Comments

John, How fitting this should happen in the same year that the Beatles' home city, Liverpool, is the European Capital of Culture. There is never any agreement on the finest ever Beatles' song, or if John Lennon's songs were consistently better than Paul McCartney's, or vice versa, but one thing is certainly true. The Beatles changed the pop music world for ever. I guess there are other brands which have similarly changed their worlds? I'm not sure we would want to beam too many of them out into space though!

Posted by Richard King at February 4, 2008 1:26 PM

Great topic John bringing great memories. I remember well as an 11 year old in England in 1963 when The Beatles burst on the scene. They brought freshness and originality – in a nutshell they were different. Not to be under-estimated is the smart management of Brian Epstein who saw the marketing potential. Why does it still generate such terrific interest today? My feeling is the legend has grown over the years and iconic events such as the tragic and untimely murder of the immortal John Lennon adds to the mystique.

Interestingly enough I remember reading that a contemporary band from Liverpool called The Swinging Blue Jeans - were regarded as a better live band than The Beatles. John, you must remember their most successful hit ‘The Hippy Hippy Shake’ So maybe its not only about talent – it may be to do, partly at least, to luck and simply being in the right place at the right time.

I must stop reminiscing otherwise I will have to search for my Beatle hat :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 4, 2008 1:33 PM

I admit - I've never "gotten" the Beatles. Maybe I was just a tad too young...but, no I've got friends much younger that love the boys.

I agree with Trevor - a lot of it has to do with being the right place at the time - converging cultural trends, a large amount of talent, and just the absolutely right things happening at the right time.

My heart still belongs to Elvis! The Beatles may be a brand but Elvis is a demi-god. Here's hoping he's singing while traveling around the universe in the UFO with JFK and Marilyn. ;-)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 4, 2008 1:38 PM

Remember that brand success is not always about being the best; but being around the longest sure helps. I think that longevity of The Beatles coupled with the fact that everyone has heard of them gives them their staying power...

Posted by Ian Sanders at February 4, 2008 1:42 PM

What is it about the beatles brand?
Old fart baby boomers who can't realize that their youth was no more magical than everyone elses

Posted by ed at February 4, 2008 1:46 PM

The biggest question that I have to many Hip Hop rap artists today is: will your beats be remembered some years from now or even tomorrow? I have my doubts. While not all Hip Hop artists produce rhythms without a melody of some kind. But many do. While we can remember certain beats or brilliant riffs or licks, I wonder if what we remember most, if what is most memorable, are sustainable lines— lines that can be remembered—hummed readily. This to me is branding

Many compositions could be remembered for the cacophony of sounds, as the works of some late 20th century classical composers who composed works to both applause and consternation. But many of these works are remembered for what they did NOT do (as in produce a memorable melody or line of some kind) as opposed to the work itself. (I cannot for the life of me hum works that I have even performed by many of these composers.)

We remember the likes of the Beatles, Sly and the Family Stone, Mozart, Marvin Gaye, Cole Porter and Rachmaninoff for the memorable melodies that WE can readily hum, years later after one hearing or a thousand. The best branding is like a memorable melody. It sticks with US… indefinitely.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2008 2:10 PM

Apart from great tunes, imaginative lyrics, innovative production and hard work on the touring and promotion front, there's nothing obvious about why they were so successful! They made records of the time but also of long-lasting popularity. Whatever you think of us old farts still loving them, their current record sales testify to their enduring popularity with new audiences and new generations.

Plus they were one of the first bands to write their own material, negotiated a decent deal in a time when bands were regularly ripped off, cleverly combined old time values (suits, bowing) with development into an "of their time" image, set up their own record label, branched out into a shop (albeit a flop) and encouraged other bands, eg the first James Taylor album, Badfinger et al.

We've talked about "innovative" here before and this is one rare example of the word being justified!

And let's not forget: there has been a very, very astute marketing operation behind The Beatles for many years. They've refused to let the catalogue slip into the mid-price range, eschewed many advertising offers, not (yet) gone digital and their re-marketing of the catalogue has been very imaginative (Anthology, Love).

Posted by Mark JF at February 4, 2008 2:17 PM

Ed--your comment is too funny! Maybe because I am not a part of the Baby Boomer generation. But perhaps not. Are you?

The beauty in your comment for me is that we are all nostalgic for our youthful memories. But the Beatles are not particularly mine. Yet, I "remember" the Beatles brand for its simple brilliance and place in time.

