorption has reached far more then merely toxic levels at this point.

There are a lot of open questions about John’s childhood: Did Julia really have tea almost every day with Mimi? If so, how could John not have seen her regularly? Did Mimi take John away from Julia or did Julia happily hand him over? Did Mimi really want John or was she really most interested in getting even with Julia? Did Mimi love John at all? Did Mimi emotionally if not physically abuse John?

It was George Martin and the Beatles themselves who made the least out of the group’s success at least while they were still together. Martin was still on a rather skimpy salary. Brian, Dick James, EMI and all the merchandisers made the most though nobody knows what Brian did with his. After 1970, Paul clearly did far better then the others do both to the fact that he really paid attention and because his in-laws were both skilled and honest – and because his records sold a lot better.

Bad rock + lousy reception = Awful noise – oops, that was the Grammy’s last night.

Philip Norman in Shout talks about Paul marrying Linda Eastman as being “social climbing” although Linda was daughter of a poor immigrant who won a scholarship. On the other hand, Yoko, whom John married, was genuine aristocracy; a schoolmate of the future Emperor of Japan.

The words to All You Need Is Love are so breathlessly inane it’s tempting to consider them an act of genius. It’s sad and sobering to realize that they unfortunately led to Give Peace a Chance and many more completely mindless anthems through the intervening years. You know, nobody goes on and on about what Hoagie Carmical was feeling when he wrote Stardust of what tragedy in Harold Arlen’s life sparked the lyrics of Stormy Weather and I don’t even think anyone much cares what was Dylan’s inspiration for Blowin’ in the Wind.

Beatle “Managers”

Nigel Whalley

Allen Wiliams

Bob Woller

Mo Best

Sam Leach

Bill Harry

Pete Best

Brian Epstein

Peter Brown, Tony Barrow, Alistair Taylor, Neil Aspinal and

Paul McCartney

Scary thought: Paul probably was “hyperactive” as a child and John definitely had ADD and emotional problems. If they were kids today they’d be fed drugs and made normal.

The Beatles: A Rockumentary: A review. A lot of worn sound bites organized in a vaguely chronological manner. Pointless if you’ve seen Anthology and not worth more then $2 including postage.

 

 

The Beatles as Musicians

The Beatles were not showy players. It was a time of singers, not of guitarists or drummers. Only in jazz was the quality of instrumentalists highlighted. While in live performance most rock and roll bands would include instrumental breaks it was more to give the rest of the band and the vocalist a chance to rest then to highlight the playing. The age of the guitar hero waited for Hendricks and Clapton. At the time, only George was actually recognized for his musicianship (frequently among the top ten “jazz guitarists” in the listings) and while as time has gone by both Paul and Ringo’s high reputation with fellow bassists and drummers has become generally known and appreciated. John is, understandably, still seen as the weakest player. In some ways he was but he did perform some notable guitar leads and the high quality of his work as rhythm guitarist seems never to have been adequately acknowledged.

George’s goal seems to have been perfection in the actual playing which he quite frequently achieved. It’s downplayed, indeed barely mentioned, that he was not quick to find licks for a new song and the others, including George Martin, worked with him pretty often. His later conflicts with Paul (which did have a deeper source) evidenced in him resenting any suggestions Paul might make in this regard. Paul obviously didn’t understand why George had become so hostile (exchange in Anthology during Get Back sessions) though from what Paul said you can certainly suppose he was attempting to be diplomatic. Creativity simply doesn’t come easily, or at all, to some people; creativity at the level of John and Paul is extremely rare and sets a standard impossible for others. It certainly isn’t a personal fault to lack somehow the brain connections that support creativity and in fact most humans, including me, do lack it.

Ringo is one off the most modest drummers in a world in which so many are wild extroverts – who are drummers because they want to make the most noise. Ringo saw his job in terms of what he song needed and some of his best work is so soft as to be almost inaudible (Day in The Life). I’m most impressed with the odd, sort of broken beat he uses particularly in a couple of John’s stranger compositions. I strongly suspect he could have come up with something appropriate for Yesterday if it had been necessary.

