Lost Einsteins
August 23, 2022 3:17 AM   Subscribe

Why are success and failure so unpredictable? On one view, the simplest and most general explanation is best, and it points to quality, appropriately measured: success is a result of quality, and the Beatles succeeded because of the sheer quality of their music. On another view, social influences are critical: timely enthusiasm or timely indifference can make the difference for all, including the Beatles, leading extraordinary books, movies, and songs to fail even if they are indistinguishable in quality from those that succeed. from Beatlemania [PDF] by Cass Sunstein
posted by chavenet (26 comments total) 20 users marked this as a favorite
 
Neat article! The author is a behavioral economist who served on President Obama's staff, so it's interesting to see him moonlighting for "The Journal of Beatles Studies." Thanks for the link, chavenet; where did you run across it?
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 3:45 AM on August 23, 2022 [2 favorites]


I remember buying the 45 rpm of "She Loves You" and bringing it to a Saturday night dance. When the DJ played it everyone started to scream. The single was released in the USA on September 16 1963. We all know what happened in November 1963. I believe that young people needed a reprieve from the gloom that followed the assassination.
posted by DJZouke at 5:31 AM on August 23, 2022 [5 favorites]


there might have been Kinksmania

There's a clip where the The Kinks are playing "Tired of Waiting" and the girls in the audience are screaming their heads off in ecstasy. Such a strange song to go nuts over, essentially a whiny boyfriend complaining about his girlfriend.

It's really great finding a band or a film or a book that is magnificent and yet generally ignored by everyone—like finding treasure. You do feel bad for the creators, though.
posted by jabah at 5:49 AM on August 23, 2022 [2 favorites]


This is so good. Thanks chavenet. And it gives credence to my pipe dream that if my high school band came along just a few years later, we could have recorded a proper record on pro tools and put it up on MySpace and we'd be on tour right now.

It's really great finding a band or a film or a book that is magnificent and yet generally ignored by everyone

It is a joy that's hard to match, isn't it? A few years ago, I discovered the '60s UK band Honeybus (described in that link as reminiscent of Rubber Soul-era Beatles) when Norman from Teenage Fanclub talked them up in an interview and they are lovely. Here's "I Can't Let Maggie Go" and "How Long" and "Girl of Independent Means".
posted by AgentRocket at 6:18 AM on August 23, 2022 [3 favorites]


It's really great finding a band or a film or a book that is magnificent and yet generally ignored by everyone—like finding treasure.

Sure is, especially when it's an artist who has been prolific for a very long time.
posted by flabdablet at 6:19 AM on August 23, 2022 [5 favorites]


I have mentioned my movie blog in the past; this kind of social-influence peer-pressure thing is exactly why I try going into watching things as blindly as possible. I want to be as sure as I can be that my reaction is genuine and inspired only by the film itself. I look up the reviews later - and sometimes find that my reaction differs wildly from other critics' reactions (Roger Ebert and I have very, very different opinions about some of John Wayne's work, I tell you what). I know myself well enough to know that if I read those reviews before watching, I'd pull my punches and second-guess myself; this way, I can't ignore the fact that my knee-jerk reaction to things like Rio Bravo was "what a pile of dogshit".

Unfortunately when some of the things have a really esteemed reputation, that's not possible. I knew the "twist" in Psycho already when I watched it the first time - it's really hard not to know about it - and I think I lost out on that "surprise" when I finally saw it for the first time.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:24 AM on August 23, 2022 [9 favorites]


“ A chance remark from a woman named Sarah—"I hope you are teaching Quality to your students"—triggered in Phaedrus such an "intricate, highly structured mass of thought" that he remained motionless for hours. The question of how to define Quality took over his thinking so much he became unable to teach: "Obviously some things are better than others ... but what's the 'betterness'?" The question consumed Phaedrus and ultimately drove him crazy”
Zen in art of motorcycle maintenance explores these thoughts in a real world fashion.
posted by JohnR at 6:57 AM on August 23, 2022 [11 favorites]


The Beatles were initially rejected by prospective producers and labels. A path that rewards persistence (The Beatles toured endlessly before being recognized) is also a factor, although persistence also often goes unrewarded. And Little Richard was no small help. It may have all come down to Epstein (with healthy heapings of George Martin).
posted by 3.2.3 at 7:03 AM on August 23, 2022 [4 favorites]


I believe that young people needed a reprieve from the gloom that followed the assassination.

Beatlemania also pretty closely followed the Cuban Missile Crisis--probably the closest that we've ever come to World War III--and was at a time when most of the pioneers of rock and roll were either disgraced, dead, or, in Elvis' case, making shitty movies that featured some of the worst music of his career. Here are the #1 hits of 1964 (incidentally, the year I was born); there are some other worthies up there--the Supremes, the Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, even Louis Armstrong--but who would have taken the Fabsters' place?
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:37 AM on August 23, 2022 [4 favorites]


Yesterday, the brilliant 2019 film

Oof
posted by anazgnos at 8:13 AM on August 23, 2022 [2 favorites]


Why did the Beatles become a worldwide sensation?

#3 - their personalities
#2 - their music
Forgotten now, but #1 - their hairstyle

Bonus: Brian Epstein.
posted by Rash at 8:16 AM on August 23, 2022 [1 favorite]


I believe that young people needed a reprieve from the gloom that followed the assassination.

In Anthology George said "They used us as an excuse to go mad."
posted by Rash at 8:30 AM on August 23, 2022 [5 favorites]


Quorum sensing in an unprecedented baby boom+telecoms, too.
posted by clew at 9:19 AM on August 23, 2022 [1 favorite]


The Beatles were initially rejected by prospective producers and labels. A path that rewards persistence (The Beatles toured endlessly before being recognized) is also a factor, although persistence also often goes unrewarded.