History, not personal memories alone, plays a role in branding.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2008 2:24 PM

I failed to mention Michael Jackson in my litany of musicians above who creates memorable melodies. But he should be included, personal feelings aside. He should be mentioned not only for his brilliant musicianship and creativity, but perhaps because he owns the rights to The Beatles song collection. Who says Michael Jackson's broke?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2008 2:31 PM

Well, I live in Liverpool, the hometown of Beatles. I am an outsider in the city only been here for 5 years but I am beginning to understand why Beatles were what they are. It was the unison of John,Paul,George and Ringo, a great bonding that has never been succesfully attempted since. Although Paul Mc Cartney and Ringo are still going strong, but they have well lost the magic of the quartet.
Also, Liverpool is such a down to earth town, so full of its rich historical heritage and culture and music is an integral part of it.The cavern Club, where Beatles first used to gig still attract thousands of fans every year.

Posted by Hersh Bhardwaj at February 4, 2008 2:41 PM

Hersh Bhardwaj--I agree with your comment above save the bit about other groups not being able to create the "unison" or "bonding" that The Beatles created.

The Jackson Five, The Supremes, The Temptations, The Four Tops and other groups of 60's, without doubt, produced memorable branding that's still very much appreciated today. But I'm not sure about records sales in comparison.

Is branding about sales alone? Probably so.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 4, 2008 3:01 PM

I think the Beatles are an almost perfect example of a brand that is "owned" by its audience. In and of themselves the Beatles as a group were really only together for about five or six years, yet in that time they built a formidable and enduring brand.

Sure part of their success was being in the right place at the right time, but that is not enough to have 40 years of lasting endurance. I think a lot of their appeal, even today, can be attributed to their absolute dedication to being themselves, not beholden to the record companies, radio, television or any body else. That attitude set the tone for a generation and that generation still looks to the Beatles brand for inspiration. They made their music, their way. They lived their lives as they wanted and they were not afraid of being different.

The interesting thing is that much of the reverence for the Beatles brand has carried over to at least two or three generation after the band broke up. And the brand keeps getting reinvigorated through new and different channels. I remember when Nike used Revolution for a commercial and it caused a ruckus that made people sit up and listen. More recently, Cirque Du Soleil created their Love show around the music and the list goes on and on.

They created something that is enduring in so many ways that it is still inspiring people 40 years later.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 4, 2008 3:59 PM

The Beatles had a unique combination of talent and timing. They were the first on the scene at a time of great musical change. Also, I think George Martin's innovative producing created unique sounds that had never been heard before.

That said, there are a few others who have had made a lasting impression on music; Elvis, Rolling Stones, The Who, to name a few.

Posted by kurt wendelken at February 4, 2008 4:16 PM

This is really cool. The Beatles are truly classic. I personally like their later work better then their early tunes. Don't you think their style changed over the years?

Posted by CMOE at February 4, 2008 4:45 PM

Admittedly, I am old enough to have owned a nehru jacket and beatle boots. One thing that may have contributed to their branding success is that each one of them were "Brand You's". Accomplished musicians and songwriters individually, they gave us a working definition of synergy when they were together. Of course there are many who have made lasting impressions. But with the possible exception of Elvis, I don't think any others can touch them in branding. Being great is not the same as being a great brand. I prefer New Balance running shoes over Nike, but would be the first to admit in the brand wars, it ain't even close.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 4, 2008 5:41 PM

Been thinking John – your question - what is it about the Beatles? 16 comments in record time on TP Blog – THAT’S what it is about The Beatles. I reckon no other subject on this Blog since I have been reading it has prompted such a swift response from so many. The Beatles are a wonderful, mysterious, inexplicable phenomenon. I am so proud the fab four came from my country. Has anything else from Britain ever had such an impact worldwide? Answer: Not in my lifetime.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 4, 2008 5:54 PM

Yes, Trevor, an unexpected bonanza of responses - and high quality. (BTW, from your comment I can assume you were born after Winston Churchill's reign.) As far as answering the question posed, one could write a book on that. Oh, I forgot, I'm already doing that. :-)

Mike, I agree that it made the Beatles brand so much richer by promoting the individual Brand You's. A few other bands have done well with the same strategy - marketing the brand identities of the personalities within the bands. (I'd put the Stones and the Who near the top of that list, but there are others. Trevor would undoubtedly include the Eagles!) As with other teams in business, as long as they know how to manage their differences, the more personality (and attitude) each team member brings to the party the better!

Cheers to a successful launch!

Posted by John O'Leary at February 4, 2008 7:32 PM

On the negative side, of course, The Beatles paved the way for pop branding and thus we end up with Pop Idol (UK) and American Idol (US), where personality is all, the judges are more famous than the singers and the music is clearly subordinate to the show brand. Hmm...!!!

