- New DL low.
- Guuurl, you in trouble now!
- For me, it's the songwriting more than the performances that made the Beatles so special. There was such a quantity of really good songs, in such a variety of styles. And it wasn't just Lennon/McCartney. I thought George Harrison's contributions were quite underrated. (My single favorite Beatles song is "Something.")
- I wasn't even born when the Beatles started, but they are by far the best Pop songwriters I have ever heard. (yeah Bach and Mozart are better)
We live in a world where 18 year olds are marketed by Corporations to 10 year olds with songs written by 40 year olds who have to write 10 songs a week to get paid.
The Beatles did everything themselves. Wrote their own music, played their own instruments. That alone is significant compared to today.
The more new songs that come out, the more obvious it is how good song writers the Beatles actually were. History is framing them as the single most significant music collection of the the 20th century.
OP is not a musician or he would not make such a claim, so back to your America Idol TV show now.....
- What are you missing?
- I'm with R1.
- Op, are you serious? Really?
- Well, to start, "She Loves You" and "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" started the British Invasion. If you don't think it was different than American Pop music in 1963 then you need to try and put it into perspective.
"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" - first real concept album, using instruments and arrangements never used before.
Those are just two examples of how they changed music. There are lots of other examples of their overwhelming influence.
And most of all, the music was great. It still holds up 40-50 years later.
- I'm 38, op. I never got their appeal when I was growing up, but listening to the drivel that is called music today, I totally get what made them great. Voices, lyrics, music you could sing along to...ad infinitum.
- Anyone who doesn't understand why the Beatles were so great, how they changed the face of popular music, WHAT the British invasion was all about, WHAT the state of American popular music was BEFORE they arrived, what genius songwriters the Beatles were, how many other singers and performers have been influenced by them..is an unmitigated idiot.
- Listen to the US hits in 1963 i.e music by the Beach Boys, Bobby Darrin, Wayne Newton, the Singing Nun and you will understand why the Beatles changed the music scene. No further explanation will be necessary.
- First of all, Nirvana ripped off The Pixies.
The Beatles did things revolutionary in the studio at the time, such as double tracking and backward looping. They also started music videos.
- Up until the Beatles, Popular music was just a bunch of white guys stealing songs from black guys. See Elvis Presley for details.
- And from an American perspective, they really accomplished a lot artistically and commercially in the 6 years (64-70) that they were around.
However, a lot of it was also the teen culture of the baby boom. They hit just as the first baby boomers graduated from high school and really rode the youth movement.
Not to take anything away from their accomplishments, but that did have a huge effect.
- The Beatles perfected the art of the 3:00 minute pop song; intelligent, well-written pop, too. They had hit after hit after hit. What band nowadays can make such a claim?
But even with their repertoire, I personally don't think even their best song (A Day in the Life) beats out the greatness of the Rolling Stone's "Gimme Shelter" or the Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations." Best songs EVER.
- [quote]I have listened to The Beatles and their sound wasn't exactly revolutionary for the time.
Please elaborate on this statement, OP. I'd love to have benefit of your knowledge of early 60s pop music. How many months or years did the Beatles have to suffer through the public saying, "God, they sound just like everything else on the radio"?
- What r8 said. Also, you have to remember that AFAIK they were the first "boyband" as we know them today. They were young, cute and when you add it to the great music (which actually was revolutionary) you get hysteria.
Their songs stand the test of time.
- Well, first off, without The Beatles, there would be no Nirvana.
You do realize that Kurt Cobain 'revered' them, right? As do most musicians.
Dave Grohl on the influence of the greatest band of all time:
[italic]When I was young, that's how I learned how to play music - I had a guitar and a Beatles songbook," he recalled. "I would listen to the records and play along. Of course, it didn't sound like The Beatles, but it got me to understand song structure and melody and harmony and arrangement.
I never had a teacher - I just had these Beatles records… Even in Nirvana - the Beatles [were] such a huge influence."
"Kurt loved The Beatles because it was just so simple. Well, it seemed simple… they sound easy to play, but you know what? They're fucking hard."[/italic]
- They never got their picture on bubblegum cards, did they? Have you ever seen their picture on a bubblegum card? Hmmm? How can you say someone is great who's never had their picture on bubblegum cards?
- I never got The Beatles, either. I found their music just okay and their lyrics straw-clutching and amateurish. I love the "Golden Girls" episode where Dorothy attends Beatlemania and gets involved with one of the band members. Anyway, the episode pokes fun at The Beatles' songwriting. The Beatlemania guy writes a song about Dorothy: "Dot, Dot, what a girl I got. When we shower together we don't have to turn on hot." And later Sophia gives them one more dig: "Of course not... Dot. Dot, I gotta trot. Hey, listen to me, I'm a Beatle!"
- Beatles is as bad as frank Sinatra yuck
- what r11 said. Listen the music from the year before they came on the scene. They started the 60's and things have never been the same. It was from Bee Bop to Rock!! Those were the days OP, everything was new and stretching boundaries. /we had the pill and the sexual revolution. Woodstock. Before the beatles it was Annette and Frankie beach blanket something or another. Have you see those? (And I do love Annette and frankie but in small doses.) Well get a bottle of wine and try sitting through a bit of them. After the Beatles think more along the line of the musical Hair. Man o man, Everything was happening and possible.
