Rewriting "All You Need is Love"

Last week, Michael Deacon of the Telegraph put together a blog post entitled "10 awful things about the Beatles." It was obviously intended as a counterpoint to the recent deluge of celebratory Beatles coverage; pieces of its kind were almost inevitable. Deacon writes, "... this week we find ourselves wading through an oil slick of Fabs hagiography, so let's remember the things they did that were less than perfect, and indeed, in some cases, knuckle-chewingly bad." He goes on to cite The Beatles' films, their allegedly spotty late-period work, their absence from iTunes, and more as evidence of their fallibility. To which I would respond: Of course The Beatles' career wasn't without flaws and missteps. No fan I'm acquainted with would assert otherwise. What rankles about the list is that it poses as iconoclastic when, at different points, it's really just petty, obvious, and overstated.

However, Deacon opens by bringing up some of The Beatles' lesser lyrics, and I can't say I disagree with his inclusion of this line: "There's nothing you can do that can't be done." It's, of course, from "All You Need is Love," a terrific song that contains a handful of lines which don't make sense when interpreted literally. Or, at least, their literal definitions don't comport with what John had in mind. Consider the example mentioned above: "There's nothing you can do that can't be done." John's encouraging tone and the overall sunny spirit of the song help the listener to understand these words as meaning: "There's nothing you can't do" (if you're armed with love, everything comes easily!). But what do they mean when received literally? "Everything you can do is doable." There's considerably less uplift in that. On one level, it's tautological gibberish; on another, it almost conveys a note of disparagement: "Nothing you can do is beyond the realm of mere possibility. All your deeds and acts are very ordinary, the stuff of quotidian banality" (that little flourish was probably excessive). Same with "Nothing you can sing that can't be sung," "Nothing you can make that can't be made," and "No one you can save that can't be saved." From this perspective, punctuating such lines with "All you need is love" suddenly seems less fitting.

A slight reworking of the lyric could have cleaned up the song without diminishing its emotive power or disrupting the flow of John's vocal. How about this instead?

There's nothing for you to do that can't be done.
Nothing for you to sing that can't be sung.
Nothing for you to say but you can learn how to play the game.

Just replace "you can" with "for you to." Thoughts?

Pitchfork on The Beatles

Last week, I failed to recommend Pitchfork's coverage of The Beatles' reissues, which includes reviews of each remastered album, the mono box set (scroll down to the bottom of this link for the individual album reviews), and The Beatles: Rock Band. Thorough. Lots to read.

A cynical take on the remasters

Writing at The Huffington Post, Tamara Conniff derides the release of the remastered Beatles albums as a money-grab enterprise. Central to her argument is the issue of sound recording copyrights.

Excerpt:
In 2012, the Beatles first recorded single, "Love Me Do," will enter the public domain. Originally released in 1962, under the UK copyright law a sound recording no longer belongs to the artist who recorded it after 50 years. Some big name artists and record company advocacy groups lobbied to get an extension to mirror the United States 95-year term. In April of this year, the European Union approved an extension from 50 to 70 years, however, the U.K. and member states have balked at it and the proposal has gotten lost in the political shuffle.

So of course the Beatles, and more specifically their label group EMI, want to exploit the recordings as much as they can before it becomes public property and can be used free of charge.

Remasters sales

To no surprise, the early figures are strong.

Excerpt:
On Wednesday and Thursday at least 235,000 Beatles albums were sold in the United States, including individual titles as well as the stereo and mono boxed sets, all released by EMI and Apple Corps. “Abbey Road” was the top title, with sales of 32,000in its first two days; “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” was next with 27,000.

Jobs: Beatles to iTunes...

... next year?

Excerpt:
At CES a couple of years ago, John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono told me that the Beatles would be available online someday. Today I got to ask Apple CEO Steve Jobs about that.

"We'd love to have the Beatles on iTunes," he said. "I think it will happen next year." When I asked if he really believed that, Jobs said, "I'm an optimist."

"The Beatles and EMI have some differences to work out. Once (they do), iTunes is the first place they'd want to be and we'd welcome them with open arms."

Friday YouTube

"Mrs. Vandebilt" - easily my favorite song off of Band on the Run.


(If the video is removed, go here.)

"Help! I'm a Beatles hater"

In this article for BBC News, Stephen Robb counters the prevailing mood of frenzied Fab Four adulation and ventures into the lonely world of anti-Beatles dissent.

Excerpt:
The Beatles seem to occupy a uniquely unassailable position in popular culture - everybody loves them. Don't they?

Not Robert Elms. The author and broadcaster is one of a tiny minority who seem willing to stick their heads above the parapet and rubbish this most sacred of British institutions.

"They did a few things that lots of people liked," says Elms. "Everybody can like them, from grandma singing along to When I'm Sixty-Four to the little girl singing Yellow Submarine."

But he adds: "I just think they are either childlike and simple or rather leaden and pompous - one or the other all the time."