Posted by Mark JF at February 5, 2008 3:53 AM

Good point John - maybe I overlooked a certain Mr Churchill who was also a pretty good Brit in my lifetime I must admit – apologies Sir Winston - I feel suitably rebuked!

I thought (for a change) I would NOT mention The Eagles but you did so forgive me to divert slightly - Did I tell you I am seeing The Eagles at the O2 Arena in London on March 25th when they launch their new world tour in London with four concert dates? ... Sorry but you started it John by mentioning them :-)

Mark - to blame The Beatles for Gareth Gates is stretching it a bit don’t you think?! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 5, 2008 4:19 AM

glad to hear. the universe can listen to the beatles too))

Posted by carina at February 5, 2008 5:21 AM

The first record that was ever bought for me was The Beatles Twist & Shout EP, but many years later it's a case of "Thanks, but no thanks' when it comes to the Fab Four, despite twelve years in the music business.

Yes, I went past the 50 mark in January, but there's no Beatles music on my iPod, yet the music of Motown, the Rolling Stones and many others from the sixties all hit the spot. There's also more from Noel Gallagher than there is from Paul McCartney, but that's down to working on a student newspaper whilst doing a degree course during the Britpop years...

Live music is where the branding stops and the talent wins through. Best bands or acts seen over the years? The Rolling Stones, OMD, Thin Lizzy, Dire Straits (in a hall, not an arena!) and Sting (also at Newcastle City Hall).

The worst? Queen, Nirvana, Robert Plant (solo), David Bowie and Judas Priest - all acts I admired, but who just didn't cut it on the night. Oh, then there's also the major name acts who mimed their shows - one of them had the whistle blown on him by the local rep from the Musicians Union.

In terms of pure entertainment, some of the best gigs I've seen might surprise - David Lee Roth, Vanilla Ice, Metallica, Marc Almond and Elvis Costello. In the case of Vanilla Ice, I'd slagged off his records, but couldn't fault his live show for entertainment value.

Any live dates in the diary for the next few months? No, just a night in the presence of Michael Palin...

And as for Gareth Gates, he was apparently quite well regarded as a singer before Pop Idol - my girlfriend's son was in the same class as Gareth at the local academy school here in Bradford...

Cheers

Keith

Posted by Keith Rickaby at February 5, 2008 7:18 AM

As much as we all admire the second stringers, this isn't Tom Peters' Employees and Associates Blog. Two weeks without a Tom post? Is he ill?

Posted by Soon To Be FORMER Reader at February 5, 2008 7:36 AM

Okay, now that's just tacky. "Soon to be FORMER Reader" - would you walk up to one of the "second stringers" and say that to their face?

As for the Beatles - here's another brand for you, Madonna. And, then there's Cher. Interesting to analyze how each of the "brands" endure.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 5, 2008 9:55 AM

Soon to be Former: we'll miss you.
Keith: if you prefer live performance over recording that could explain why you're underwhelmed by the Beatles, BUT let it be said that the 4 lads in their leather-jacket-DA-haircut-crank-up-the-volume-insult-the-audience pre-1963 days packed a wallop, as mentioned in a previous post I did on original drummer Pete Best. Even John Lennon had to admit that by the time they became a pop phenomenon in England they were no longer a true rock & roll band. (Something lost, something gained.) You can lay some credit or blame on this to Brian Epstein who, as Trevor and others have noted, played a role in cleaning up the Beatle image, thereby giving the boys a more "universal" brand.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 5, 2008 10:05 AM

While there is certainly NO substitute for TP!, I have been thoroughly enlightened and inspired by all of those who have posted and commented. I have also had my share of laughs. I'm in this thing! God-speed to TP today and always.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 5, 2008 10:05 AM

Mary - and what about The Eagles? - I forgive you of course as I just know that was a deliberate oversight on your part :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 5, 2008 10:07 AM

Trevor, I like the Eagles, really I do. I grew up with them (Hotel California was the first album I ever bought), but I have difficulty putting them on the level of the Beatles when it comes to their brand. Sure they are an enduring presence, as are The Who and Herman's Hermits (Yes, Peter Noon still tours with the boys and no they are NOT on the level of The Who), but they still don't have the brand strength of the Beatles.

For me one of the more enduring things about the Beatles is, as Mike points out, that they were all the embodiment of Brand You's while also being part of a bigger brand. When they called it quits, that was it, yet none of them faded from the scene, they continued to do what they had always done, and be who they had always been. There was never a reunion album, a "Hell Froze Over" tour or anything of the sort that diluted or affected either their own individual brands or the Beatles brand as a whole.

