This person (Noel) has explained to you, in detail, to no avail since It’s useless trying to explain to people who have no idea about a subject.

I too agree with your comments re ‘Come Together’. A Maltese language song should have been chosen.

[Daphne – I hate it when people miss the point, because the one thing you can’t accuse me of is not being extremely clear. I am not speaking about THE MUSIC PER SE but about WHAT THAT MUSIC MEANS TO AND HOW IT IS PERCEIVED BY the generation that came immediately after The Beatles – i.e. mine. And on this, unfortunately and whether you like it or not, I am by definition going to be far better informed than Noel, who is a decade my senior and belongs to The Beatles generation, and you, who are younger and motivated by personal animosity towards me rather than interest in music, as is clear from the bitchy overtones. Now please, give it a rest.]

It’s all about the music and The Beatles’ music has stood the test of time. Ok I agree one might find ‘Yellow Submarine and Maxwell’s Silver Hammer ‘ irritating, but for every turd you have tens of gems like the mind-shattering ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’ or ‘A Day In The Life’. ‘Yellow Submarine’ was just a slip up or the Beatles consciously taking the mickey. The Beatles were British (a race well known for its sense of humour) raised on comedy giants like the Goons.

As to the childish sound, not at all. The Beatles were using chords described by Bob Dylan as ‘outrageous’. Yes the sound of the early songs is primitive compared to today’s pristine recordings, but the Beatles, their producer George Martin and his engineers created some of the most amazing sonic inventions on two channel and four channel mixing desks.

In the sixties, British studios were less advanced than American ones (in fact The Stones recorded a lot of their sixties stuff in the USA). By the time the heavier bands and progressive groups arrived in the late sixties/early seventies, studio technology had moved on in leaps and bounds. The arrival of Marshall amps/speaker cabinets in the late sixties changed the sound of live rock music forever.

Finally why do current music critcs writing for respected rock magazines such as Rolling Stone, Mojo, Uncut and Classic Rock still rave about The Beatles. Why all this hullabaloo in the USA connected to the Beatles conquest of America 50 years ago, in February, 1964?

Indeed this has been a very interesting exchange of views. I normally have this type of discussion with my fellow music aficionados, when we all sound very anal retentive.

Suggestion: Read ‘Revolution In The Head’ by the late Ian Mc’Donald. Very enlightening on The Beatles music and the sixties and listen to All Rock, a Maltese rock station on DAB+radio and streaming allrockmalta.com.

I agree with your comments re ‘Come Together’. A crass choice. A Maltese language song should have been commissioned.

One can see that you know absolutely nothing about music – stick to politics please, or maybe Duran Duran.

[Daphne – I know rather a lot about the music of that era, though I prefer to hide my light under a bushel lest it gives rise to another wave of sarcastic and bitchy comments on the lines of ‘Maaaa, now you know about music as well, know all!’ (but actually, yes, I do, when it comes to that period) and never could stand Duran Duran. Though they were really big when I was 17, I was busy listening to other stuff at the time. No, I am not playing out of my league. I stick to what I know. The fact that my range is fairly wide and eclectic is not my problem but it seems to be yours. I do not suffer from lack of insight or self-awareness. When I don’t know anything about a subject, I’m well aware of it, and also that it is generally because I don’t find it interesting, and so I don’t discuss it. If your experience of people is that they are one-dimensional, disengaged and uncurious, you should not conclude on that basis that all people are that way. They are not. In societies far more sophisticated than ours, you are EXPECTED to know a great deal about many subjects and to keep an intelligent conversation going whatever the subject happens to be. The Maltese experience is abysmal so don’t use it as your measuring-stick. It is right there at the bottom.]

Saying goes “If you remember the sixties you weren’t really there”. Well I was there in my teens and I do remember the sixties really well and The Beatles in all their resplendent glory. By the end of the decade The Fab Four were not only hip but were treated as Gods and Messiahs. Their break up in 1970 left a big void. Sure they were sonically superseded by the heavier bands such as Led Zep and Black Sabbath and the progressive rock groups of the early 70’s whose template The Beatles laid on “Sgt Pepper’s ” in 1967.

[Daphne – That’s exactly my point, Noel. Raving about The Beatles dates people precisely: teenagers in the 1960s. I am around 10 years younger. The generational shift was so disproportionately large in terms of music, fashion, trends etc that by the late 1970s, the only people my age who were into The Beatles were the sort who hung around and idolised priest-leaders and played their guitar at Christian camps while dressed like missionaries. Then there were the ‘dad’ types of the parent generation who thought it was cool to play Strawberry Fields and the ‘mum’ types, also of the parent generation, who sang Yellow Submarine to their infants. I speak from experience. I was there.]

The Beatles like their contemporaries The Stones, The Who and The Kinks were never Housewives Choice. This request programme on Rediffusion in the 60s (same goes for PO Box Ghaxra) was littered with Elvis Presley, Pat Boone and Cliff Richard, who white young middle class college (St Aloysius) boys like me hated.

[Daphne – Well, there you go, Noel. By the time I was listening to PO Box Ghaxra circa 1977 when I was 12, the Elvis Presley, Pat Boone and Cliff Richard you and your friends despised had been replaced by The Beatles and a couple of other ‘housewives’ choice’ 1960s groups who I and my contemporaries shuddered at. And the Elvis Presley you despised (though never Pat Boone and Cliff Richard) was the dangerous man of his day, the essence of hipdom in his time. The Beatles are to my generation what Elvis Presley was to yours. In fact, we place them in the same bracket in terms of what liking them says about a person. This might be considered shocking to those who experienced the excitement of The Beatles contemporaneously, but we didn’t experience that excitement. We just see the result (and I don’t mean the music).]

