The Beatles' "I Want To Hold Your Hand": Why This Song Sucks

Mr. Serrano really should lose his job for writing something this bad.

On the off-chance that others come through here and are swayed by what he writes because they have made up their minds they hate the Beatles, this article requires a response, not because I want to convince anyone that they have to like the Beatles.   The Beatles alone handled that.  No, it's because lazy idiots who with no concept of music's development or its history should not be encouraged to write.

So to those of you who don't like the Beatles, feel free.  But please don't do it because of what you read in this blog.  To wit:

So, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" is a terrible song, eh?

1. That their musicianship was poor, and that Ringo wouldn't have known what to do in front of modern recording gear (the MPC500 crack).  Well, so what?   The point is, in 1964, what could *everybody else* do?   Not anything even remotely approaching what The Beatles could do with simple 4-track analog tape.  General Patton could have mopped the floor with George Washington's army, and what does that prove?  Nothing.

Yes, in those early recordings, the backing tracks are pretty simple and they are full of mistakes.  You know what?  They recorded that entire album (which contains I Want to Hold Your Hand) in two weeks.  Yes.  2 weeks.   Two songs per day.  That's how they did it back then.   Minimal fix-up and editing.  It wasn't possible.  We are talking 4-track analog tape machines, where "editing" meant cutting tape with a razor blade and taping it back together, where multiple instruments had to be shoved onto a single track, with no way to individually mix or fix them later.

Quite the contrary, I would argue that if you took current-day musicians and made them work under those circumstances, you would discover how  good The Beatles really were, yes, even on "I Want To Hold Your Hand."   I'm not interested in somebody who can navigate the MPC500.  I'd rather have a drummer.

2. I seriously doubt that 50 Cent could have challenged The Beatles if he was "around back then" considering he cannot play an instrument, cannot write a song, and cannot sing.  He is capable of pulling off the tough-guy rapper-from-the-streets gig, but force him to create delicate, organized, musical sound, and he would be lost, and that's what was expected in 1964.

3. "The songwriting was subversive and brilliant".  I've never heard anybody say that about "I Want To Hold Your Hand".  People say that about many other Beatle songs, especially the later ones, but certainly not their early work.  Those songs were expected to be simple, happy, pop songs, and that's what they were.    And in fact, in 1964, you were quite limited in what suggestiveness you could get away with.  So once again, The Beatles were performing at the peak of their time, they were not writing songs with language appropriate to the 2010's.  The fact that you expect "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to be subversive and brilliant tells me that you really have not studied up on what Beatle fans really think about the music.

4. Less than 2 minutes.  Those were the rules, bub.  You couldn't expect to write a 4 minute song and get it on the radio, and this was supposed to be a catchy, memorable POP song.   So yeah, the lyrics are full of simple cute ideas about holding hands.

4b. You talk about the lyrics, but you neatly, and completely, sidestep any discussion of the music itself.

You completely overlook how clever and advanced the chord changes, rhythms, and dynamics of that "simple" song really were, but I suspect that you don't know enough about music to realize that (which is why you really should not be writing a music column).  It's not about whether you "like" The Beatles.  It's whether you understand music well enough to realize what they invented, and why it was very different and creative.   I suggest you give a good listen to the stuff that came out by other bands just before The Beatles hit with that "I Want To Hold Your Hand" sound.   Good luck trying to find harmonies, rhythm and speed changes, and melodies anywhere near as complex as that seemingly "simple" song.

5. The only people that really like the Beatles (old white guys, etc).  Now that one's rich.   You really just need to look up some simple stats on their song sales, and you'll realize that everything you claim could not possibly be numerically true.  You claim to be debunking songs with science?    Okay, Mr. Science, 40 years after their break-up, they still sell 1.5 to 2 million albums per year.   And they have never had a year where they sold less than that.   It's all old white guys?  Really?  Year after year, the same old white guys?  

How many other bands can manage sales like that every single year for 40 years?    That doesn't come from an unmeasured Venn diagram.  Those are real numbers put up by Nielsen/Soundscan.   

Rapleaf did a demographic study on fan bases of 4 artists, one of them being The Beatles.  You can Google for it.

55% male  45% female  (it's all old white guys, yeah, sure it is)

40% age 18-25   30% age 26-35  10% 36-45 10% 45+

So 70% are under age 35.   What happened to all the old white guys???  