When Paul formed Wings, it was a great band and has many fans to this day, but it never affected the way people thought of the Beatles. Same goes for John and George's subsequent projects. To me that is one of the amazing things about the Beatles brand, even though it's members have gone onto great individual success (Ringo?), they have never really changed how people felt about them as a group.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 5, 2008 11:05 AM

I'm actually with you Andrew believe it or not!The Eagles are brilliant but as far as 'brand' goes there is just no band in the world that gets remotely close to The Beatles. Now if we were talking about the music legacy ... now that's a whole new discussion .... but I won't divert us from John's excellent theme :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 5, 2008 11:14 AM

Hi all,

Here's my take on why the Beatles have such longevity - originally taken from a piece on teamwork from my book 'Sex, Leadership and Rock'n'Roll'

All the best from the UK

Peter Cook

What can we learn about teams from the
Academy of Rock?

With the Beatles – Teamwork in action

Stage 1 – The Forming Stage
1957 to 1960 – From Liverpool to Hamburg.

Stage 2 – The Storming Stage
1961 to 1962 – From Hamburg to The Cavern.

Stage 3 – The Norming Stage
1961 to 1962 – The Cavern Club, Brian Epstein, George Martin and Ringo.

Stage 4 – The Performing Stage
1963 to 1967 – The Fab Four and Beatlemania.

Stage 5 – The Reforming Stage or ‘Break Up’
1967 to 1970 – The Death of Brian Epstein, Apple and the Fab Fallout.

The long and winding road

Knowing how goals and roles fitted into the bigger picture enabled the Beatles to behave effectively without having everything spelled out in such detail that it became restrictive. Believing that their roles were equally important, knowing how they related to the whole, and having a reasonable fit between their personal goals and the band’s goals energized and motivated John, Paul, George and Ringo to have seventeen number 1 hits in the UK.

Come Together

Few things are more discouraging than being a part of a dysfunctional team. It’s difficult to put forth your best effort when other team members don’t support each other, don’t follow through on commitments, and don’t stick by the decisions the team has made. Team members need to know one another at a deeper level than the role each is playing. This tends to generate a genuine interest in each other’s individual success, and in the final analysis, is essential for excellent cooperation. Making and using ground rules greatly improves teamwork by improving team action and interaction

Getting better

The Beatles made being creative an everyday part of their work. Being more creative means working smarter and having more fun. The Sergeant Pepper years were a testimony to this philosophy. However, it meant investing the time and effort to explore new frontiers, considering new points of view, and creating new mental runways.

Revolution

The Beatles were one of the greatest teams ever in the history of popular music. The main reason for the eventual break-up in 1970 was complacency and a failure to address important team issues which were a prerequisite for their continuing success. From 1968, they went into a decline that they were unable to halt. Maintaining such a high level of success is tough when team members begin to have hidden agendas, selfish motives, or conflicting goals. The roadblocks, bottlenecks, and problems that created dissatisfaction amongst John, Paul, George and Ringo were never addressed. By April 1970, it was all over.

I guess this could add up to Tom's Excellence forever views?

Peter

Extract from Sex, Leadership and Rock’n’Roll – Business Leadership ‘tamed’ with rock and pop culture

Posted by Peter Cook at February 5, 2008 1:01 PM

Tom is not ill; he's off on a vacation. I imagine he'll be posting again later this month. (If you're unhappy with current fare, there's always the archives.)

Posted by Erik Hansen at February 5, 2008 3:14 PM

Re Mary's astute comments about Madonna, I must agree. What's interesting about Madonna (and David Bowie in the UK) is their ability to change radically their product AND keep their audience at the same time. In Rock'n'Roll, the more usual story is for an act to change themselves and lose their audiences, hence the trail of one hit wonders. The Madonna Brand is durable enough to carry its audiences through Madge's various transformations AND gain her new admirers.

Because it is a string brand, of course, there wil be many detractors. But we cannot deny she has taken on many controversial topics and her brand value has not been dented by this and in many cases has been enhanced.

Best wishes

Peter Cook

Posted by Peter Cook at February 6, 2008 8:19 AM

The Beatles had a unique combination of talent and timing. and i'm glad that their song is sent to the universe

Posted by katrina at February 6, 2008 9:39 AM

Trevor - I LOVE The Eagles. I actually saw them way back on their live tour to promote Hotel California (and they all still had hair!) However, as much as I adore them (can still sing just about every song verbatim, and make the wah-wah guitar noises) - they aren't the universal brand of the Beatles.

