Why the Beatles are still relevant today...

On September 9, 2009, the entire catalog of the Beatles' British albums will be released on digitally re-mastered CD.* This is great news for Beatles fans, who generally derided the poor audio quality of the original CD releases in 1987. Non-fans however, might question why the repackaging of music that is 40+ years old should attract much attention. Consider the following:

• In 2000, a remastered compilation of almost all of the Beatles' number-one singles, entitled simply 1, sold 3.6 million copies in its first week of release (averaging three copies every second). It is currently the fastest-selling album of all time and the best selling album of the 2000s.
• The Beatles have sold more than one billion records worldwide, a feat matched only by Elvis Presley.
• The Beatles were selected by Rolling Stone magazine in 2004 as number one in its list of the 100 Greatest Artists of All-Time. They also topped Billboard's list of the best-selling Hot 100 artists in 2008.

So why is a band from Liverpool, England with a professional career that spanned barely eight years and that last recorded new music four decades ago still not only outperforming their peers, but outselling current big-name artists as well? Good question, and one that I'm not sure that anyone could fully answer. However, let me tell you why I think the Beatles are still relevant.

I didn't grow up in the sixties. I was born in the seventies and grew up in the eighties. I couldn't associate the Beatles with any of their music until I was a teenager. Yet, when I first listened to a Beatles album (1969's Abbey Road), the first thing I noticed was the lushness of the music. The songs didn't sound alike, but they seemed to form a coherent body of work. They were complex, melodic and catchy, but filled with humor and emotion. Further exploration of their music revealed how their early work, which was unique only in that they wrote the songs they performed, morphed quickly into music that was unique and instantly identifiable and significantly more mature. The Beatles expanded the confines of the studio, the definition of rock and roll music, the expectations of the public, the generally accepted standards of their art, and the minds and hearts of millions.

Think about the fact that The Beatles recorded and released, according to the British catalog, 12 albums and 13 EPs between 1963 and 1970 - an average of almost two albums and two EPs per year. That's not to mention 24 songs that didn't appear on the albums to be released as singles. Or the five movies. Imagine your favorite artist of today doing that. Then imagine that only a handful of the albums and singles didn't hit number 1. It's mind-boggling.

But beyond the amazing productivity, the Beatles created beautiful music. Take "Yesterday," just for example. An acoustic ballad about a breakup, it has been covered more than 3000 times by other artists - more than any other song. Ever. Simple and catchy, its poignancy speaks to anyone who ever "said something wrong" and ruined a relationship as a result. Other ballads such as "Michelle," "Here, There and Everywhere," and "Blackbird" rank among my favorites, but the Beatles could rock hard as well. "Revolution" starts with a scream and features some of the nastiest guitar tone ever. "Back in the U.S.S.R," "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey," "Yer Blues," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Helter Skelter" are all great rockers, and all appear on the same album! What amazes me the most about the Beatles though is how the same four guys who made "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" also did "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Come Together." They possessed a musical range and depth that only a handful of other artists can even approach. Unfortunately, most of those artists are products of a bygone era.

I say unfortunately, because the other reason that the Beatles are still relevant today is that no one has risen up to take their place. The old joke is that when the Beatles' manager Brian Epstein made the claim, as many other managers have, that his group was going to be bigger than Elvis, he was the only one to be proved right. That Rolling Stone list of the the top artists of all time from 2004? Only one of the top 50 even originated in the 1990s. The rest were liberally scattered among the 50s, 60s and 70s, with a handful from the 80s. It's hard to argue that anything has changed in the last five years either. I've read lots of articles lately that blame the internet and the RIAA's reaction to it for jointly killing the music industry, and certainly that has been a major factor. But the other major factor is that there has not been a new artist with mass crossover commercial appeal in decades. The fragmentation of radio has played a part, but I believe that great music will overcome this. My feeling is that the "artists" you actually hear today are all about commercial appeal rather than producing good music. Call it the "American Idolization" of the music industry, although Idol is a more a window into the soul of popular music today than a cause. Rather than pushing the envelope of sound, lyrics, instrumentation, technology and art, it's all about appealing to the widest possible audience with the same bland commercial "product."

The amazing thing about the Beatles, and other bands that made that Rolling Stone list is that they advanced the art while appealing to a broad audience. That is their legacy, and it's why the Beatles may turn out to be the top selling artists of 2009 as well.

*(The early Beatles albums were released with different titles and substantially different track listings in the U.S., generally two to four songs shorter. The original British lineup was chosen for CD release in 1987, an the U.S. releases were subsequently removed from Capitol's catalog.)