The Unmentionable: Could the Beatles even sing?

By Mary Beth Ellis
July 9th, 2008

Let us first stipulate that I am on good terms with The Beatles. I recognize their innovative approach to studio work, their marketing savvy, and their place both as musical revolutionaries and as a cultural touchstone. I realize all these things despite the influence of a Beatles-obsessed ex who ordered pizzas in a faux British accent and forced the delivery man to ask for “Ringo.” You don’t fill stadiums 40 years past your first hit if your former band was insignificant, and you don’t get three performances a day from a tribute band at EPCOT for trendsetting haircuts alone.

Okay? Fair enough? We’re good?

Because I’m about to throw a Molotov cocktail into the garden party, here, and commit a major faux pas in polite society and quietly announce that I don’t think The Beatles could sing all that well.

I once said that I thought The Beatles couldn’t sing all that well in non-argumentative, normal tones in the middle of general water cooler conversation, and the entire room went silent. I didn’t say that I hated The Beatles, or that they across-the-board sucked, or even that I disliked their music—for in no way is this the case. But question their ability to carry harmonies without a touch of raggedy, and the CIA drops its hunt for Osama bin Laden to investigate your gut reaction to “I Am the Walrus.”

Speaking as a person who has Biz Markie’s “Just a Friend” on her playlist, I’m the first one to recognize that rockers can create a good song without good vocals, perhaps because, in my own life as a soloist, the choir director once pulled me aside and said, “I know that all the other seniors are in the Christmas show, but, you understand, we need our very best singers for it.” This was one of the many reasons why I remained a political science major.

The Beatles were, perhaps, the first pop group who didn’t necessarily have to offer up stellar vocals to make a path in the music world. Pre-Paul, there were crooners, underrated blues artists, standard bearers, and early hot wax rockers, all of whom were showcased by a smoking band or the glorious newness of the syncopated beat. But it all coalesced into one rule: No distinctive pipes, no career.

Renewed interest in Sinatra and the recent success of Harry Connick, Jr. and Michael Buble has heralded a mini-return to that era. By introducing more complex sounds and innovations with each new album, The Beatles helped to rewire the definition of musical success. They made room for the expression of musicians who were talented outside of the usual ability to lightly hit a high C.

But speaking of The Beatles in whitewashed, venerated-at-all-costs, Untouchable terms, as though they are one-dimensional characters in a Harry Potter novel, does a disservice to them as musicians—and, I would argue, as people. It robs them of their humanity. They may be pop-rock icons, but they are first men who deserve proper praise, proper respect, and, when warranted, an honest discussion that might actually include criticism.

So in the spirit of true and honest love, here in the month of Ringo’s birthday, bless him, let us discuss The Beatles as adults do. You may include the sitar—or not, if that’s what centers you.

Comments (11)

Add a Comment

COMMENTS (11)

Jbev said:

While I agree that all artists should be open to criticism, I have to disagree with your argument. Listen to “This Boy”, “Because”, “Nowhere Man” or “Yes It Is” and you’ll find exquisite harmonies. Listen to “Money” or “I’m Down” for unparalleled rock and roll singing. Or listen to “She’s Leaving Home” for a ballad sung to perfection. These are just a few examples off the top of my head.

I’m all for your right to make any argument you want. But I respectfully have to disagree with this one.

Chris said:

Geoff Emerick reports in his book that Paul and John never had trouble with their singing – additional takes were almost always to capture a particular feeling (though John was prone to just have a weird effect on his voice and leave it at that). Emerick does say that George and Ringo were not the best vocalists (Harrison was always on with backing vocals, but had trouble with lead; nobody ever claimed Ringo was a singer, though I personally think he has the nicest-sounding voice of the group).

basuracaja said:

You are,of course, entitled to your opinion, but I’m curious why you don’t offer any evidence to support your contention. Is there a particular song or album that you have in mind when you commit your “major faux pas”? I will agree with you that the Beatles’ voices were not in the convetnional “crooner’ league, but they never meant to be. Their unique appeal was that they were the “whole package”– writing their own songs (still relatively rare at that time), playing their own instruments, and singing. Whether they were of the caliber of a Sinatra, or even an under rated blues artist as never the point. George Martin wrote that he couldn’t decide who the lead singer should be (which was how groups were generally marketed at the time), and then realized that in this case, the sum was greater than the parts. Still, with all respect, I am curious about how you reached your conclusion.

Greg said:

I agree with basuracaja. I don’t mean to throw a wrench in your theory but when they played Shea Stadium, the biggest and first stadium concert ever up until that point, the band could not even hear each other and recordings have them singing perfect harmonies.

Mary Beth Ellis said:

Thanks to everyone for their opinions, and even MORE importantly, for remaining within the spirit of this post and expressing disagreement without touching off a nuclear-calibre flame war.

The reason why I didn’t offer more “evidence” is because the post is largely about the phenomenon that any criticism about The Beatles seems to be verboten in polite society, so for space considerations, the writing concentrates there rather than the opinion itself. I think the headline, however (the second part of which I did not write), emphasizes the “cocktail” over the main thrust of the post, so I can understand why people are wondering why I didn’t back myself more.