I'm fascinated by Madonna - she's a brilliant marketer. I don't know one fan and yet she makes billions. Cher could have remained just as big (and I adore her) but she made some missteps with brand maintenance (cheesy infomercials, wayyy too much cosmetic surgery.)

And, yes, you'll get a lot more comments when you post about things such as music. That's part of many of our lives at a very deeply felt level. Management styles and businesses come and go - but the music keeps playin'

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 6, 2008 1:15 PM

Peter and Mary, I agree that Madonna is a fascinating example of someone who is constantly transforming their image without losing her audience, but how different is she from Paul McCartney or John Lennon. Both of them are (or sadly, were) outstanding brands in their own right, whether they were with the Beatles or on their own. Both of them were also constantly evolving their personal brands, yet Paul still sells out concerts to this day and John's songs and records are as popular as ever.

Maybe that's the difference between a strong "Brand You" and a broader brand such as the Beatles. As an individual you are able to transform your brand because you are a single entity, capable of personally expression and explanation. Whereas a broader brand, such as a band is made up of branded component parts (Brand You's) that are less able to transform the whole and still stay true to themselves.

The Beatles managed to build and maintain a transformational image for only so long before the individual brands began to drift apart and transcend the band's brand.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 6, 2008 1:42 PM

Great points, all.

Peter: when it comes to brand reinvention I’d put Dylan at the top of the chameleon list (thus the movie “I’m Not There” about his many masks — along with his many product styles). Of course the Beatles took chances with their new products as well. (Recording “Yesterday” was a radical departure for them — just Paul, solo voce, with string quarter. They were afraid to release it as a single in the UK for fear of brand confusion).

Mary: The fun for me is finding business/management/marketing applications from my favorite source: pop music. Sounds like the same is true for Peter.

Andrew: managing the dynamic tension between the larger brand identity and the individual Brand You’s within a band is clearly a big-time factor in a band’s success — and longevity. There are great bands that just couldn’t manage the Brand You differences for long (e.g. the Buffalo Springfield, with Stephen Stills, Neil Young, and Ritchie Furay) while other great bands somehow pulled it off for decades (the Stones, the Who).

Interesting synchonicity of events: NASA launches the Beatles’ most celestial song — complete with Sanskrit chorus (“Jai Guru Deva Om”) — into outer space and within 24 hours the inspiration for the song — the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, their one-time Indian mentor — passes away.

I guess it’s safe to say this Beatle launch to Polaris is a marketing first. Having to wait 862 years for customer feedback has some disadvantages though. And how will we measure marketing success in 2870? (Where’s Steve Yastrow when we need him?)

Posted by John O'Leary at February 6, 2008 5:17 PM

We'll wait 862 years for the feedback and it'll be, "Thanks, but we prefer ABBA."

Posted by Mark JF at February 8, 2008 3:16 AM

Mary - thanks for your praise of The Eagles - I agree with you entirely about the 'brand' thing. I saw them in 2006 and will be seeing them again next month in London - they are awesome live don't you think?

By the way I also do those wah-wah guitar noises - I really need to get out more :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 8, 2008 5:44 AM

John,

Absolutely yes, the fun is in finding connections from the music business which can demystify some of the jargon that most business consultants use and which, thank goodness, Tom does not.

I enjoyed immensely his ability to ad lib about the really important business problem of whether J K Rowling should kill Harry Potter in London a year or so ago. It was absolutley spot on.

In the end, everything of course ends up with ABBA! ;-)))

atb

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at February 8, 2008 9:29 AM

Mark JF, if we launched ABBA's best song (Dancing Queen? Waterloo? Mama Mia?) to Polaris tomorrow I'd bet $10,000 USD ($6,890 Euros) on the Fab 4 winning the battle. We can even throw in the Eagles' best (Hotel California?) to keep Trevor happy. My descendants would gladly collect from your descendants. (Of course if we factor in inflation...) Coincidentally, each of these 3 bands eventually had difficulty keeping the individual Brand You’s from breaking away from (and thus breaking up) the group, but each had a good commercial run. (Creative destruction at its best?)

Posted by John O'Leary at February 8, 2008 7:23 PM

John is a colleague and a friend...but heh, wouldn't it turn things upside down if the message we got back was little green martians dancing and spinning to Dancing Queen? And just to get in on the Eagles thing, it would have to be the original eagles before Timothy B and Joe Walsh...