====================================================================

Maybe you write this junk just to annoy people, or maybe your bosses think it's funny to have you write things that tweak popular culture.  Even if that's true, you should still lose your job, because you're not contributing anything as a music columnist.

Pop culture can carry the Justin Biebers and the Spice Girls only so far. But you cannot pull off the kind of long-term sustained popularity and influence on popular music that The Beatles have unless, gasp!, you really are that good.   

pretty much says it all about this kind of blog.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JW1tJLRtsk

Your lack of appreciation of this Beatle's hit displays an amazing amount of ignorance and bias about a generation you know nothing about.  It is an abuse of power in that you have access to vomit from your mouth without even thinking, but the average guy has to read it and get sick from your pseudo-intellectual barrage.   The song was truly unique for it's time;  a refreshingly different up-beat  pop tune that put the competition away.  They were ingenious song writers and only a fool who knows nothing about music could write something to the contrary.   Congratulations on your love affair with yourself!

Wow, not only a whole post but an entire column dedicated to being contrarian and crapping on popular art.  It's taken ironic coolness to a whole new level. 

"I want to hold your hand" is probably one of my least favorite Beatles songs.  Thankfully there's over 250 more to choose from.  You use one song to dismiss the relevance of arguably the most popular band in the history of rock music.  Congratulations, you've taken flawed logic and lame snarky criticism to a new level, only confirming what many already think of blogs in the process.  

Please don't mistake people criticizing your blog as their defensiveness over your "bold" stance on The Beatles.  The article isn't strong enough to raise hackles of even the most devoted Beatles fan, but it is an affront to good writing and a stain on LA Weekly's credibility. 

Christ.....people from young kids to older folks love the Beatles..That's why they were one of the top selling bands around last year alone. As for Shea....I can't understand why Rolling Stone hasn't snapped you up yet. Some writers are great, some not so much, but there is nothing worse than being boring. There is no cure for that and Shea seems to.....have fallen into that abyss.

Why This Column Sucks: I don't really care for "I wanna hold your hand," but this article is as badly written as it is argued. If you're gonna try to kill a sacred cow like this, you gotta try harder than boner jokes and bizarre comparisons to hip-hop.

I'm a old white guy and I totally agree. Thanks for a great article ~ and a cheap grin.

Yep I agree with everyone else. This article is a load of shit. Complete mindless garbage. It can't be that hard to find someone who can actually write.

God damn. Who is the editor over there that lets utter crap for writing get out? The whole opinion was a rant of the bloggers, I can't even call who ever wrote it a writer, that amounted to: The Beatles suck because old white people like them and if you like them, then you're brainless. Wow. Great fucking scientific argument. The lyrics are less than remarkable, that's a given, so you can say it sucked for that. But, what The Beatles excelled at was mastery of melody. Of melodic song structures. They're second to none in that regard, and this song, while being one of their earliest, already showed that. Throwing "hella slander" doesn't make a great or even a good song, and anyone who would use that phrase should be thrown back into grade school... maybe they can find you a dunce cap, seems like it would be proper.

shut up

Don Draper hated this song (S5E06) but it got stuck in his head and he found himself whistling it.

I like this column. Makes me laugh every time. I agree with this one too. This song does suck. But itl sends chills to watch that Ed Sullivan clip, even though I wasn't born yet.

More hipster navel gazing passing as journalism. I'm really getting embarrassed to say I've been reading LA Weekly for 40 years.

Hurting for web traffic? We need more Top Ten lists! You guys invented "Why This Song Sucks"?

What a terribly written and pointless article.

You don't have to like The Beatles at all, that's understandable. But the only two people that I know that actually hate The Beatles have turned out to be self-centered, bitter and frustrated that their artistic careers went nowhere.

This article sucks. It is incoherent, rambling and that chart is ridiculous. Some silly wannabe hipster wants to be provocative. oooooo

Superb scientific analysis, rendered completely useless by the author's ignorance of the Theory of Relativity. 'Cause back then, the world sucked a lot worse than the song. Duck and cover, pimp skillet.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with this one.

You suck. Anyone who says they hate The Beatles is a hipster moron

HATE the BEATLES.