- R20, good for you that you use Golden Girls episodes as your benchmark when judging music.
- The pre-fame Beatles played in Hamburg at the Star Club in exhausting 12 hour shifts. This was before they wrote their own songs, so to start out they were excellent musicians in a tight band with a huge repertoire; many bands today can hardly play their instruments and know few songs. They were arty but also street smart, one thing that made their lyrics unique. As for sheer personality, John, Paul, George, & Ringo understood that they were entertainers and communicators and were much more interesting and wittier in interviews than any pop star could possibly be now. Additionally, they dressed in the coolest clothes, all with differing taste, starting trends without the thought of a stylist. They were just interesting, creative people from the get go. Most acts in music now are controlled, if not manufactured directly, by corporate interests. And all the horns and strings in their songs had to be arranged and played by actual musicians since this was before computer generated music.
- [quote]. I found their music just okay and their lyrics straw-clutching and amateurish.
- I don't think their pre-64 stuff is all that good, but from 64/65 on, there was no better.
- Again, it's baby boom boy band nostalgia with the backbeat.
Good songs - but they are overrated.
I question whether they would have been as revered if they had stayed together and inevitably turned out complete dreck.
- R19 - The Beatles did indeed appear on bubble gum cards. I had a Huge collection.
- If you listen to Beatles songs, within two or three notes, you can not only tell it's a Beatle song, you can tell which Beatle song. Each song sounds completely different. There's a "1" album with all the number one hits in chronological order. It gives you a good idea how their style progressed.
After the first few songs that were made to get the "screaming fangirl" audience, many of the songs were thoughtful and have been done over and over by dozens of singers. They are standards now. That's a mark of good songwriting. Everyone from Tony Bennett and Andy Williams to Fiona Apple have performed songs like, "Yesterday," "Something," "All You Need is Love," "Imagine," "Hey Jude," "Eleanor Rigby," "Penny Lane," "Let It Be," "The Long and Winding Road," and many others. And that's just (some of) the number ones. "In My Life" is one of my favorites.
"Eleanor Rigby" is one of the best lyrics ever written. To this day I don't think anyone can beat Lennon/McCartney. They brought out the best in each other.
At the time these songs first came out, the first time you heard them was on the radio. Sometimes two or three Beatles songs would be in the top 40 at the same time. We would all wait with great anticipation for the first broadcasts of these songs. The Beatles changed everything, from music and clothing styles, to how a lot of how teenagers thought and related to the older generation. Their experiences created the culture. It was the Beatles' world, we just lived in it.
As far as how relevant they are today, here's a video of ten Beatles covers, all completely different styles. From an album called "It was 40 Years Ago Today," by the BBC.
- They also changed fashion and hair styles. They were very cool for the period.
- "Let It Be."
- "Eleanor Rigby."
- "Here Comes the Sun"
- "In My Life"
- "All You Need Is Love"
- Harrison's work is underrated.
- If you really want to learn about why they are important, there are dozens of books that break down and analyze their music from lyrical, compositional and cultural perspectives. They did revolutionize pop music in terms of song structure, chord choices, lyrical content, and even how pop/rock music is recorded in the studio.
There's a reason why every generation rediscovers their music, and it isn't nostalgia.
- Some of you are just waxing nostalgic about the time period and aren't defending the music. Others are just pissed off about today's music. Only a couple of you have actually given some interesting reasons why they were supposed to be good.
- The Beatles were the real full deal. They were cute, talented, witty and wrote their own songs and played their own instruments. They could even act.
- [quote]Listen to the US hits in 1963 i.e music by the Beach Boys, Bobby Darrin, Wayne Newton, the Singing Nun and you will understand why the Beatles changed the music scene. No further explanation will be necessary.
Eh, the Beach Boys happened pretty much at the same time as the Beatles, and the groups ended up influencing each other greatly. "Sgt. Pepper's" would not be the same if the Beach Boys hadn't done "Pet Sounds" first.
Also, R20 is a fucking idiot.
- "If I Fell."
I guess the reason these songs don't sound revolutionary to you, OP, is that the Beatles style has been copied ever since. It's not "revolutionary" now, it's because it's the gold standard of what today's songwriters grew up on, and have tried to sound like, ever since.
Best. Boyband. Ever.
- [quote]Listen to the US hits in 1963 i.e music by the Beach Boys, Bobby Darrin, Wayne Newton, the Singing Nun and you will understand why the Beatles changed the music scene. No further explanation will be necessary.
There was some great music in the US in the '50s before the Beatles got here. Not all of it, but some. Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Bill Haley, and I wouldn't throw the Beach Boys in the same category as Wayne Newton and the Singing Nun.
But I'm with R31 through R36. The songs linked in 31 through 35 are just on a whole different level than what almost anyone else was doing in the '60s.
And 36 is absolutely correct. George Harrison was way underrated.
- Yeah that's right, R10
Anyone without an encyclopedic knowledge of the American popular music catalog, pop-culture trends, and societal mores pre-1963 is an unmitigated idiot.
Head up your ass much?
The Beatles were evolutionary, not revolutionary.
The right product at the right time.
- They were wonderful, intuitive ensemble singers.
Some of their vocal rehearsals on bootleg recordings can make hairs stand up on the back of the neck. They broke rules in harmony but their singing blended beautifully. Fleetwood Mac had some of the same magic.
