Long, Long, Long
What is an Underrated Masterpiece?
Many things have been said about George Harrison’s tenure as songwriter in the Beatles. Most of them good. Well known for his cuts on Abbey Road, some of his songs have gone under the radar.
Experiencing a surge in popularity is “Long Long Long” from The Beatles. It is a slow, unfurling track that opens itself up to you, possessing a spiritual quality of acceptance found in most of Harrison’s early solo work (which was actually written around this time—You do know that the Beatles passed on “All Things Must Pass,” right?).
Haunting as it is, here for your perusal is the track slowed down 800% (http://youtu.be/jFCNMInuhSw, Credit to user angelmusicification), to a pace just above a creeping halt, tending at times to sound a bit like Disintegration Loops. Its beauty makes you wonder if Harrison wrote this for god, or god gave this to Harrison.
I suggest you listen to it while I get to my actual point.
It was a week or so ago that I was listening to the Beatles Hour on a local radio station, and the DJ announced this song using the phrase “underrated masterpiece.” And while I agree that it’s placement on Disc 2 between “Helter Skelter” and “Revolution 1” was an odd choice (Or a dick move by two of the biggest assholes in music). The fact that he believed it to be an underrated masterpiece caught my attention.
So I did what anybody would do. I wiki’d it.
And shockingly, I saw the same phrase repeated by a Richie Unterberger, a source which I cannot seem to find from the link provided (I love you wikipedia, but you need to get your shit together).
Now, maybe the DJ and this Unterberger are the same guy. Or, maybe, one had heard the other. The problem is this: What is an Underrated Masterpiece?
What is an Underrated Masterpiece?
The presence of this connotation on a George Harrison song forces me to think about these two seemingly consonant concepts together.
First, this song cannot possibly be underrated. It is a Beatles song. Written by George Harrison, sung by George Harrison. Apparently John isn’t on it, but that doesn’t matter. All that matters is that all Beatles songs are rated inestimably high.
To paraphrase the all-knowing one: The Beatles are considered the greatest rock and roll band, and they are, which means they are perfectly rated. Neither underrated, nor overrated.
But what does it mean that this song is underrated then? Is it not considered as classic as the bread to its peanut butter?
That can’t be true. It’s a Beatles song. I’ve been thinking for well over a decade which the best Beatles song is (apart from favorite) and I’m no closer to an answer than I was when I first listened to 1 years ago.
As proof of the mastery and high standard of Beatles songs I give to you example A, “Yellow Submarine.” What an amazing, shitty song, which had it been written by any other band would have been laughed at. It is absolutely ridiculous. And yet, without a shadow of doubt, it’s one of the greatest songs ever written. Because it’s a Beatles song (can you imagine Donovan doing it?).
Far worse than to call a Beatles song underrated would be to say anything is a masterpiece. I won’t get into the etymology of Masterpiece, but I’m guessing it has to do with a piece that is either a). masterful or b). done by a master.
Most songs in the Beatles catalog will fit into category B. Even songs that were written by other writers (Kansas City, anyone?). But, as I’ve said before, all Beatles songs are perfectly rated. This gives an almost 100% Mastery rating to the entire Beatles catalogue. So again, to argue that this is an underrated masterpiece just doesn’t feel right.
And after all this hemming and hawing we are no closer at understanding what an underrated masterpiece is, nor why that title would fit any of the Beatles songs.
Now, (15 or so paragraphs in), I will advocate for the general understanding of “underrated masterpiece.” It goes something like: A piece, while not considered a Popular Classic, is deemed by those “in the know” to be the “true” classic, or if not usurping the other classics, it should at least be rated side by side with it. This, I believe, constitutes the general concept of Underrated Masterpiece.
In addition to “Long, Long, Long,” there are whole albums (The Replacement’s Pleased to Meet Me, which is derided for not being Let it Be or Tim) and whole bands (Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood’s Blind Faith, which is neither Traffic nor Cream) that are underrated masterpieces.Nevertheless, there is something about these things that forces a small constituency of fans to argue that they are somehow equal or superior to similar songs (bands, albums, etc.).
“Long, Long, Long” is touted as the quiet song that speaks volumes, it’s just a victim of bad placement. I could ask what makes it better, or for that matter, worse than “Revolution 1" or “Helter Skelter?”But I don’t believe there is any sane person on Earth that wants to get into that argument. Most people are “Mona Lisa” people, but I’m more of a “Virgin of the Rocks” kinda guy. Neither is the underrated masterpiece. They are both masterpieces, perfectly rated.
So what I’m advocating then is, we need to stop using banal language to describe our music. The Beatles are amazing, so lets find unique ways to describe how amazing they are. That includes stretching out the song 800% to find the inner beauty of the recording.
Much like the term Guilty Pleasure, Underrated Masterpiece holds no meaning. It adds nothing to the value of the music.
And anyway, “Long, Long, Long” was already a masterpiece, long before some dude tried putting a label on it.
Thanks For Reading & Please Recommend! Click here for the rest of my essays!