We were the into all the above-mentioned groups and the hippest cat around Bob Dylan. The Beatles music was never for Tal-Muzew types. I am sure the latter did not appreciate John Lennon’s “bigger than Christ” comment which raised such a furore in America’s Bible Belt.

[Daphne – Well, this is turning out to be an interesting conversation. By the age of 16 (1981) I had Bob Dylan’s entire ouevre on long-play. But there was no way I was going to be caught dead playing or even owning a Beatles LP. But that time, the music was definitely for tal-muzew types, by which I don’t necessarily mean actual tal-muzew people but village youth centre types who had absolutely no idea of anything and were really, really sheltered in the worst possible way.]

The Beatles music does not date people to 60+ . It has transcended time and all fads. It will still be around in fifty years if not more. It’s all about the songwriting.

[Daphne – Come on, Noel, it really does. You are a case in point. All the people raving about The Beatles in public in Malta are aged around 60. The Beatles just happened to coincide with their ‘coming of age’ moment and marked them, that’s all. All the ones doing so in private, ditto. None of my contemporaries are even remotely interested in The Beatles. It’s not the music of our time, and beyond that, it has no cachet. Beyond that, we actually find it irritating and the sound is childish, which is actually one of the reasons why it had such massive appeal – blasphemy, perhaps, but there you go. Children love certain Beatles songs. Ask yourself why: it’s the clear, repetitive, chanting rhythm and sound.]

Hey Daph. I speak from experience. I was there.

[Daphne – Ditto, Noel. I was there when The Beatles became the equivalent to my generation of what Elvis Presley was to your generation. Most of us still feel that way. George Harrison and John Lennon in their post-Beatles incarnations were more than fine, but The Beatles themselves? Forget it.]

The Beatles are much admired by today’s youngsters and budding rock musicians for their groundbreaking music. They are acknowledged by one and all as the most popular and most important rock group ever.

[Daphne – Not really. Only by those in their 20s who embrace the current and very temporary fad. To my generation (b. 1964), The Beatles were never anything but the housewives’ choice on 1970s PO Ghaxra and the music itself, though groundbreaking, entertaining in its time & c & c, was the hallmark choice of Tal-Muzew types who feared, hated and didn’t understand any other type of music of the era. And you know I love the music of the era and do not in any way speak from ignorance.]

To quote David Grohl drummer supreme with Nirvana and singer/guitarist with the mighty Foo Fighters, the Beatles were the reason he became a musician.

[Daphne – I wasn’t talking about people in world-renowned bands when I said that raving about The Beatles dates people to 60+. And come on, you KNOW it does.]

Hey Daph whilst admiring your politics, your take on The Fab Four needs tweaking.

Res publica, I trust you know the meaning of your name, and that the common good can be achieved by a monarchy.

Indeed, the notion of human rights, of limitation of powers, of separation of powers, of justice and of the obligations of rulers towards their people, all arose and were codified in monarchical states. So was the idea of the social contract, which underpins much of the republican spiel.

If you think that George Abela is suited as your head of state – to whom you still defer, may I remind you – than a hereditary sovereign, born and bred in a superior class, then you and I belong to two different worlds.

And if you really believe that it is possible for anyone to become head of state or government in a republic, then you and I will disagree violently on the meaning of the word “possible”, and of “hypocrisy”. I look at reality, not at the letter of the law.

Sure, the law says I could be chosen by Parliament as Malta’s next head of state to replace George Abela. But is this really possible? We are still ruled – yes, ruled – by a cabal of men and women with extraordinary privileges, and the sop of equality before the law, and equal access rulership is the greatest lie of the last two hundred years.

Our prime minister thinks there is no one to touch him. In a monarchy, the prime minister knows that he is not the highest in the land, and that above him is the crown – not the sovereign, not a person, but the crown. Think on that before you dismiss constitutional monarchy as an anachronism.

Men must be governed. If it must be done, then I’d rather see it done by a better breed of men, born great, than by commoners who have greatness thrust upon them, or who thrust greatness upon their friends and relatives.

The problem with republics is that they invariably lead to an expansionist view, when that’s impossible, the strong indomitable leader becomes an inevitable option.

Daphne: Your statement is total and absolute CRAP. I know plenty of people who weren’t even born when the Beatles broke up (myself included) who love the Beatles’ music. What planet are you writing from??

[Daphne – Don’t bother sending me a photo, Shawna, or describing your other tastes and lifestyle, because I can make a pretty accurate guess. I won’t describe the sort of people of my post-Beatles generation who clung to their music because then I’ll have yet more mortally wounded individuals queuing up to protest, in varying forms, that no, they are most definitely not ‘Kumbaya My Lord’ types feeling a bit edgy. Ah, but they were.]

I would not say that The Beatles’ music appeals uniquely to the 60+ (far from that), but their late lyrics mirror flower power and therefore unsuitable to convey a message to a contemporary audience.

I wouldn’t qualify them as tongue in cheek. Commercial songs are extremely codified and mirror the Zeitgeist.