People accustomed to ProTools and Autotune production techniques do not really understand, but the Beatles were very innovative with limited technology. Their production holds up very solidly today.
- They were highly prolific and industrious and there is a clear artistic progression in their output. They were more than lucky ducks at the right time.
- The Beatles were the most influential band in the world. Period. Nobody of the period would argue that.
They were not just a group of singers, they influenced singing, songwriting, clothes, hairstyles, drug use, music arrangements, using classically trained musicians and orchestral arrangements for pop songs, introducing Indian musical instruments and arrangements, introducing and popularizing Indian spiritual beliefs to American culture, it goes on and on.
A lot of the hippie movement was influenced by the Beatles (as well as others), but you have to understand, if other bands were involved in drug use or counterculture, that wasn't the same as the Beatles doing it. If Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix used heroin, it was because they were awful people (in those days). If the Beatles grew long hair and beards, wore hippie clothes or used LSD, they dragged all of America on the adventure with them. And that's what really happened. The Beatles dragged all of American culture behind them.
Whatever the Beatles did, every teenager in America wanted to do it too. Every parents' nightmare. A lot of the Sixties involved parents losing control of being the greatest influence on their teenagers' lives. A lot of kids wanted to emulate The Beatles, not Mom and Dad.
Here's the video for "Something." Look at the clothes. They weren't copying anybody else, everybody else was copying them.
- R42 - Wasn't there a period between about 1959 or 1960 and 1963, when there was a dearth of good music. Buddy Holly died, and others didn't take up the slack until the British invasion.
- I have five answers for you, OP:
Tomorrow Never Knows
We Can Work it Out
While My Guitar Gently Weeps
And Your Bird Can Sing
- Buddy Holly was a big influence on The Beatles, particularly Paul (who now owns Holly's publishing rights). Holly was writing some really original and innovative stuff and did so in a very short time period. I would've loved to see how he would have grown as a songwriter.
- R49 - wasn't even the name The Beatles inspired by The Crickets?
Buddy Holly was only 22 or 23, and yet, had done so much.
- [R46] Paul McCartney said that one of the things he's proudest of was that The Beatles never made a song telling kids to disrespect their parents. The last words on Abbey Road are:
And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make
He said he was really proud to go out on those words because it encapsulated what The Beatles stood for.
My BIL just happened to meet Paul McCartney last year and said he was really nice and funny. At first my BIL didn't know who he was talking to and when he realized it was Paul, he blurted out, "Oh my God!" and Paul thanked him for thinking of him as his personal diety.
- OP, you really must not be very familiar with what pop music sounded like before The Beatles. Their immense impact is obvious.
- Tim McGraw is better. And that Chesney guy.
- For the George Harrison fan, "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," from the White Album, performed live by George Harrison and the fellow who played guitar on the orginal Beatles recording, an old friend called Eric Clapton.
Harrison, in any other band, would have been considered a great performer and songwriter. He was just competing with two of the best singer/songwriters on earth.
- Though it could have ended at R1's correct response, many of you are kind to continue schooling the OP.
- Just Harrison's contribution alone is better than anything Nirvania did.
- George Harrison wrote "Something," as his sole cradit. It's been covered by over 140 artists, including Elvis Presley and Ray Charles.
Here's an example of the Beatles' seminal influence on music. Recording "A Day in the Life," with a full orchestra in the studio. This is the official video, attended by Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and others. They just wanted to be there, because it was the Beatles.
- The progression between Love Me Do through A Day in the Life is pretty astonishing...
And in less than 5 years...
- I didn't really get it growing up, but now I understand. The music is so amazing and their transformation in 8 short years from their early stuff was astounding. Listen to Abbey Road Op. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
- OP listen to these few songs from Abbey road and you'll be embarrassed by your thread.
- whoops missed link
- and listen on headphones...wow
- then follow that up with the next three songs from Abbey Road and then talk to us.
- Yeah but Lady Gaga has more followers on twitter
- "Norwegian Wood." Per Wikipedia:
Credited to Lennon–McCartney, it was written primarily by John Lennon, with the middle eight and lyrical contributions by Paul McCartney. It is the first example of a rock band playing the sitar in one of their songs; it was played by George Harrison.
This was recorded in 1965 for Rubber Soul. Not exactly a typical music arrangement for that day. The subject matter was pretty adult for teenagers too. Lennon later said it was about an affair he'd been having while married to Cynthia.
- LOVE Norweigen Wood...is that an alt take 65? Or an unfinished version. I like it, less polished.
- Did those of you who just ranted about how stupid OP is really think you were contributing something to this thread? Because you just look like idiots yourself. If you're going to knock OP for being stupid, then at least back up your assertion by contributing something constructive to the discussion.
- You had to be there, Toby. Do some research and listen to what passed for music pre-1963.
- a perfect song. 20 did you just listen to the hits? They truly are amazing. listen to the links 61 and 63 on headphones, they were masters at the craft.
- I think the person that says they were evolutionary not revolutionary, has it right. HOWEVER, the sheer LEAPS of evolution they represented were pretty amazing. The Beatles were part of a wider cross-pollination that can be heard in the entire mid-late 60s. That's why that period is unique in music.
In other words, The Beatles were influenced by The Byrds, and vice versa. And The Beach Boys- and vice versa. And Hendrix, and vice versa. The list goes on and on. But those three major bands are just a handful of examples.