Yeah, sometimes I run across people who think the Beatles were some kind of overnight sensation and Beatlemania occurred five minutes after the band formed. They put in a metric fuckton of hard, slogging work before they became famous in Britain, let alone internationally. I thought Get Back really drove that home with all the clips of them breaking into old songs they'd probably played at a million grubby dance halls. I once saw an interview with Julie Andrews, who remembered her first voice teacher saying that the amateur practices until they can do it right, but the professional practices until they can't do it wrong.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:45 AM on August 23, 2022 [7 favorites]




Good essay on a fascinating aesthetic question, which doesn't stick (too much) to a simple solution for a complex phenomenon.

A ton of good timing, zeitgeist, and serendipity brought together The Beatles' talents and their successes. I think there's a couple of funny factors that made their compositons unique and outstanding:

1) In the 20th century up until then: one guy wrote the music, another guy wrote words, and the third guy sang them, and they were really separately defined jobs. Ever since they were quite young, and since before they met, both Lennon and McCartney really wanted to do all 3 things at once, which were slightly unusual ambitions for younger musicians who were taught to pick just one thing.

2) I think their biographer Phillip Norman actually articulated the idea that made them really unique:

The Beatles and Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000-hour rule kinda misses the point. It's not that they played for 10k-hours (lots of not-famous people also did) but it's that they were allowed to experiment on stage because the strip-club that hired them didn't care what they were doing, just as long as they made some noise! Norman mentioned that they sped-up, and slowed-down, and changed the key, in every song in their repertoire, and I think that's part of the magic that helped transform Lennon & McCartney into extraordinary songwriters.
posted by ovvl at 11:44 AM on August 23, 2022 [5 favorites]


In the 20th century up until then: one guy wrote the music, another guy wrote words, and the third guy sang them, and they were really separately defined jobs... both Lennon and McCartney really wanted to do all 3 things at once

Brain Wilson wrote the songs (although he often needed help with the lyrics), sang them, and then ARRANGED and PRODUCED them, while Lennon and McCartney had George Martin to help.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 11:54 AM on August 23, 2022 [3 favorites]


they were allowed to experiment on stage because the strip-club that hired them didn't care what they were doing, just as long as they made some noise!

Pink Floyd also had the benefit of the same attitude. It's a large benefit.
posted by flabdablet at 12:04 PM on August 23, 2022 [3 favorites]


I thought Get Back really drove that home with all the clips of them breaking into old songs they'd probably played at a million grubby dance halls.

I've always kind of felt it's revisionist history to just kind of imagine that pop/rock music started with The Beatles. Thankfully The Number Ones column in Stereogum is now around to easily dispel that idea, and it doesn't even go all the way back to like Elvis' heyday and Buddy Holly since it starts in 1958, though Elvis was still dropping pop hits in 1963. The Beatles' early hits were even a bit retrograde, considering Del Shannon dropped Runaway in 1961. What songs would they have been covering in those grimy clubs? All those earlier hits.

The Beatles contemporaries #1s in 1964 are also giant hits. So yes, I'm on the side of giant luck and that some other band would have been as big had they not existed. Heck, other bands were equally as big: ie: Elvis.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:26 PM on August 23, 2022 [4 favorites]


I'd go farther and say the biggest thing The Beatles did was star in a movie at the same time as their hits were blowing up on the radio, following in Elvis' footprints to become 'multimedia' stars, which is still the method to become ultra-famous, and copied by Madonna, Prince, Ice Cube, and whomever else today.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:30 PM on August 23, 2022 [2 favorites]


Teenage girls funded this art and since then we know that the music imprinted on you in your late teens [1][2] is has an emotional engagement for the rest of your days.

So much effort went into building a fanbase and sustaining that fanbase, it's good to hear how that legacy was created: because it was popular; and with a cascading agreement that we should follow the tastes set for that period by the people of the time. Puff since then claims genius and I say "OK, Boomer."

1: https://www.mic.com/articles/96266/there-s-a-magic-age-when-you-find-your-musical-taste-according-to-science
2: https://slate.com/technology/2014/08/musical-nostalgia-the-psychology-and-neuroscience-for-song-preference-and-the-reminiscence-bump.html
posted by k3ninho at 8:07 AM on August 24, 2022 [2 favorites]


One of the tropes in Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven, if I remember correctly, were the people honored in heaven who never got the chance to have their talents and genius recognized on Earth.
posted by gimonca at 8:34 AM on August 24, 2022 [1 favorite]


I don't see the point in reducing a phenomenon like the Beatles to "genius" or neuroscience. From the comments alone we can see a number of factors. It's okay to just take it all in.
posted by elkevelvet at 9:58 AM on August 24, 2022 [2 favorites]


I kinda think The Beatles had such massive talent and appeal that they would have broken through somehow anyway. And yet, they were having trouble being taken seriously by record companies, then they finally got a chance, had a producer assigned to them who was disgraced because of a divorce and given the artists considered least promising as punishment, the first session was rather rocky, and the rest is history...
posted by blue shadows at 11:37 AM on August 24, 2022 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I hope I didn't come off as saying "hard work is a guarantee of success and recognition," because it isn't. The random elements have their part to play, too: being in the right place at the right time under the right conditions and meeting the right people, etc. Being good at what you do makes it possible for you to take those opportunities if and when they come along.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:38 PM on August 24, 2022 [2 favorites]


"Beatlemania also pretty closely followed the Cuban Missile Crisis--probably the closest that we've ever come to World War III..."
I forgot to mention that series of events too. What was not widely known at the time was that we removed missiles based in Turkey.
posted by DJZouke at 11:42 AM on August 25, 2022 [1 favorite]


« Older Salman Toor   |   First donkey rights now lobsters' Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments