Do the Beatles belong among the greats?

A few nights ago PBS re-aired a 2010 special feature of Paul McCartney being awarded the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song at the White House.  He was introduced by President Obama, after which he performed a number of  favorites, including Michelle (for Mrs. Obama), Eleanor Rigby, Let it Be, and of course Hey Jude.  I haven't seen a Paul McCartney performance in a while and  I knew that he was pushing 70 years old, so I couldn't help watching.  How many  70-year-old rock stars can you name that are still performing?  It's a short list.  And if you're wondering, he can still tear up the piano and do those screams in Hey Jude.   Paul McCartney has definitely still got it.  The things that made him popular in the 1960s are still working for him today: catchy tunes and what Entertainment Weekly calls "starry-eyed charm."  But is it too soon to call him classic?  President Obama's remarks said that McCartney's music has stood the test of time, but is 50 years enough time?

I surveyed some fellow music-lovers about what constitutes a classic and received some good responses. One person said, "Here is one way to distinquish a classic: is it loved by generations who were not alive when it was released?"  Put another way, will I still like the song even if it is completely different from the styles and trends that I have been socially primed to enjoy?  Another person observed, "I don't know many people who actually listen to Bob Dylan, but I haven't met many people that aren't willing to give him his place as an all-time great."  This suggests that even if someone does not care for a song, they might still be willing to call it important and definitive.

Here is a kink in the line, though:  throughout history, musicians have acquired fame for two things: writing music and performing music.  But being good at one does not necessarily make you good at the other, even if you are famous for both.  So let's not forget that starry-eyed charm. When Paul McCartney performs works by Paul McCartney, do we enjoy it because of the quality of the music, or the charisma of the performance?

If we consider how many people have produced covers of his hit single Yesterday, we might say both.  There is some disagreement about how many covers have been done, but many have referenced the Guinness Book of World Records, saying 1,600, others saying as many as 3,000.  (I tried to track down the record myself without success.)  If this record is any indication, McCartney's music seems to have taken on a life of its own, independently of his popular original performances.

Still, whether people continue playing his songs 50 or 100 years from now remains to be seen.  Johann Sebastian Bach was famous during his lifetime mostly for his organ playing.  After his death, his compositions  were largely forgotten until revived by Felix Mendelssohn in 1829.  Now he is considered to be one of the most influential and celebrated composers in western history, more than 250 years after his death, and when the landscape of popular music has changed so utterly, he would probably not recognize it.  And even now, many still find his work transcendentally beautiful.

Will the Beatles be celebrated long after they have all passed away?  They actually might be.  They have been influential in many areas of culture and style, and have even been cited by scholars for contributing to social movements that led to the fall of the iron curtain, (see also: The Beatles Revolution - an ABC spcecial that aired in 2000). 

But will their music still resonate with people 100 years from now?  Will they be playing Eleanor Rigby and A Hard Day's Night when they've cured cancer and populated the moon?  I think no one can say.  All we know is that we still like it.  But I'm hopeful.