But out of all of them, they were the best.
- OP was just being a silly billy.
- I think "Norwegian Wood" is an alt take.
Here's what Wikipedia says about "Blackbird." It was written about the U.S. civil rights movement, and the "black bird" referred to a black girl (bird). "You were only waiting for this moment to arise." McCartney said, "It's not really about a blackbird whose wings are broken, you know, it's a bit more symbolic."
McCartney explained on Chaos and Creation at Abbey Road, aired in 2005, that the guitar accompaniment for "Blackbird" was inspired by J.S. Bach's Bourrée in E minor, a well known lute piece, often played on the classical guitar.
As children, he and George Harrison tried to learn Bourrée as a "show off" piece. The Bourrée is distinguished by melody and bass notes played simultaneously on the upper and lower strings. McCartney adapted a segment of the Bourrée (reharmonised into the original's relative major key of G) as the opening of "Blackbird," and carried the musical idea throughout the song.
Note the 1968 production values - a guy sitting with a guitar, tapping his feet. Some bird calls ensue.
- I think it's important to define the word "great". Are the Beatles "great" to everyone? Of course not. Some found their songs silly, overrated, whatever. But to the vast majority of music listeners, the Beatles not only represented a complete change in form (which still exists today in the 3 minute pop song), they also, as a band, evolved with the times. Furthermore, they, as a band, were responsible for the times evolving too! They changed fashion, hairstyles, what it meant to be an artist and a popular artist, they changed dreams and goals and everything for young people. So, even if you aren't into their actual songs or music, you have to understand their place in music history.
Interesting you brought up Nirvana (my favorite band of all time). They too are often called overrated and people wonder about their perceived stature as "great". They did the same things that the Beatles did (to a lesser extent, albeit), whether you like their music or not. So if you understand and accept Nirvana's place in music history, it seems you odd you can't grasp the Beatles.
- Then there's the album, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band."
Here's a few you should check out besides the title song: "She's Leaving Home," "With A Little Help From My Friends," "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds," "Getting Better," "When I'm Sixty-Four," "Lovely Rita (Meter Maid)," "A Day in the Life." On one album.
- My grandfather was an amazing piano player. Completely self taught and he could play anything after hearing it once. Couldn't read music and was too poor to ever think about a career in music. He could barely read.
But he was amazing at music.
One day he heard a catchy song on the radio. It was She loves you. He heard it, he sat down to play it cause he thought it was nice. And he couldn't get it. He listened to it again, still couldn't.
He told my dad (who loved telling this story) it took him ages to master it because it was deceptively simple.
He also said that whoever wrote it was as good as all the classical composers and that the skill and talent behind the music was just amazing.
That's why The Beatles are and always will be The Band to study and learn from. And every generation will discover them for themselves.
- ALSO, in addition to the contemporary influence factor they also took from all previous music, from all over history: rock n roll, indian, blues, jazz, musichall, classical etc etc and put their own mark on it. They were the first truly modern band in that sense.
Their music goes on and on, despite the efforts of the corporate hegemony to bury it in the ignorance of today's youth. They were a cultural revolution. They really did change the world. Anyone who can't see that is a hopeless contrarian.
Even The Sex Pistols in the 70s, The Smiths in the 80s and Nirvana in the 90s- whilst similar in terms of the impact of their message on their times- don't come close to the cultural earthquake that was The Beatles.
These bands will all be reduced to cultural footnotes in 100yrs, but The Beatles will endure.
- "For No One"
Your day breaks, your mind aches
There will be times when all the things she said
Will fill your head
You won't forget her
And in her eyes you see nothing,
No sign of love behind the tears
Cried for no one
A love that should have lasted years...
- The Beatles, the group, also has had much longer staying power than any of the solo work its members did. Wings was huge in the 70s, but is a footnote to the Beatles now.
- For R75, "She Loves You," as performed on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964.
- Then that CUNT Yoko Ono ruined it all.
- Wasn't Yoko's fault. They were falling apart anyway.
- [quote]What am I missing?
A musical ear.
It wasn't just The Beatles. It was the 60s.
Listen to the black American music from that time...listen to the Top 30 from 1966.
What I do find hard to understand is why pop music turned so sour musically.
- R79, "Yeah, yeah, yeah" -- you call that music?
- R79 - they progressed far from yeah, yeah, yeah by 1965.
- The other thing is who they were as people, individual thinkers. I can't think of a contemporary musician who would warrant the two hours I would happily surrender to a bio of George Harrison. An evolved soul and a friend to man in the largest sense.
- For the first time in the United States, February 9, 1964, on The Ed Sullivan Show: "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Beatles!"
- OP, I didn't get the Beatles until I was about 40. That was about 40 years after they hit the USA in a storm. took me a long time to understand the genius of their music, but when I got it, Oh shit I get it!
I was raised with so much music in childhood, even learning to play Beatles songs on piano and guitar. Never got what the big deal was until much much later. I think it helped that some of my favorite bands of the 80s &90s were hugely influenced by them, and I finally made the connection. I really took the time to listen.
Helps if you are musically inclined. Quality music is so rarely found today.
- [quote]"Yeah, yeah, yeah" -- you call that music?
No, but I sincerely call it great lyric writing. The words "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah!" capture the spirit of hot and horny young love with simple brilliance. The most important function of a lyric is to express sentiment or situation in an honest and memorable fashion.