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Ok, Please don't get me wrong, the Beatles were a damn fine band and I enjoy a lot of their music.

However.....

If we are going to choose the best song to blast accross the cosmos, I could probably make a list of well over 10,000 pieces of music that would be more appropriate. Starting with at least 50 pieces by Mozart and 80 pieces by Beethoven. This beatlemania nonsense is just another example of the boomers showing their myopic senility.

Posted by John G at February 9, 2008 12:34 PM

where to order viagra

Mike and John - I suppose 'Hotel California' is considered the iconic single of The Eagles but my Eagles classics are ‘The Last Resort’ (Henley at his best) and from the new Album the title track 'Long Road Out of Eden' which will, I predict, be remembered in the same iconic way as Hotel California in 20 years time.

Suggestion to TP Blog team – next ‘cool friend’ interview with Don Henley and/or Glen Frey about how to maintain excellence in business for 30 years plus :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 9, 2008 12:40 PM

Although I'm not a Hater, in current lingo, I must admit that my favorite comments are by Ed and John G. I have ROARED with laughter, all in good sport of course. The mania is so apparent that John G's brilliant addition to the discussion was completely dismissed with a stroke of a key to more mania! Bravo Trevor! Who's talking about genuis anyway?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2008 2:53 PM

viagra free samples canada Well, actually....I think we ARE talking about genius, though I admit I didn't personally recognize it in the Beatles at first. I was charmed by the band when they blasted onto the world scene in 1964 but then my attention quickly moved onto the harder rock bands (such as the Stones and the Who) which were closer to the music I was playing with my band at the time. Belatedly I realized how stunningly innovative the Beatles had been in EVERY facet of performance, but especially songwriting. When I started to write songs myself, I began to appreciate that Lennon-McCartney tunes were of a different order of quality from other the pop/rock writers. (One epiphany came when I realized that in the song “Michelle” McCartney changes keys TWICE by the fourth word of the song — in such a sublime way I had missed it completely!) They used many sophisticated compositional techniques, especially in their ballads. I once came up with a list of several DOZEN of these melodic, harmonic, or lyrical “tricks” — that few other rock/pop writers have used, before or since. Most of their songs featured wonderful surprises — melodic leaps, unusual harmonies, and unexpected chord changes — executed with such subtlety and underhanded mastery it was easy to miss because it just sounded “right.” (E.g. Lennon’s introduction to “If I Fell” that modulates up a half step into the verse; McCartney’s key change within the verse of “Here, There, Everywhere.")

It’s no surprise that the London Times (commenting on the “aeolian cadences” and “submediant key switches”) were onto the Beatles early as composers who knew their craft and that “serious” composers from Leonard Bernstein to Aaron Copeland jumped on the bandwagon soon after. That’s why there’s a book series entitled: "Getting to Know the World's Greatest Composers: Aaron Copland, Igor Stravinsky, the Beatles, Leonard Bernstein, George Gershwin, Peter Tchaikovsky…" But I’d prefer to keep the discussion to popular songs not “pieces of music” so as to compare apples to apples not pop songs to symphonies. Most critics’ lists of best popular songs of the 20th century carry a boatload of Lennon-McCartney songs. One list I saw several years ago, in which a panel of top composers made THEIR list of best pop songs ever, had a Beatle song as #1. And Rolling Stone’s list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, though limited to the pop/rock genre, had 8 songs of Lennon or McCartney in its top 30.

This is all the more impressive when you realize that the Beatles were writing and recording two to three albums of new material per YEAR — while touring worldwide until late 1966. (Many modern bands are content to release a new album every two to three years.)

All in all it’s no wonder that Time Magazine wrote: “What the Beatles did in the 60’s remains the most thrilling surge of creativity in the history of pop culture.” And as Tom (remember him?) said a few years ago on these pages: “the Beatles changed the world, and will be one of music's ‘Top 25’ all-time stories-historical monuments 300 years from now.”

Posted by John O'Leary at February 9, 2008 10:03 PM

I was so convinced that anyone would love the Beatles if they only heard them, that I played "Blackbird" for my elderly German aunt Clara Maria. She listened, but her only comment was that the bird chirping at the end was not a blackbird. Did this lessen my appreciation of the music? Not at all. Did it illustrate the difficulty of sharing personal enthusiasm? Perhaps. I justified my appreciation of the Beatles on the many classical music norms present in their compositions and on how different and fresh they were from the record industry offerings of the mid-sixties. It seems we went from Pat Boone and Bobby Vee to the Stones, Animals, Beatles. Kinks, Cream, Zappa, etc. in a relatively short time. "Change" was the compelling element. Hmmm, sound familiar? But this change was supported by an understanding of what had worked previously in classical, soul, country and other genres. Will the proponents of political change "bursting on the scene" now have similar success? It seems the young generation is catching on. Yea, Yea, Yea.

