Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Opinion: Beatles more subversive than ‘cute’

February 12, 2014

Advertisement

Fifty years ago, the Beatles first appeared on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” You’ve surely seen clips of them on the news, or on tribute shows, japing with the press, smiling those cheerful smiles, singing “All My Loving” — and you probably thought, “Oh, they were so cute.”

That’s today’s conventional wisdom: The Beatles were cute and unthreatening. The Rolling Stones — now, there was your threat. And The Who, smashing their instruments. And numerous others, against whom the Beatles were supposedly a dish of vanilla ice cream.

It’s ridiculous. If there’s one canard I’d like to see these anniversary festivities flip on its head, it’s that one. To the America that existed then, the Beatles were plenty threatening. To understand why, you have to understand the music scene of the time, and how utterly new the Beatles were in every way, how totally uncategorizable.

Here’s the quick, well-known background: Rock ‘n’ roll was born in 1955 and was immediately seen as a danger by the day’s reactionaries. “Jungle music” and all that; white children screaming for black performers. In a few years’ time, the industry tamed rock ‘n’ roll. Elvis went to the Army. Chuck Berry went to prison. Bobby Vinton went to No. 1. Chew on this little fact: On the American Billboard charts of the hits of 1963, not a single No. 1 song featured an electric guitar solo.

Then, February 1964 — boom! No one had made or heard sounds like these. Here’s a crucial truth that goes totally unappreciated today: They were loud. Those Beatles songs don’t sound loud now — “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “It Won’t Be Long” and the other early ones. And it’s true that other groups came along quickly and got louder still.

But by the standards of the day, they were cacophonous. Here’s how the Nation’s critic, Alan Rinzler, put it in 1964 after a Carnegie Hall concert. In an article headlined “No Soul in Beatlesville,” Rinzler wrote that the music was “electrically amplified to a plaster-crumbling, glass-shattering pitch,” and was “loud, fast and furious, totally uninfluenced by some of the more sophisticated elements” of the pop scene.

Rinzler was certainly correct that the Beatles didn’t sound like what was topping the charts at the time. Did I mention Bobby Vinton above? The No. 1 song the week before “I Want to Hold Your Hand” commandeered the spot was Vinton’s awful (and I don’t hate him; he had some decent hits) “There! I’ve Said It Again.” A song from the Big Band era. And the No. 1 album before “Meet the Beatles” parked there for 11 weeks? “The Singing Nun.”

For sure, there was great, edgy music coming out of Chicago and Detroit and Memphis. But most popular music was relentlessly mediocre, candied, bleached of anything that might produce in its pubescent listener an impertinent or certainly a sexual thought. Even Elvis, once so raucous, was now producing lame ditties like “Good Luck Charm.”

And then suddenly, this glass-shattering, two-guitar noise. And with all those crescendos and climaxes and screams.

Lyrically, the songs may have been about holding your hand and dancing with you. But musically, a lot of the songs were frankly sexual. The extended “ahs” of “Twist and Shout,” followed by those screams; the build-up coming out of the bridge (“I can’t hide, I can’t hi-i-de”) in “I Want to Hold Your Hand.” They’re mild compared to what we can hear today, but in 1964, these were unambiguous musical emulations of sexual climax, aimed smack at a teenage audience, which did not miss the point.

In that first wave, in early 1964, most adults mocked the group. Highbrow derision came not just from the Nation but the New Yorker, the New Republic and the New York Times. This music was dismissed as a little disease that would pass.

And it’s true that all this wasn’t seen as subversive yet. That would take another year or two, when the disease hadn’t abated but, rather, metastasized and started taking over the culture, becoming dangerous.

But just because it wasn’t seen as subversive doesn’t mean it wasn’t subversive. The 1964 Beatles may not have been overtly anti-authority, but covertly, they certainly were. They were even, in their way, political. Their platform? Joy, excitement, pleasure. Within their aura, the future — that distant and sober thing for which the young people of 1964 were supposed to plan, so they could inherit the responsibility of upholding the greatest way of life the world had ever seen — evanesced. That fact alone made many in the establishment nervous, and rightly so.

So celebrate this anniversary, but celebrate it the right way. Don’t call them cute.

— Michael Tomasky is a columnist for the Daily Beast and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. His new e-book is “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!: The Beatles and America, Then and Now.” He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Comments

Paul R Getto 2 months ago

America needed to be subverted. We need yet another subversion to rid us of the Tea Party and the AmeriKKKan Taliban. ROCK ON!

1

Wayne Kerr 2 months ago

Otis Rush had a #6 Billboard R&B hit with "I Can't Quit You Baby" in 1956. Now this is subversive music, that's why it wasn't allowed on TV and most people probably aren't aware of it. In comparison to Otis, the Beatles were cute. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2tEP...

1

Wayne Kerr 2 months ago

The Beatles were cute or they wouldn't have allowed them on television. American Jazz, Blues, and Rock N Roll, primarily played buy African Americans, was subversive music. At the time, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, or Buddy Holly would have blown them off the stage. They were exotic because they were playing American Rock and Roll and they weren't black and they weren't American, you can't get much cuter than that in 1964. They were just what thirteen year old girls with a television in their living rooms were waiting for, they were cute and they were non-threatening.

1

Jonathan Nyp 2 months ago

Subversive is the new mainstream. It's interesting what threatens the new subversive status quo.

1

Phillip Chappuie 2 months ago

.....or is the author merely out of touch with reality?

1

Ken Lassman 2 months ago

Hmmm....how could it be that 50s culture, "the greatest way of life the world had ever seen--evanesce"--vaporizes away like fog, when 4 guys from England come over and start playing rock and roll? Could it be that "the greatest way of life the world had ever seen" wasn't really that great? Could it be that the author is guilty of the same thing as horse-loving folks were guilty of when the first horseless carriage came around the corner and honked? Or when the first steam engine threshed the wheat instead of a team of horses? Or when the first iron sided ship met a wooden ship? Or when the first jet engine ignited? Or....or.....or....

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.