- "Revolution," 1968
- Can someone tell me what it is that creates the synthetic overproduced quality of voices on records now? A classic example is the single just released this week by George Michael. Horrible. George: I want to hear your REAL voice, not this Kylie/Madonna/Cher channelled thing. I'm beginning to wonder if we'll ever hear real voices on a pop record ever again.
- Its quite simple OP - they were the first group to create their own music, write their own lyrics and had a whole new sound. It was British but based on American sounds they had heard - the r&b sound of Chuck Berry, Little Richard etc. transformed by them into their own sound - and that look too. The hair, the boots ... we were all into then, I was just a teenager and loved it.
The songs and lyrics are still lovely now. I get a kick out of hearing "Baby you can drive my car", and so many others. Have a look at "A Hard Days Night" and "Help" - the way those songs are staged its like they are the first pop videos.
I am annoyed now that The Beatles seems to mean Paul McCartney who seems to have hi-hacked the group - Ringo seems to be ignored now, ok he may not have contributed that much but he is the other surviving Beatle. I simply loved George and his voice.
- I completely agree, OP. I find most of their songs to be trite and cutesy. And no, this isn't a criticism that applies to 60's music in general, before someone says it. There is a specific tone to the beatles that I find to be annoying.
- If you were 17 in 1963 as I was you would have loved "I saw her standing there" the first track on their first album, as much as I did. On those early albums McCartney sang lovely songs like "Till There Was You" (not a Beatles lyric). A Hard Days Night and Help are still marvellously inventive and funny. Sgt Pepper and Abbey Road are still complex marvellous albums one can get into, and of course those late anthems like Let It Be and The Long And Winding Road...
Thankfully they split at their peak, so we didnt have to endure them endlessly touring like the much less interesting Rolling Stones.
- Please. There were plenty of great 3 minute pop songs in the late 50s and early 60s. Jukeboxes around the country were full of them. I'm one of those people who's never been that enthusiastic about the Beatles purely because of their ubiquity. If I wasn't sick of my father playing the shit out of them my whole childhood then the endless stream of chumps braying about how they're the GREATEST MUSICAL ACT OF ALL TIME!! would have sealed the deal. I understand their appeal but there's so much other music out there that I find more interesting and appealing.
- "In my life", "when I'm 64", "Shes leaving home" etc are all terrific songs, lyrically and musically - and they have so many of them.
They changed and developed so much from their early throwaway stuff, even now though I love hearing "love me do" and "please please me".
- You can see why the Beatles were so revolutionary by the amount of less talended groups that came in their wake, just guys with guitars and drums - but nowhere near as original or talented.
- Thank you, R94. I refuse to believe that this band specifically speaks to the specific individual tastes of all of these ravers, like it is their ideal music and doesn't have to do with all of the good feelings about the beatles we've had shoved down our throats.
- They became the greatest because of several factors. Their talent, that's undeniable but also Buddy Holly and his influence on them but even more importantly his early death in an odd way had even more impact. Without Buddy around, America gave in fully to Elvis and Sinatra and the industry in the US was looking for people more like them.
The Beatles heard Buddy became entranced by him and then went to Hamburg where their isolation from the Sinatra and Elvis heavy radio play and they're grueling schedule forced them channel their talents and interests into a certain direction. Then they would return to Liverpool and be exposed to the Merseyside bands,(who gave them melody and harmony) and then back to Hamburg again and thus their techniques and sounds became even more concentrated, when this cycle repeated itself again and again.
When they finally hit the American airwaves their sound was so intensely different and they were so in tune with each others technique that they just couldn't be denied.
Buddy Holly and the Merseyside bands, tremendous influences. The Merseyside bands have been forgotten but they gave us a lot of great songwriting and awesome harmonies when they were popular.
- "Some of you are just waxing nostalgic about the time period and aren't defending the music. Others are just pissed off about today's music. Only a couple of you have actually given some interesting reasons why they were supposed to be good."
I'm sorry you are so damn clueless and have to fall back on the same old typical "nostalgia" rote answer to the people here explaining, quite intelligently I might add, why The Beatles were so important to pop culture in general.
The Beatles literally changed the face of pop and rock music and without them there would be no Nirvana and every pop and rock band who came after them. Besides the music, they were innovators in fashion, and, as someone else stated here, they basically made the first music videos. Director Richard Lester was very important in bringing the MTV style quick editing into play and this was being done in the 1960s! Lester also featured this style in his 60s film "The Knack".
Enjoying The Beatles music in 2012, completely proves how talented and innovative they were as songwriters and musicians, people as yourself simple don't get it because you refuse to sit down and listen to their music. Most of it still sounds fresh and new. Their music is still being recorded and re-interpreted by hundreds of other artists
btw, ALL these posts and not one person has brought up their music producer, the studio genius, George Martin? Many people seem to forget Martin played a very integral part in creating The Beatles sound. .
- Didn't that one guy strangle Jodie Foster in order to win the affections of Ringo Starr?
- I can see how the Beatles were hugely influential and innovative, and spent much time researching and writing about this for my music degree- but personally, their songs just don't do "it" for me (apart from a selected few). I would much rather listen to Motown, the Beach Boys and all the early 1960s folkies.
(A music degree? Yeah, i would have been better off majoring in 16th century French poetry)
- A lot of their songs seems like novelties without much emotional depth.
