What makes a great Beatles song | Page 3 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

Wow. I had a good chuckle reading over these posts. 

I think what we really have is a clashing of “fandom” types.  Some of you seem to grow really upset at criticism of the Beatles, and can't fathom how anyone could at the same time love the Beatles, but also be deeply critical of their work.  Let me just say this: musicians don't tend to be “fans” in the same way as non-musicians.  Musicians tend to be a bit more picky.  I confess that I'm on the extreme end in this regard: I've never heard a song that I wouldn't criticize at all.  I've never heard a piece of art that I would really consider “perfect”.  Sometimes artists come close, including the Beatles, but whenever I analyze their work, I'm going to include praise and criticism.  This is called “critical appreciation” of art.  It seems that some of you are deeply upset by critical appreciation of the Beatles.  To be honest, that's just not my problem. If critical appreciation of art troubles you that much, there is a very simple solution: don't read this thread.  As the philosopher Joel Feinberg notes, a person offended by nudity can hardly cry foul if he or she observes nudity while being a “peeping Tom”.  You're going out of your way to read this thread, and so you have no grounds for blaming me for your offense. This is especially true when the things to which you're taking offense are things I haven't even said. 

Kedame and Paulbass wonder why I won't respond to all of their demands for answers.  One reason is because, when I do so, my careful responses seem to be ignored.  Another reason is because it's difficult to have conversations with people who contradict themselves in their own posts, and then refuse to correct their reasoning when this is pointed out to them.  Both of these people are still committing the same error of reasoning which I pointed out on the first page of this thread; i.e., dismissing my criticisms on the grounds of artistic subjectivism on the one hand, and then saying I'm dead wrong in my positions on the other.  But these two moves contradict one another.  And I can't have a reasonable conversation with people operating under fundamentally irrational, illogical, and confused frameworks.  I have taken the time to try to help people clarify their reasoning on these matters, but when I do so I am simply ignored.  So what's left open for me to do as regards these people?  I'm sorry, but I have no interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone who insists on being unreasonable. 

Mithvaen claims, quite reasonably, that the problem is with terms like “great,” which he says are subjective.  But I don't think that they are necessarily subjective.  Great is just a measure of something, like “tall”.  “Greatest” can be measured the same as “tallest,” once we agree upon some framework.  For instance, suppose we accept (as we shouldn't) the claim that “greatest” for an artist comes down to record sales.  In this case, it would be a trivial matter to determine who are the “greatest” musical  artists.  However, if we use a more philosophical standard, such as the one I have put forward, then it seems that we will need to engage in a bit more discussion.  The first order of business is trying to agree upon some evaluative framework.  This is what I've been trying to do, only to be ignored by people like Kedame and Paulbass.  They demand that I explain myself, and then ignore me when I try to do so.  For instance, after putting forward a reasonably thoughtful case against using “popularity” as a framework in which to judge art, and offering instead a more philosophical framework where art is to be judged based upon the excellence of an artist's self-expression, Kedame simply completely ignored me and went right back to the untenable and silly “popularity” standard.  Again, I can't have a reasonable conversation with someone who is unreasonable. 

kedame said:
you even contradicted yourself when you said Helter Skelter has great bass, when it is decidedly not Paul playing it. It does have great bass…you admitted that, but how can your standards hold up to criticism when you admit that someone other than Paul adds a great bassline? That totally contradicts your initial position, but you haven't addressed that.

 

But of course, at no point did I claim that only Paul is capable of good bass playing.  Hence, there is of course no contradiction in acknowledging that a bass line played by John is great. 

I still hold that popularity is important. I don't care that you think it isn't. That's one of my positions. I think a person's response to a piece of art matters. If no one hears it, it is of no consequence…You said the power to evoke emotion doesn't mean it is good art…I thought that is exactly what art was meant to do.

Notice that this is different from the earlier “popularity” standard.  You see, by this standard, we might explain why the music of the Beatles is great, even if it's sitting in Mimi's attic.  It has the potential to “evoke emotion,” even if it never does.  So we should notice, you're equivocating between several different standards.  You might want to try to take more care in organizing your thoughts.  But no matter, let's deal with this new standard. 

What art is “meant to do” surely comes down to the intentions of the artist, no?  Some artists could care less what emotions their art evokes; they are just trying to express themselves.  Their art is a form of self-expression, not an attempt to connect with others, gain fans and admirers, and so forth.  For these people, popularity is a circumstantial side-effect of their work, not the purpose of it. So I don't think this will do.

