Coming across the George Harrison classic several days ago brought to mind a smart observation that a friend of mine named Ryan made a while back. He said that when he first heard "I Got My Mind Set On You," it wasn't easy orienting his musical sensibilities to the fact that an ex-Beatle was actually at the helm of this slick and spotless song. The same artist behind "Taxman," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," and "Something" also wrote* this utterly '80s tune? Curious. But, he continued, at a certain point, he was able to make the connection. At a certain point, it occurred to him that when you strip away all the sheen, all the echoing percussion and punchy horns, what remains is very much a Beatles song. Like a lot of the Fab Four's output, it's a tight, lively, and almost too-easy-to-enjoy pop-rock number. Think about the big, boisterous chorus and the breezy sentiment that's conveyed. Think also about its simple structure, i.e. how the song so fluidly oscillates between verse and chorus. Or the fact that it opens with the chorus, building brisk momentum from the start. Even George's use of the word "child" ("to do it right child") recalls The Beatles.
Once again, here's "I've Got My Mind Set On You," a song that can't help but satisfy:
(If the song is removed, go here).
*As the commenter "Anonymous" points out, I erred in attributing this song to George Harrison. The sentence should read "The same artist behind 'Taxman,' 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps,' and 'Something' also recorded this utterly 80s tune?"
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
40 years ago today
The rooftop concert. The final go.
(If the embedding is disabled, go here, here, and here).
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
(If the embedding is disabled, go here, here, and here).
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The last of Paste's Beatles lists
Contra Malcolm Gladwell
This NME article, entitled "Why Malcolm Gladwell Is Wrong About The Beatles," offers a brief rebuttal to the author's theory from Outliers that "'genius' has more to do with hard work than any innate genetic destiny." Vis a vis The Beatles, Gladwell's thinking goes that the band's time in Hamburg, where they really sharpened their skills as musicians (but not necessarily songwriters), helps a lot in explaining their later creative triumphs.
In this debate, my own sympathies would lie with the contra-Gladwell side. I think it's folly to try to rationalize The Beatles' greatness largely as a component of sheer numbers (i.e. the "10,000-Hour Rule"). Hard work is certainly critical to the gestation of "genius," but for Gladwell's purposes, it's not the place to start and it's not the place on which to put this degree of emphasis. In reality, the task that Gladwell laid out for himself was almost inevitably going to yield inadequate findings. You can't satisfactorily nail down genius by gathering statistics, dates, etc. You can't satisfactorily nail it down at all. You can construct a learned context but the full picture will never emerge. Creative genius is elusive. Doubtless, Gladwell knows this. But short of attempting a bold insight (which in this case would almost certainly stem from grasping speculation and shoddy theorizing), his views would seem bound for the clinical and obvious.
The Beatles' success resulted from a confluence of factors: their coming of age as the rock 'n roll genre took shape, the concomitant rise of music as a commercial enterprise, the flowering of studio technology, the band's individual skills and how those skills meshed with each other's, their work ethic, etc. But, of course, they also possessed something or somethings that defy calculation and easy classification. A certain je ne sais quoi that you know exists simply because you know The Beatles. It's the reason why The Beatles are The Beatles and not the Stones or Zeppelin or the Who. And it's the reason why Gladwell's theory will, in all likelihood, always come up woefully short.
(P.S. I have not read Outliers and don't intend to. Based on this admission, feel free to discount the above arguments).
In this debate, my own sympathies would lie with the contra-Gladwell side. I think it's folly to try to rationalize The Beatles' greatness largely as a component of sheer numbers (i.e. the "10,000-Hour Rule"). Hard work is certainly critical to the gestation of "genius," but for Gladwell's purposes, it's not the place to start and it's not the place on which to put this degree of emphasis. In reality, the task that Gladwell laid out for himself was almost inevitably going to yield inadequate findings. You can't satisfactorily nail down genius by gathering statistics, dates, etc. You can't satisfactorily nail it down at all. You can construct a learned context but the full picture will never emerge. Creative genius is elusive. Doubtless, Gladwell knows this. But short of attempting a bold insight (which in this case would almost certainly stem from grasping speculation and shoddy theorizing), his views would seem bound for the clinical and obvious.
The Beatles' success resulted from a confluence of factors: their coming of age as the rock 'n roll genre took shape, the concomitant rise of music as a commercial enterprise, the flowering of studio technology, the band's individual skills and how those skills meshed with each other's, their work ethic, etc. But, of course, they also possessed something or somethings that defy calculation and easy classification. A certain je ne sais quoi that you know exists simply because you know The Beatles. It's the reason why The Beatles are The Beatles and not the Stones or Zeppelin or the Who. And it's the reason why Gladwell's theory will, in all likelihood, always come up woefully short.
(P.S. I have not read Outliers and don't intend to. Based on this admission, feel free to discount the above arguments).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)