- Like them all you want but it's ridiculous to argue there'd be no rock and pop music without the Beatles (I'm looking at you, r99). Talented as they were, their popularity was also in part due to the boomers, teens with money to spend who wanted something 'new' to latch onto. TV also played a part in exposing said teenagers to them. If the Beatles hadn't come along, those teens would have screamed and wet their knickers over some other band (bands in general had much more songwriting talent than those of today) who'd be similarly lauded today.
- The last song recorded by The Beatles "I Me Mine" -
- Saw them in concert,their music is as wonderful today as it was then.Listen to "And I Love Her"& "In My Life"- 2 of the most BEAUTIFUL songs ever written.Best band ever & forever!
- I still can't think of any rock band that's incorporated as many classical instruments into their music. "For No one" -
- The Beatles were on the cutting, bleeding edge of rock/pop music for 6-7 years from when they first broke through in the UK & US, until they split. EVERYBODY followed where they led. Staying at the front of a major musical movement for that long is damn near impossible, especially today. Most artists either crash & burn, or they run out of steam before then. And they grew and evolved to a degree that few can match. As Spin magazine once put it, imagine N'Sync morphing into Radiohead, then into the Chemical Brothers, then finally into Nirvana. And in such a short time. The Rolling Stones have been together for 50 years now, and haven't evolved as much. In six years, they had 20 US #1 songs. That's upward of three a year. To put that info perspective, Mariah Carey hasn't had that many in 20+ years in the business. That is something worthy of respect.
- Smells old in here
- "Like them all you want but it's ridiculous to argue there'd be no rock and pop music without the Beatles (I'm looking at you, [R99]) Talented as they were, their popularity was also in part due to the boomers, teens with money to spend who wanted something 'new' to latch onto. TV also played a part in exposing said teenagers to them. If the Beatles hadn't come along, those teens would have screamed and wet their knickers over some other band (bands in general had much more songwriting talent than those of today) who'd be similarly lauded today.."
I never said there would be NO rock or pop without the The Beatles. Sure, there probably would have been tons of cookie cutter singers and bands in the mold of Pat Boone, who was hardly an innovator as far as rock or even pop goes. There were innovators in black rock music such as Little Richard and the Motown groups, but not many white pop/rock bands held much interest until The Beatles. The Beach Boys would have been considered an equivalent band to what The Beatles were doing in pop and rock.
You also do not seem to get that The Beatles transcending their initial teenybopper fanbase. As their fans matured, The Beatles music and image matured. This cannot be said of many bands who came after them and many of today's bands just fade into oblivion after a few hits.
During The Beatles time, the innovators in pop were people like Carole King and But Bachrach (songwriting, later on he recorded his own songs) and Phil Spector (producing), not someone as whitebread as Pat Boone. Do you comprehend? Most of American pop music was bland, boring and played it SAFE.
The Beatles set a new HIGH STANDARD. No one every heard or saw anything like them before. I was a small child when they hit the scene, I remember being in the bathroom peeing when they first appeared on Ed Sullivan, my mom started banging on the bathroom door, "Come on, hurry up, you have got to see this! The Beatles are on!"
I really think so many here are either stupid or just enjoy arguing.
Sure there was a ton of American rock and pop bands and singers, but none were as innovative as The Beatles or even The Stones, who were basically the bad boy equivalent to The Beatles warm fuzzy initial image in the US.
The Beatles set the pop music standard so HIGH, everyone who came after them had to be extremely talented or have a gimmick, such as Madonna, who would have NEVER made it without her overtly sexual image gimmick and without MTV. Or even Bowie, who actually has talent, though I'm pretty sure Bowie did the dressing-like-a-woman schtick and also the Ziggy alien imagery to boost record sales! Hell, even Springsteen's every man working class Jersey guy look IS an image!
- Another thing, The Beatles enormous body of work is quite astonishing, considering they weren't together all that long. Something else to ponder.
Not only did they write and record all that music in a pretty short amount of time, most of it sounded different, without losing the recognizable Beatle sound.
They did raunchy wild rock 'n'roll, acoustic, Indian influenced music, acid rock, they used strings, well, they did it all, yet the listener still knew it was The Beatles.
- You're drawing a very long bow to try and argue that The Beatles and Stones (are you a Mojo reader?) are responsible for raising the quality of pop and rock music forever thereafter. The Stones just recycled what blues and r&b musicians had been doing for years. Considering musical taste is entirely subjective, you sound like a crusty old baby boomer fanboy insisting that anyone who doesn't appreciate the GENIUS of the Beatles must be dim. Maybe we're just not as sheltered, mainstream and whitebread in our tastes as you are.
- The Beatles WERE ground breaking. All you have to do is listen to what music was in the charts prior to them dropping Love Me Do in 1962. The other 3 major British bands of that era The Who and The Kinks didn't form until 1963/64 and even the Stones didn't form until 1962 by which time The Beatles had been together for around 5 years and Lennon and McCartney were even asked to write a song for The Rolling Stones.
The Beatles changed the sound of pop music and inspired SO many bands to form either directly or indirectly. If the music from your perspective in 2012 was "hardly different" to what else was around in the early 60s it was because their sound was so influential everyone copied it.