Paul, of course, took rock and roll bass from the instrument more or less played by the leader’s best friend or the fat wannabe rocker to an important role in the music generally. Taking inspiration from jazz bassists such as Keeter Betts and the piano bass lines of earlier rock and rollers (Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard) he both supported the rhythm and provided a contrast to the lead guitar that has since influenced all sorts of popular music.

Another point showing the level of the Beatles musicianship is the fact that they all played many instruments in addition to their primary. Although Ringo and George were very focused on their primary instrument, they both played piano and other instruments. Paul was the most versatile but all possessed the talent and interest to experiment with many others. The Abbey Road Studios certainly was an advantage there with many instruments available for experimentation. The Beatles level of musicianship may not have been the most important ingredient in their mystique but certainly it would have been difficult to support that mystique without skilled players.

McCartney Album

McCartney Album
I’ve spent weeks attempting to figure out why Paul’s first solo album was not merely criticized but seriously slammed by so many. Of course, each person must have had his or her own particular set of motivations as well as their personal reaction to any music but when so universal an opinion is expressed it seems likely that much of the motivation will be alike.

To begin with, listening to it for the very first time, prepared to find it a less then perfect first effort, I was quite simply blown away! Not that every cut is a perfect example of song writing or arrangement or whatever. I’m sure that I could find reasonably legitimate criticism of most, if not all, the songs. I can find criticism of Mozart, after all! But separately and as a whole, it’s certainly not anything like disastrously bad. In fact, without prejudice, it‘s simply great to listen to. Variety, subtlety, beat, it’s all there.

What thoughts or emotions lead people to seek out reasons to criticize another’s work; anger, hatred, jealousy, bribery, perhaps desire to please others? All these things definitely played a real part (well, I don’t actually know about bribery but anytime Allen Klein not to mention Yoko Ono are involved I don’t think you can count it out) in the reviews of Paul’s first solo album. However, I don’t think that they were the only things nor really the most important. I think the real problem, and it continues at least up to the release of Chaos and Confusion in the Back Yard, is that Paul didn’t produce the album they expect because McCartney simply wasn’t a “Beatles album.”

John had released 4 albums, George 2 and Ringo one before Paul’s was released. McCartney looked to people like the last chance to have a real Beatles album, post Beatles. Instead they got the news that, as everyone had certainly known, the Beatles really were over and McCartney wasn’t at all a Beatles album.
The Swinging Sixties were gone and the Beatles were too. People were disappointed and a lot of people react to disappointment with anger. John had made it clear that Paul was on his shit list as had George and even Ringo said a couple of unkind things; Paul had been the one who publicly implied that there would never be another real Beatles album and there was this album review to write. You’re a reporter, the Beatles will be news more then ever for the next little while and John was always good for something quotable, so who do you want to be happy with your review? Three Beatles or one; it’s a pretty easy equation to solve.
Besides, McCartney is soft! It’s about love and marriage, not the proper subject of rock; girls, heart-break, drugs, acid trips and angst, that’s what rock is about these days. There are all these instrumental bits, you can understand all the lyrics and then there’s that weird rhythm in Momma Miss America and what kind of a song title is that? So it was easy to ignore it as it played through only once and slam it real good. Obviously, none of the other Beatles could really be Beatles alone but surely Paul was the least Beatle of them all. So it really didn’t matter how lovely some of the melodies Paul was doing sounded, didn’t matter how he played, how exciting the rhythms were, what great songs he wrote about finding love and happiness; it wasn’t the Beatles and it must be his fault.

After that, people got in a habit, sure the reviewers may like John, George or Ringo’s releases or not, but they were invariably grudging at best when it came to Paul’s. I’m not going to go dig up sales figures, I do know that the public in general did like Paul’s after Beatles (hereinafter “AB”) work because they bought records. By the end of the 70s a lot of Paul fans didn’t even know he’d been in some other band before Wings! Then John was shot dead and nothing can ever change the things he said, not even the things he said later.