Do The Beatles matter anymore?

So as I posted a while ago that I do not really rate A Day In the Life as one of the best songs of all time. It is not a bad song, but to me , at least , it is not Kashmir or Hallelujah. It does amaze me that The Beatles remain so popular. Even amongst people that were not around when The Beatles were.

I was always in the other camp. As you may have gathered from my other posts if you have read them, I am a little bit contrary. As such I was much more attracted to the Rolling Stones image when I was growing up and was asked about it. My parents were very much of an age when that mattered. In 2011, does it matter anymore? Does anyone care about The Beatles and the Stones and which ones you thought were better?

Not really, if we are honest. In fact I am now a little more surprised if people have a strong opinion on it. It certainly doesn't come up very much. Does it mean that the music isn't relevant anymore? I am not so sure about that to be honest. I think that maybe music has moved on. But it is surprising how some of the early songs still stand up

That sounds like a Beatles song. Duh, but it has some lovely melodies and chord progressions. It is a good song. Not maybe the most popular or even the best from their early era, but it does have a lovely simple quality to it which means it still stands up as a good song. It is perhaps from a time when things seemed a lot more innocent, but that is timing and not quality.

Here is another to read along to.

I think their early music actually stands up a little bit better than their later more serious stuff. Honestly, I still do not get the fuss about Sergent Pepper. It is good, not good like Pet Sounds. Not good like The Doors, Deja vu etc.

However if you listen to this it sounds, much more trite, misplaced and out of time by today's standards.

I am not saying that it is bad song. I know that it isn't. I can see why so many people the world over like it so much. However, the sentiment is lost on today's society. Also , the lyrics are extremely repetitive. I think the issue I have with a song like this is that it is much more McCartney and less Lennon. I have to say that I am firmly in the Lennon camp. I read a review once which was talking about Yoko Ono, and it said she always saw McCartney as the Salieri to Lennon's Amadeus. I guess you have to know your Peter Schaffers plays to understand it. I think it sums up my feelings on the matter though.

Lennon wrote this, McCartney didn't

 So , it is not really if The Beatles were any good. It is not also about who was the best in the band. Is it still a relevant piece of music to put on in 2011? Does it still actually make any sense? I think this is perhaps why the earlier songs still make sense. People like the innocence of liking boys or girls of the same age. There is something about songs written about courtship, for the want of a better word, that will perhaps always be a bit relevant. Sure, I doubt anyone today aspires just to hold someones hand, but by the same token they understand the meaning of it.

The songs about peace and love and the more cryptic (really?) ones about drugs do not really mean anything to anyone anymore. As Dr Evil says in Austin Powers, peace and love lost. We have moved so far from the idea that if we just love each other everything would be alright. I was part of a discussion today where we were all agreeing that if someone got on the train in a balaclava, you would walk off. Without a second thought. Let it Be , means nothing to us anymore.

That said, if you listened to the first two songs I bet you felt a little bit better. They are happy songs. There is nothing wrong with feeling happy. No matter when the message came from.

Do you think The Beatles matter ? I am interested because so many people rate them so highly. Feel free to comment on the facebook page as well.