They didn't do it all on their own The Kinks (or Ray Davies) were equally if not more ground breaking than Lennon/McCartney and a whole lot more so than The Stones. It was The Kinks and not the stones or Beatles that first used eastern influenced sounds in western pop music (See My Friends) they pretty much invented punk AND Heavy guitar music (You Really Got Me, All Day and All Night)
That does not take away with what the Beatles did. They were all competing with each other, pushing each other to break more boundaries.
In the 60s they were all pretty much working from a blank canvas. Inventing the techniques that we today now take for granted and Lennon/McCartney were lead the way in this. The did not have the technology we have today. If they wanted to do something they had to go out and find away to do it and make it happen.
Go listen to Tomorrow Never Knows, then go listen to what other music was being made in 1966 and tell me you don't get what was so great about The Beatles.
They were pioneers.
- LOL R53
- OP, care to enlighten me on what made Nirvana great and revolutionary? I hear nothing in their music that I haven't heard in many other bands. And, frankly, none of it impresses me. To be honest, I think Dave Grohl's other band, The Foo Fighters, are much better, more interesting, and more innovative than Nirvana. And given the lifespan of the Beatles (and the Foo Fighters), they were/are able to produce so much more and, through innovation, create more revolutionary music than Nirvana could.
- Also, keep in mind the people BEHIND The Beatles. Brian Epstein pretty much forged the modern-day management style for boy bands. He deliberately waited to introduce The Beatles to the United States. He wanted the guys to mature as a group AND he wanted to build up States-side excitement. I think it was Paul who always said Brian was the fifth Beatle. It was after Brian's death that The Beatles started to fall apart.
Also, there's George Martin. Classically trained, he worked with the guys to improve their music. He was responsible for many of the "ahead of its time" arrangements and effects.
- [quote]For example, if someone asked me how did Nirvana change music, I can give a reasonable explanation.
I'd love to read your explanation. Please tell us what current musicians are there that were influenced by Nirvana (and the Foo Fighters dont count). Please tell us what was Nirvana doing that had never been done before?
- Reread your OP and take it apart using logic. Hopefully, you'll see how ridiculous it is.
- Oh dear God, someone has finally wired Shady Pines for internet access.
- They wrote the best song ever about fisting...I Want to Hand Your Hole.
- OP- you need to listen to their catalogue from their first to their last recordings as a group. Then it should be fairly obvious to you why they were such an influence- have you?
Yes there were other great bands, the Beach Boys went through a similar arc of artistic growth due mostly to Brian Wilson.
Of course there were others like Dylan who played a role in the evolution of American pop and rock and whatever. Then there is Smokey Robinson and Motown- Ray, Arethe and James who crossed over from gospel to pop- without James there probably would be no rap (which I would not mind- but you get the idea.)
What followed from the mid 60s into the late 70s was really a golden age of popular music in the West. Almost everything now is derrivative- and most of it worse than that with production and visual presentation trumping the music and artistry as well. Of course there are many exceptions, but none of them have achieved of broken ground like the Beatles and others I have mentioned above.
- R115, I already mentioned the great George Martin up thread.
As for you, R111:"You're drawing a very long bow to try and argue that The Beatles and Stones (are you a Mojo reader?) are responsible for raising the quality of pop and rock music forever thereafter. The Stones just recycled what blues and r&b musicians had been doing for years. Considering musical taste is entirely subjective, you sound like a crusty old baby boomer fanboy insisting that anyone who doesn't appreciate the GENIUS of the Beatles must be dim. Maybe we're just not as sheltered, mainstream and whitebread in our tastes as you are"
Whitebread? Ha-ha, you haven't got a CLUE, you also ASSUME I am mainstream and sheltered? You think you can figure a person out from a few posts on a message forum? How sad. It's always best to argue about any subject when you have actual facts to back it up, you come here with assumptions about a poster from few posts?
First off, even though The Beatles had mass appeal, they were hardly a mainstream band, this shows how clueless YOU are. They were an innovative band during time when there was such utter crap on the radio, besides Motown, R'n'B and American girl bands such as the Shirelles etc....there really wasn't much going on in American pop music to get anyone excited.
The Beatles broke into the mainstream, not the other way around! Everything about them was different and extremely exciting, I'm not even a huge Beatle fan, yet I can still acknowledge their importance to music!
MOJO? I no longer read ANY rock music magazines (I used to read RS when it was an important and relevant when it was actually a newspaper, Melody Maker, NME, CREEM, CIRCUS and many other now defunct music publications)...I do not form my musical opinions through what a music critic writes about a band or a musician, I have my own ears and eyes. I listen to many different types of music, not just rock.
I come from a musical and artistic family. My dad, though a commerical artist, played guitar and my grandparents would have music jams every weekend. Two of my relatives were jazz musicians, another was a session guitarist, another a touring/session background vocalist and an uncle was a music producer. I think I know much more about actual music than you do, having been exposed to many types of music since I was a small child!
You also seem to forget, the British rock/blues bands such as The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, The Small Faces (the original line-up with Steve Marriott), The Kinks (Jimmy Page played lead of many of their hit records, he wa san in-demand session guitarist before Zep fame), the original Fleetwood Mac (the Peter Green version), Julie Driscoll/Brian Auger, Led Zeppelin and so many others who were doing British blues and played a harder type of rock than The Beatles played when they initially became famous, presented the blues in a whole new package to their young audiences, these guys and girls were HOT, CUTE, YOUNG and SEXY.
