Yeah, the lyrics to "All You Need Is Love" are terrible, and the music isn't much better (and I thought so at the time, too), but...
You don't judge James Brown by "Don't Be A Dropout" and "Let's Make Christmas Mean Something This Year," so don't judge the Beatles by "All You Need Is Love."
But the issue is more complicated, actually, since "All You Need Is Love" was presented as a major work and an event. Lennon's bullshit started with "Nowhere Man," and he often returned to bullshit (McCartney had similar bullshit, "Fool On The Hill," for instance, and then he had counter bullshit that was just as bullshit, when he went deliberately frivolous, "Silly Love Songs" for instance). The bullshit came as part of the Beatles' attempt to expand the range and import of their music; some of this attempt was by gesture and platitude, but that doesn't mean all of it was, and a lot of the resulting music was good. But I have some questions for anyone left reading this thread:
(1) To some extent the Beatles did expand their range, of subject matter, of the possibilities of their music, and the results were not uniformly bad by any means. "I Am The Walrus" was brilliant music even if some of the lyrics ("I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together") are idiocy and other parts are clear nonsense [some of which I think is good nonsense, however]. Sgt Pepper's really did add tremendous color to their sound; the album is overrated by those who automatically say "greatest album ever made," but tends to be underrated by people whose tendency is to slam it as "World's most overrated album." (I vote for Exile On Main Street and Blood On The Tracks; I might actually prefer Exile to Sgt. Pepper's, but its overratedness hasn't been challenged nearly to the extent that Sgt. Pepper's has.) But anyway, I wonder if the Beatles needed their pretentiousness and bullshit to expand their range. (By analogy, I don't know if Dylan gets to Highway 61 Revisited without some of the terrible lyrics in "My Back Pages" and "Gates Of Eden," for instance [not all of whose lyrics were terrible, mind you].) (Also, "Girl" is an ambitious song in the way that "Nowhere Man" is, and it's got great lyrics.) Also, their later period is rightly beloved by kids, for all its color and celebration.
(2) I wonder if the canonizers can tell the good stuff from the bullshit. Or, let's make this stronger: I wonder if the Beatles canonization is dependent on the bullshit.
--In any event, when he was good, Lennon (probably in interplay with McCartney in that period, though the great words did tend to have Lennon on vocals) was one of the great lyricists, even if what I think is good of his - "She Loves You," "You Can't Do That," "Ticket To Ride," "Girl," "It's Only Love" [very different message from "All You Need Is Love"], and scads of others, most from the era '62 through '65 - doesn't match up with a lot of other people's faves.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-09-20 01:49 pm (UTC)You don't judge James Brown by "Don't Be A Dropout" and "Let's Make Christmas Mean Something This Year," so don't judge the Beatles by "All You Need Is Love."
But the issue is more complicated, actually, since "All You Need Is Love" was presented as a major work and an event. Lennon's bullshit started with "Nowhere Man," and he often returned to bullshit (McCartney had similar bullshit, "Fool On The Hill," for instance, and then he had counter bullshit that was just as bullshit, when he went deliberately frivolous, "Silly Love Songs" for instance). The bullshit came as part of the Beatles' attempt to expand the range and import of their music; some of this attempt was by gesture and platitude, but that doesn't mean all of it was, and a lot of the resulting music was good. But I have some questions for anyone left reading this thread:
(1) To some extent the Beatles did expand their range, of subject matter, of the possibilities of their music, and the results were not uniformly bad by any means. "I Am The Walrus" was brilliant music even if some of the lyrics ("I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together") are idiocy and other parts are clear nonsense [some of which I think is good nonsense, however]. Sgt Pepper's really did add tremendous color to their sound; the album is overrated by those who automatically say "greatest album ever made," but tends to be underrated by people whose tendency is to slam it as "World's most overrated album." (I vote for Exile On Main Street and Blood On The Tracks; I might actually prefer Exile to Sgt. Pepper's, but its overratedness hasn't been challenged nearly to the extent that Sgt. Pepper's has.) But anyway, I wonder if the Beatles needed their pretentiousness and bullshit to expand their range. (By analogy, I don't know if Dylan gets to Highway 61 Revisited without some of the terrible lyrics in "My Back Pages" and "Gates Of Eden," for instance [not all of whose lyrics were terrible, mind you].) (Also, "Girl" is an ambitious song in the way that "Nowhere Man" is, and it's got great lyrics.) Also, their later period is rightly beloved by kids, for all its color and celebration.
(2) I wonder if the canonizers can tell the good stuff from the bullshit. Or, let's make this stronger: I wonder if the Beatles canonization is dependent on the bullshit.
--In any event, when he was good, Lennon (probably in interplay with McCartney in that period, though the great words did tend to have Lennon on vocals) was one of the great lyricists, even if what I think is good of his - "She Loves You," "You Can't Do That," "Ticket To Ride," "Girl," "It's Only Love" [very different message from "All You Need Is Love"], and scads of others, most from the era '62 through '65 - doesn't match up with a lot of other people's faves.