Rant: Beatles = Lightweights?

Beatles Albums.jpg

Reading the Weekend Australian around the middle of 2007, the hackles on the back of my neck rose when I found the following statement leading off an article by David Browne reprinted from The New Republic.

In case you haven’t heard, the Beatles blow. They’re overrated lightweights who aren’t as influential as certain punk bands and they’re to blame for all that soft rock.

At that time I was sufficiently outraged to post a lengthy diatribe on my previous blog site, and on my morning walk today, my mind returned to the subject. I decided the issue was worth revisiting because it points the way towards a number of other issues that will probably rear their ugly heads repeatedly as time goes by....

First up, despite original outrage at the statement, if you’re coming at the subject as someone who didn’t hit puberty in the sixties, that’s probably a more or less justifiable position.


Consider the recent output of the respective Beatles, or rather, don’t, if you’re from about the same vintage as I am.

Apart from a stream of releases from Paul McCartney, none of which I’ve ever had an interest in buying or listening to (at least not based on snippets I’ve heard on the radio), what have they got to show for thirty-something years of activity? 

A handful of solo albums and the odd posthumous release, none of which would do much to deny the above statement. 

On the other hand, if you decide to look at things from a historical perspective, in terms of what really happened, it’s an entirely different matter.


B© Ian Hughes 2012