The Beatles: A Legacy of Innovation and Elusiveness

[10 November 2009]

While innovation is important to help push music forward, it is ultimately less important than elusiveness.

By Jonathan Gerber

One of the most enduring Beatles legacies is the myth of innovation. Briefly stated, the myth of innovation suggests that the Beatles remain important to the history of music because of the innovation that went on in their music. I want to briefly outline the enduring legacy of this myth and then suggest that elusiveness is more important in long-term appreciation of the Beatles.

The Beatles were innovative on every level. Musically, they invented backward masking, dance-rock (“Baby, You’re a Rich Man”), backwards guitar solos, pudding drums, automatic double-tracking and DI’ed bass. The Beatles also restlessly reinvented their art. They used modal songwriting in “Norwegian Wood”, explored the impact of drugs, self-loathing, and more.

The Beatles innovation did not stop with music. They invented long-form music videos (Magical Mystery Tour), changed the expectation of performances (e.g. Ed Sullivan Show, the rooftop Apple Corporation show), invented the idea of the studio band, and gave new ideas of cover art and fashion.

No lesser authority than Ian MacDonald notes that “treating the Beatles as icons can only be fruitful for young pop musicians because they coin(ed) almost every trend which has succeeded them”. But the truly mythic aspect to the Beatles innovation myth is how entrenched it is in modern musical and critical thinking. Indie has swallowed whole the dictum that music must be innovative to be worthwhile. The restless people who quickly get bored with Stereolab’s new album for sounding like the last one, the vicious scenesterism of blogs vying to find the new sound, the large-scale emphasis on new genres, these are all part of our absorption in the innovation myth. To be good, you must be new. Even punk’s existence as a reaction to prog, post-punk’s decision to use punk to create new worlds reflects, to some extent, the innovation myth.

It is convenient for historians to stress the myth of innovation. For example, Robert Palmer stresses the change in the Beatles post-Dylan, they started to write meaningful songs like “Eleanor Rigby”. It is easy to construct histories in which newer music is different to older music, much easier, in fact, than talking about the emotional relevance or impact of music.

But convenience for historians doesn’t necessarily add up to a whole view of the Beatles. If you ask most Beatles fans what their favorite Beatles songs are they probably won’t list the tracks I’ve mentioned so far—at least not from the history books. The reason for this is simple: the most moving and affecting works the Beatles produced are often the least innovative.

Take, for example, “Something”, “Here Comes the Sun”, and “Hey Jude”. These are the songs which people love to sing along to, which mean something to all who hear them, but they are also not particularly innovative. One common factor in the above-mentioned songs is their allusive nature. They always have a quality of opening up to new worlds. The waking up the dead quality of “Here Comes the Sun” is in the music, in the synthesizer and orchestration rising up slowly, in the playful strum of the guitar, in the gentle take-up of the drums. And each time we listen we feel the world open up a little more, we feel that taste of spring arriving.

I don’t know where the elusiveness comes from. It could be from links back to older music forms like the blues, to physiological links to our body rhythms, or to spirits. It may just be that it takes some time to understand the expressive meaning of innovations so that the later works have more emotional depth. Wherever elusiveness comes from, it is ultimately these moments that make the Beatles still worth listening to.

While innovation is important to help push music forward, it is ultimately less important than elusiveness. Innovation is a good challenge for artists, but many innovative acts are, in the long run, quite boring. Once innovation is absorbed into the mainstream it loses its power. However, the power of the more elusive songs of the Beatles stays with us, their worlds and emotional suggestiveness giving them new life each time we listen.

 
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Perhaps elusiveness is merely another Beatles innovation?

Comment by Andrew Shotland from Pleasanton, CA — November 10, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

I have a hard time taking this essay seriously when the author can’t even be bothered to distinguish between elusive and allusive in the paragraph where he introduces his thesis. He actually seems to mean allusive, but the headline and all instances in the article but one say elusive. WTF? I was looking forward to this piece, too ...

Comment by Mark from Norfolk, Virginia, US — November 10, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Nice thoughts. I wonder what this means for The Beatles first few records? In many ways they are neither elusive nor particularly innovative, just great rollicking pop. Although it is very hard for us to imagine exactly what either of these things would have sounded like to a teenager in 1963.

Comment by Phil H from Sydney — November 10, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

@Mark Yeah, are we talking about allusiveness or elusiveness? I’m confused.

@Phil H - I think you’re right that we can’t imagine what it was like for a 60’s teen to hear but I am fairly certain it was a “new sound” at the time.

One of the reasons The Beatles are still considered so important is because the Baby Boomers who listened to The Beatles in their formative years are CEOs and COOs and Managers… let’s wait a few more years until they are all retired and a new generation takes over, let’s see who they consider as so significant.  I have a feeling Mr Michael Jackson may be thought of as more significant.  Love him or loathe him, he was innovative :-P

Comment by Liz from Western Sydney, NSW, Australia — November 11, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Thank God for the Beatles in 1964… just sit down and listen to a Bobby Vinton or Four Seasons record, which was all the rage in the early 60’s and then listen to Lennon singing “Twist and Shout”...Enough Said… they were the real deal and actually wrote all their own music. You had to be there to grasp what the craze was all about but if you take the time to compare the music of the day, hands down the Beatles ruled.

Comment by mary from Cedar Rapids IA USA — November 12, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

You must be young, Liz. Mr. Jackson and his siblings owe a huge debt to the Beatles, if you’ve ever seen their earliest shows. Michael was neither innovative nor elusive, and didn’t even write his own songs. Because his musical skills were so weak, he merely took simple groove riffs (ala James Brown or Beatles)and flowered them up with squeaks and moans so he could show off his dancing prowess.

The Beatles hated pretense and flash over substance, which lasts forever. Jackson was all about flash, which goes up in smoke.

Comment by EdSullivan from Syracuse, NY — November 13, 2009 @ 9:39 am

Yes I’m young.

However, I’m not talking about the music, strictly, when I talk about Michael Jackson.  I’m thinking more of music videos and the like.

Comment by Liz from Western Sydney, NSW, Australia — November 13, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

@Mark, I was unconcerned about distinguishing between allusive and elusive because both words capture the same unique function of music that I was trying to suggest The Beatles often capture: music is often unable to be put into words (ie its meaning is elusive) and part of music’s great function is that it always offers more than words alone can (ie it is allusive). But often the images you get from music can’t be completely put into words. Hence it is both elusive and allusive.

I would also agree that much of The Beatles early music is a complete energetic blood rush and that alone is another source of allusiveness/elusiveness.

Comment by Jonathan Gerber from Sydney, Australia — November 17, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

Perhaps I am ‘a bear of very little brain’ but I don’t agree with your definition of “allusive”.  Allusive means alluding to something else as far as I can tell, which is not the same as “offer(ing) more than words alone”.

Comment by Liz from Western Sydney, NSW, Australia — November 18, 2009 @ 1:49 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?