I like the Beatles quite a bit. Of course most people do, and I've found that those who don't usually have some sort of axe to grind about the seminal group being overrated or overplayed, rather than a complaint about the music itself. I've occasionally heard the rather glib sentiment tossed around that John Lennon and Paul McCartney were indistinct as vocalists and musicians despite their songwriting skills, and that Ringo Starr was a subpar drummer. Those are all absurd statements, because if it's true that the Beatles were only brilliant songwriters, then why has no one else, in the history of time, throughout thousands of covers, ever been able to record a Beatles song as well as the original band?
I'm sure the last thing you probably want to be reading is a column about the Beatles, since lord knows their songs are maddeningly ubiquitous these days. But that's just it: _they're_ not the ones who are everywhere - for the most part it's their songs which are inescapable. From last year's Across the Universe"" musical, to the ongoing ""American Idol"" slaughter of Lennon/McCartney songs, mindless hacks everywhere are ""interpreting"" (mutilating) the Beatles' catalog like no tomorrow, and receiving a ton of publicity for it too.
On one hand, these folks are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that no one can really do justice to the Beatles on a highly commercial level, thereby cementing the band's untouchable stature. But on the other hand, something much more perilous is afoot: The band's legacy is getting undermined, one saccharine step at a time, and through no fault of their own. The more their songs get covered, thrusting their oeuvre needlessly into the limelight, the more people are inevitably bound to start getting sick of the music - hearing it, hearing about it, reading about it, etc.
Another problem is that Beatles songs usually don't sound good when removed from the original context of the band's basic creative process: Their sublimely immaculate arrangements, which mostly lack excessive instrumental and vocal ornamentation, create the feeling of a straight-forward vision at work, something which is deceptively hard to conjure in a cover.
The Beatles weren't mediocre musicians by any means, but rather _simple_ musicians and vocalists. They used every instrument and voice for pure utility, to craft perfect pop songs out of precise melodies and relatively subdued instrumentation. Once a piece was recorded, even the band itself felt no need to ever perform the songs again - which is why, for the final and most creatively fruitful years of their career, they never played live. Improvisation and modification, which are central to a band's live performance, were therefore non-issues; the songs in their original state spoke for themselves.
This is exactly why the notion of Beatles songs being performed by contestants on ""American Idol"" - which is all about pointless vocal embellishment and rhetorical talent exhibition - is so fundamentally ridiculous. The songs of Lennon/McCartney don't lend themselves well to vocal acrobatics and over-glamorization, because at heart they're so self-contained and meticulously crafted that meddling with them, especially to such a gross degree, tears that fragile tapestry apart.
As a massive cultural institution, the Beatles need a nice long vacation. With last year's George Martin-assembled _Love_ soundtrack, Paul McCartney's alleged $400 million deal to bring the Beatles to iTunes, a plethora of films about John Lennon's politics and assassination, and the unfortunate American Idol and ""Across the Universe"" productions, we're getting way too overloaded with the band, which could eventually spell disaster for the future of their legacy. I can't help but think that if John Lennon and George Harrison were still around, things might be just a little bit different.
If you disagree, submit your favorite Beatles cover to Ben at bpeterson1@wisc.edu.