I didn't think this 'blog' could get any worse than when Gustavo Turner was editor but it seems there's a new sheriff of shit in town. Essentially these posts are just relying on fans of various music genres, being outraged at your incoherent ill prepared arguments for 'why this song sucks' to drive traffic and add comments so you can go to the big bosses and say look how much traffic we have driven this week with our 'writers' nonsense posts insulting music so that music fans will get outraged and feel compelled to defend these songs against our shit throwing. I guess in that respect these "articles" work

And only old white guys like The Beatles? the beatles were one of the best bands for a reason and that's because they didn't care to use what race people were when it came to their music, as proven by their rider which stated the band would not play any segregated clubs back in the 60's. They have many fans of all races and influenced a lot of the music that you probably listen to but the musicianship is so intricate and the influence so varied a hack like yourself wouldnt notice.

There is talent to writing a good pop song. And thats exactly what they did. Your music doesnt have to change the world to be good. I love poppy Beatles. I love psychedelic Beatles. Just proves their genius and how versatile they were.

Yes it sucks they sucked until they met Dylan.......marijuana

This is not their greatest song and I would agree that their early music may have mainly appealed to teenage girls. But, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and Sgt. Peppers are widely regarded to be in the top 10-15 albums of all time. It's not just old white guys who like the Beatles.

where is the science in the article? all i saw was some silly overlapping circles

I think LA Weekly sucks. This piece and many of your previous pieces proves just that.

this song rules!!

"Why This Song Sucks determines why particular tracks blow using science." - uh, where's the science? This is an opinion piece. It's not written terribly well, either.

Shea Surrano: Does this writer suck?

Lyrically? Yes. Structurally? Yes. Was it a catchy pop hit and a revolutionary sound for it's time? Yes. I still love The Beatles

The basketball analogy used to show how LeBron James would match against Bob Cousy is ridiculous. People like to compare old school basketball with the new NBA, and often say the players today would completely dominate the 1950s players if they matched in their prime. It's unfair, and if you know the history of pro basketball you would know that in some way the players of today have played against players of yesteryears, and faired well. Take the most dominant center in the NBA today, Dwight Howard, and notice that he didn't dominate against an older Shaquille O'Neal, and O'Neal didn't do so great against Akeem Olajuwon, and Akeem not so dominating against Kareem Abdul Jabbar; Kareem not much trouble for Wilt Chamberlain; Wilt not much trouble for Bill Russell; and Bill Russell against George Mikan of 1950s Lakers fame, not so dominating either, so in a sense Dwight Howard has played against Mikan. Anyhow, this Beatles song makes me think of Captain Beefheart's song "Lick My Decals off Baby" when the opening lyrics go "Rather than I Wanna Hold Your Hand, I wanna swallow you whole"... 

Okay hipster. 

Do these articles pay real money?  I can churn out a rambling, incoherent blog that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand in about 20 minutes.  Here you go:

Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven": Why This Song Sucks 

Led Zeppelin are old.  Everyone who likes them are old and stupid or young and pretending to like them.  They once smacked around a groupie with a fish.  My cousin once fell off a boat while we were fishing, but we were listening to Drake that day, not Led Zeppelin.  

"VENN DIAGRAM DEVOID OF INFO"

This song is 8 minutes long.  I would say that is too long by half, but it's more like too long by 10 minutes.  This song should be -2 minutes long.  I know that is impossible, but I should get time added on to my life for hearing one note of it, like Justin Timberlake did in that movie.  Justin Timberlake is younger than Led Zeppelin.  I knew a hot girl who loved N*SYNC, but didn't like solo Justin Timberlake.  Her name is Stacy, which rhymes with Gacy, so I think she was a serial killer.  Therefore, "Stairway to Heaven" sucks and murders children while wearing a clown suit.

Is the article for real? So you don't like a Beatles song. So what? This must a troll article. No one would expose themselves so publicly as a fool without something behind it, right? Right?

It wasn't about the quality of the music.  Being a female (and I was 10 years old then), it was about the 4 young men who were singing, who were totally different than any other young men ever seen before in the U.S., and the fact that they just looked cute.  The fact that they made it seems as if they were singing directly to each listener, made the music more beautiful to the listener, even though by today's gauge (or though I think the gauge is out of balance still), they would not make it with those songs.  I believe that music education is NOT taken into consideration, and that the more "sounds like" you are, the more you're liked. Individuality and musicality is no longer a consideration in music.  There's still a lot of crap out there being called music.  Why don't you talk about that also - I would love to know your perspective on that as well.

some of the articles on here blow me away...they are so awful.