Let me reiterate that I’m not saying here, and never did, that The Beatles COULDN’T sing, just that it’s not their strongest point as a group. I think the weakest singing comes in the early “pop” phrase of The Beatles; it seems to have a nasally, closed-voice quality that doesn’t seem to hold its own against the melody and music itself. Again, not sucky–just not a standout quality. It’s just that I’ve never listened to a Beatles song from this period and sighed, “Oh, that was just gorgeously sung.” I think about the lyrics, the melody, the instrumentals, but am not struck by the vocals.

I think this improved, however, towards the end of their recording as a group, as Greg points out, possibly because they became more comfortable with one another and their musical expression. The tune is indeed carried, but the phrasing seems to have an unfinished edge to it that makes me blink a little bit. Maybe that’s the vocal phrasing snob in me who sang in classically trained choirs for years, but there you have it.

Basuracaja wrote that “Whether they were of the caliber of a Sinatra, or even an under rated blues artist as never the point.” That’s exactly what I was saying when I mentioned that The Beatles paved the way for musicians to express themselves in other ways. But(to me anyway), when I listen to them for pure vocal performance, I just don’t think it’s their strongest point.

Jon Pousette-Dart said:

Dear Mary Beth,
I think your overall critique of the Beatles singing early or later in the their career is mostly about you and your preference in music. Singing as you mentioned you did in classically trained choirs no doubt, seems to color your ability to hear the bigger picture. Technical perfection is not what makes a great artist. A great artist is someone who walks to his own drummer and creates chords and colors that transcend time, style, and form. All the barriers and judgements constantly constructed by acadamia, do little to take away the true value of artists like the Beatles who owned a moment in history before rock and roll and popular music was turned into another marketing machine.. The Beatles turned the popular music upside down in the same way that some of the greatest classical composers did. I would love to hear your thoughts on one of my favorite bands on the planet though also no longer together, NRBQ, who have many songs that to my mind are up there with Lennon/McCartney and many others. And, diamtetrically opposite of classically trained singing.
Maybe you need a little more education.

Sarah said:

Wow, I think you’ve proven your point here. Like how white people can’t make race-related jokes, similarly no one is allowed to criticize the Beatles. I’ve always thought that their singing wasn’t stellar. They’re one of the greatest bands in history, maybe even THE greatest, but vocally, they’re not at the top of the stack. I’ve brought this up myself, and all I got were blanks stares and comments like, “Do you even have any taste in music?” With the Beatles, it wasn’t the individuals that were out of this world, but the sum of their parts. While they may have been rather average in the vocal department, when accompanied with their lyrics, melodies, and techniques, it came to make something that was incredible.

(I love how, when giving any sort of criticism to the Beatles, you’re first required to lavish them with praise….)

Give Us More Tribute Bands! | JamsBio Biolog said:

[...] we could have with just a few more. In the next few weeks “The Silver Beats,” a Tokyo-based Beatles cover band, and “Who’s Bad?,” a Michael Jackson tribute group, will be playing shows in the [...]

Bill said:

Ridiculous argument. Listen to Paul sing “Oh Darling” or John sing “Twist and Shout”. Listen to the stellar harmonies on “Because”. These guys are considered some of the best singers of all time by people who study these things; not just the general public. Your argument suffers from an embarrassing degree of ignorance, except where you say singing wasn’t their ’strongest point’ (which, BTW, wasn’t your original point, but one you made later. Your original point threw aspersions on their considerable singing talent). Their strongest point, it could be argued, was writing, although their accountants would argue that their strongest point was selling songs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_certification

And really, you are entitled to your opinion, for instance, “I don’t like The Beatles singing”, would be fine. But to suggest they couldn’t sing is, well…

Look, maybe there is a topic you know something about. You should write about that topic. Maybe if you had made the point about Morrisey, or Sinatra after 1960. Maybe you’re into Roger Whitaker or Burl Ives. Whatever. “I don’t think the Beatles could sing” is something someone who doesn’t understand the subject would say.

eee-Yikes!

Oh, wait, were you referring to only Ringo? Cause then you’re right.

rupert elkenstein said:

first of all, the Beatles *could* even sing. second of all, i think you like the fact that this article appears in a glance that it may have come right from the presses of the NY times too much! The Beatles, for guys, are quite talented and rehearsed singers. They have great vocal range and are able to find certain tone in their voices and reflect the (often relatively complex or subtle) matter of the songs seemingly effortlessly. They’re extremely expressive, toneful and tuneful. A+!

elementarypenguin said:

Although I repect and appreciate your opinion (You handled it nicely and in a non-jerk manner) I have two words for you.”Penny Lane”. And just for good measure, I’ve got three more words for you. “Yes It Is”. Good day, but personally, nothing’s gonna change my world.

The Unmentionable: Could the Beatles even sing?

Recent Entries