Posted by Bob Liepman at February 9, 2008 11:32 PM

It doesn't matter what generation you’re from -- boomer, x, y, z. The Beatles were the most imaginative force that popular music has ever seen. Its too bad their manager was clueless about merchandising rights, costing them millions.

Posted by Henry at February 10, 2008 8:08 AM

John -Thank you. I'll have to send you a rendition of Yesterday I recorded a few years back, proving your point that we all borrow from one another - without which there isn't much. Bob Leipman makes this point wonderfully also. Thank you Bob for your words. I really loved your story and thoughts.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 10, 2008 10:20 AM

Thanks, Judith. If you have a digital file of your rendition of “Yesterday” I’d love to hear it. (You can email it to me at johnoleary@tompeters.com) When that song (which has been recorded by over 3000 artists the last I checked) was released in 1965 it was the first glimpse many had of the true genius of the Beatles - and producer George Martin, whose talents as an arranger became more obvious at that point. (The “contrary motion” in the bridge of "Yesterday" is a classic touch.) I meant to echo your earlier point that a memorable melody counts for a LOT in pop music. But the Beatles pulled off these melodies and “hooks” with a sophisticated mastery that was so understated most people STILL miss it unless they’re tipped off to it, as I was. Modern songwriters should study these classic songs as I was forced (by my Jesuit high school English instructors) to study the classic nineteenth-century novels.

Henry, that’s an interesting story in its own right: how Brian Epstein cost the Beatles a FORTUNE (not that we should feel sorry for their loss, given their prodigious song and record royalties) by ignoring merchandizing rights. But in a sense it’s all the more amazing that a neophyte Epstein, who knew so little of talent management, had so many of the right instincts. Within three years of signing these four young lads he helped them turn the pop music world upside down. A more seasoned manager might have captured the merchandise market but missed other opportunities.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 10, 2008 12:52 PM

The Beatles had a rare combination. The Lennon-McCartney song writing and composition machine; some exquisite guitar work on lead, rhythm and bass; a starr performance on a Ludwig drumset and versatile vocals to cap it off.

Their music was potent and popular even in far away Sri Lanka, where as a teenager I remember virtually fighting my way into the cinema to watch 'A Hard Day's Night' and 'Help'.

They broke from the established trend in western music and tested auditory experiences at a higher level at a time when Elvis Presley and Cliff Richard were riding the charts.

It is difficult to say why their music continues to be popular more than forty years later. Perhaps it is because they broke the trend and showed that despite 'A Hard Day's Night', they still wanted to be loved 'Eight Days a Week'.

The Beatles arrived when the world was looking to new frontiers with the US race to put a man on the moon reinforcing the confidence that we could always strive for something more and achieve it.

The Beatles did it very harmoniously.

Posted by Ranjit at February 11, 2008 3:27 AM

John - I'd be happy to send you a digital file of Yesterday so long as you fully understand that I am NOT a pop singer. No disrespect to the genre. It's just not me, although I can thoroughly appreciate it. Agreed?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 11, 2008 5:49 AM

All,

I think the dialogue here serves to demonstrate the wonder of music and the fact that it is a complex affair - one person's pain is another's pleasure etc.

There is a letter I wrote on the subject in Today's Financial Times - I've attached it below - it relates to the use of music to enhance brands on websites and so on.

all the best

Peter

*************************************************

FT Letter - Monday 11 Feb

Sir, Your article (Sound argument for ending the internet’s silence, February 04) makes perfect sense. The philosopher Emmanuel Kant said music is the language of the emotions. Madonna pointed out that music makes the people come together. The very same point, except Madonna’s version makes people buy soft drinks! Certainly music touches many of us at a much deeper level than a Powerpoint presentation, reaching our head, heart and soul, evoking powerful memories and connections and so on when used well.

When we have a meeting at work, we do not rely just on graphics and minutes – we need an oral interpreter. Why therefore do most internet sites attempt to put across complex information about their products and services in just one of the three primary modes in which we think?

However, I must offer a warning from my own research into the impact of music on the mind. It is vital to pick the right music to reach your intended audience and convey your intended message carefully – This is not always the same as the preferred choice of the Marketing Director or their children! Website designers should also be minded of the need to make it very easy to opt in or out of audio, lest their choice of ‘audio branding’ is not music to every customer’s ears. To misquote Morrissey, some people’s Meat is another person’s Murder.