But maybe we ought to judge music by the power it has to evoke emotion, as you suggest.  I want to deny this, because I think it's odd to make the greatness of a work of art dependent upon the emotions of others.  To demonstrate, consider the following thought experiment:

The Beatles are born into an alternate universe where the only other sentient life-forms are Vulcans.  Vulcans are, of course, completely unemotional.  Using your proposed standard, it would seem that we would have to say that the Beatles are failures as artists, merely because their music cannot produce any sort of emotional reaction from others.  But this seems very odd, don't you think?

Here is the ultimate problem with the way you are thinking about these things: you're being a fan in a very self-centered sense.  For you, fandom is all about yourself.  It's all about how you feel, your emotions, your tastes, and so forth.  But in this “me,me, me, me” type of musical appreciation, you really devalue the artist as a human being and as an independent person.  It's not all about you, and the worth of the artist doesn't come down to your personal feelings and emotions.  In fact, if you think about it carefully, you'll see that this is a deeply selfish and dehumanizing way to treat a band which you allegedly respect. 

I suggest that you reject this standard in favor of an appreciation of art which centers on trying to understand the artist's perspective, rather than reducing everything to yourself.  All of your standards alienate the artist from his or her work, making its value dependent only upon the reactions of others.  This is dehumanizing, because it means that the artist and his or her work has no independent value.  But this is a rather monstrous way to look at it, don't you think? 

The artist doesn't need you for her work to be valuable.  True art is a deeply personal project, and can have independent value insofar as it is an excellent piece of self-expression.  Looking at art in the way you do is really quite childish, I must say.

kedame said:

I asked you to please respond to me without trying to make me feel stupid…but you tried to do it anyways.

 

I’m not trying to make you feel stupid.  In fact, the reason I’m responding to you, and not Paulbass and others, is because you’re one of the few people in this thread actually trying to put forward serious arguments and justifications for your views.  I’m responding to you because there is substance in your posts to which I can respond.  I happen to think your arguments are dreadfully mistaken, but that’s another matter. 

 

I asked for your VALID reasoning on the assertion that only songs with lyrics written by John and a bass line performed by Paul are first rate songs.

 

But this is what I’m trying to do.  In order to do this, however, we must agree on some framework within which to judge these works of art.  If your standard is popularity, and mine is excellence of self-expression, then we can’t even begin to have a reasonable discussion on what constitutes a “great” Beatles song.  We would just be talking at and past each other.

In order to justify my claims, I must convince you that my framework for judging art is the one we ought to accept.  If I can’t, then there is really no point in any further discussion.  It’s like asking me to justify calculus before we’ve agreed on the validity of arithmetic. 

Also, as an aside, I actually didn't mention John's lyrics as a condition for the greatness of a Beatles song.  To be honest, I don't pay much attention to lyrics.  Hey Bulldog is probably my personal favorite Beatles song, and I really don't like the lyrics that much (they remind me too much of Lennon's “wife-beater” songs).  I just ignore them, really. 

What I said is that a great Beatles song will feature Lennon creating the tonal framework. 

kedame said:

 we will never agree Anderson, because you seem to be of the belief that the only person in the Beatles with an adequate grasp of self expression is John Lennon .

But that's not what I said.  I'm not trying to rank Lennon above McCartney as an artist.  I'm saying that Lennon's artistic genius is in creating a tonal framework, while McCartney's artistic genius is as a bass player. 

However, it means nothing on a grander scale if it affects no one. If no one sees the words, appreciates them, they are just empty letters on a yellowing sheet of paper that mean nothing to anyone but their writer.To deny that seems silly to me.

I deny it.  Strongly.  A person's art is not “empty” until someone else comes along and reacts to it.  Emily Dickinson and her art is valuable with or without you or your opinions (or anyone else's).  You're still dehumanizing the artist by reducing their work to merely an instrument for the satisfaction of yourself and others.  Your conception of art and artists still fundamentally fails to respect them as individuals with intrinsic worth, instead making their worth dependent on the emotional reactions of yourself and others. 

Popularity of art might have some value, but it's not an artistic value.  A piece of art doesn't become any better as a work of art at the moment you have an emotional reaction to it.  Popularity is simply a different category of value.  We might call it the “political value” of the work.