Peter Cook
Author: Sex, Leadership and Rock’n’Roll - Leadership Lessons from the Academy of Rock

"None would doubt that we live in a Rock'n'Roll Age -- so what makes more sense than a brilliant, original, rockin' Rock'n'Roll model of business management and leadership? Sex, Leadership and Rock 'n' Roll is a marvellous book, which closes the door on the tidy, hierarchical, know-your-place 'Orchestral Age' and ushers in a new, creative era of challenge and change. Hooray!" - Tom Peters

Posted by Peter Cook at February 11, 2008 6:31 AM

Thank you, Peter for your brilliant remarks. With the very deepest sincerest bow to TP, some of the musicial rants against the 'Orchestral Age' is to me pure - WHITE SEARING, BLINDING DEAFENING NOISE, perhaps proving Peter's points and Kant's notion. Perhaps this ranting is for personal expression against the machine? Perhaps change for the sake of change? Or, change with the sense of breaking out of the established mode? Some have been successful. Others have failed miserably. I guess this is the process of prototyping. For this, I NOISELY applaud!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 11, 2008 9:26 AM

Is it me or is there something odd (or ironic, in a knowing post-modern sort of way) about us raving over a song whose refrain goes, "Nothing's gonna change my world"?

Posted by Mark JF at February 11, 2008 2:05 PM

Judith, I promise I won't listen to your rendition of “Yesterday with “pop” expectations - or any expectations for that matter. Thank you in advance.

Peter, nice Financial Times piece. We share a passion for rock & roll and recognize its many applications to business.

Mark JF, I’ve always assumed that John Lennon was referring to an internal equanimity with those words. John said he initially wrote the song because he was irritated by the jabbering of his wife, Cynthia, in bed one night, which drove him to pick up his guitar and express his annoyance. That might explain the opening lines. “Words are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup. They slither while they pass. They slip away across the universe.” But what he did with the song after that (perhaps realizing he could transform the song into something transcendent) is what makes him one of the great lyricists. “Pools of sorrow waves of joy are drifting through my open mind, possessing and caressing me. Jai guru deva om. Nothing’s gonna change my world. Nothing’s gonna change my world.” (But conducting hermeneutic analysis of John Lennon lyrics is a slithery and slippery slope.)

Posted by John O'Leary at February 11, 2008 3:32 PM

John - I was (as ever) slightly tongue in cheek and provocative! I tend to agree with you a) Lennon + hermenuetics = inconclusive; and b) I think the "nothing changes" refrain refers to his peace of mind:

Limitless undying love which shines around me like a
million suns and calls me on and on / Across the universe

Posted by Mark JF at February 11, 2008 3:57 PM

John - "Yesterday" is on the way.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 11, 2008 5:31 PM

Judith,

NOISE annoys! :-))

You are right on the money here. Noise / Dissonance in organisations is seen as exceptional / irritating, but if we are to innovate, we need irritable ideas that grate on our mind. That means we must welcome 'noise' and 'noisy people'. Tom is of course a self confessed noisemaker and we need this more than ever in the increasingly packaged world we inhabit, where innovation is seen as untidy!

The Majesty of Rock!

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at February 12, 2008 5:15 AM

Peter - I so appreciate your thoughts and applaud your efforts. Bravo!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 12, 2008 6:29 AM

Noise... In the late 60's, Frank Zappa was in a hotel lobby, waiting for a taxi to take him to the concert hall and listening to a transistor radio held up to his ear. The hotel manager came rushing up, exclaiming to the effect of, "Turn that noise off!" Mr. Zappa promptly returned to his room, took out a practice guitar, turned up the amp to the proverbial eleven notch and proceeded to hit very loud, nonsense, atonal chords. The hotel manager soon reappeared, unplugged the amp and fulminated as the racket died down. "That was noise," explained Mr. Z as the dust settled. "What I was listening to in the lobby was music."

Posted by Mark JF at February 12, 2008 8:34 AM

MarkJF - Thank you for sharing the Zappa story. It's beautiful.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Judith, I haven't received your file. Did you send it johnoleary@tompeters.com?

Posted by John O'Leary at February 13, 2008 4:34 PM

John, I tried sending the file to me first and only the shortcut was sent. (I'm not terribly technically savvy.) I'll try ripping the CD again and send the file to you. Sorry for the delay. I should have sent you an email. It'll be on the way soon.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 11:56 AM

Nice site!

Posted by Nikolet at March 18, 2008 11:49 AM