Not many music fans, especially young females, would have been screaming and getting hysterical over an old grizzly looking, though talented, old black man strumming a guitar and you know I am 100% correct about that.
It wasn't so much that these British blues bands of the 1960s were doing something new, their presentation was new and their re-interpretation of the blues was fresh, that got peole interested.
It took these bands to get young people interested in pursuing old blues recordings of Robert Johnson, Bessie Smith and many other long forgotten blues artists.
Janis Joplin introduced her audience to the blues. There is no denying any of this, sorry that you a too narrow minded to get any of this. You'd just rather sit back and name call for no other reason, other than you not having any valid background information about most of what is being discussed here.
To be continued....
- Why do some of you immediately go to a place of anger?
- Today, singer/guitarist Jack White is doing the same exact things as his musical heroes did, he is getting his fan base interested in the kind of music he adored while growing up: black American blues and old school country music, as well as the British blues bands he admired. He has recorded and produced records by many of his heroes, bringing their music to a whole new audience.
One of Jack's offshoot bands, The Racontuers, have recorded songs orginally done by the great 1960s British singer Terry Reid, who was the orginal choice to be Zep's singer. The White Stripes were basically a throw back to the British blues bands Jack adored, especially The Yardbirds and Zeppelin.
Besides coming from a musical family, I actually did work in the music business for many years, in the advertising/promo area, I can actually understand the music scene from two perspectives, the music itself and also the aspect of dealing with the imagery which sells the music to fans. There has to be gimmick to get fans interested, hopefully, the music will be great enough to sustain a band's popularity.
No wonder the world is in such a fucked up state today, today's youth think they invented the wheel, they refuse to acknowledge that it's ALL been done before....fashion, music, design etc....take a look at and listen to a hipster rattle on, then get back to me. "Artisanal bread", yeah, the same type of bread my grandmother made in her kitchen, what a joke.
Look at Jimi Hendrix, the man had to go to England to get famous, his wild guitar playing and over-the-top fashion sense was initially way too bizarre for US audiences. Look at the audience reaction when he played Monterey and set his guitar on fire, no one ever saw anything like it before, unless they saw Pete Townshend break his guitar in England.
Hmm, ever wonder where Prince got his fashion sense from, try Little Richard and Hendrix!
It's all been done before, but some do it much better than others, like The Beatles did, these are the types of influential artists who will have a lasting impression 100 years from now, not the likes of image-over-substance performers like Madonna. I doubt anyone will be humming her songs 100 years from now. She will merely be a footnote in pop music history.
- "Why do some of you immediately go to a place of anger?"
Are you directing this post to me?
Well, R111, directed this to me: "you sound like a crusty old baby boomer fanboy insisting that anyone who doesn't appreciate the GENIUS of the Beatles must be dim. Maybe we're just not as sheltered, mainstream and whitebread in our tastes as you are""
I reacted accordingly to their name calling. It's too damn easy to sit behind a computer keyboard and write invectives and call people names without giving any valid information about the subject being discussed, let alone, actually posting a reason as to why you are calling another person childish names on a message forum.
Sure, music taste is subjective and personal, but most intelligent people who listen to music, can, and will, acknowledge The Beatles vast importance to pop culture, even if they are not a hardcore Beatle fan, an intelligent person should be able to comprehend how important a cultural phenomenon The Beatles were.
- Eleanor Rigby
- Umm, like why is that dead Charlie Chaplin guy so famous? He couldn't even talk. I just don't get it.
And those fat guys who were movie directors or like, producers or something. Alfred Hancock and Orson Welsh.
Why do the gay homos like the Berchtold Beck and Kurt Vile? Were they like, drag queens or something?
I saw West Side Story and frankly, it was a ripoff of that Shakespearean play, Romeo and Julia. Why did it get famous if it wasn't even original?
- Those of you who claim the Beatles' songs were trite and shallow plainly haven't listened to many of them. Yes, fun pop songs like "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and the songs written around that period were cute boyband songs. But "Eleanor Rigby" is emotionally shallow? "She's Leaving Home"? "In My Life"? "Yesterday"?
Really? If you can't see the depth of emotion in these songs you must be Mitt Romney.
- The Beatles made it big because they were cute and stylish.
- They were the first people to become recognizably famous worldwide not just during heir lifetimes, but at the same moment in all countries. Lots of people became world famous, but usually after their deaths or their fame spread slowly worldwide, years after they'd done whatever it was that made them famous. And they kept producing.
They were equally famous in the UK, Europe, the Americas, Japan, the Philippines, and even behind the Iron Curtain. They were banned in Islamic countries.
The reason why they were famous and why they were banned was because of the effect they had on young people in countries across the globe. They set off a reaction where young people did all sorts of things -- dressing differently, demanding wars stop, demanding that they be listened to. And they inspired boys and girls worldwide to pick up guitars and drumsticks and make some of the most diverse and lasting music ever recorded.
Even Beethoven and Mozart didn't have that effect. Nor did Elvis, Little Richard or Chuck Berry inspire so many people in so many countries.
- "The Beatles made it big because they were cute and stylish."
And Justin Bieber covered The Beatles on New Years Eve, 2011, 45 years later, because the Beatles were "cute and stylish" in 1964?
I'm not saying it was a good cover, I'm just saying it was still relevant to his live audience and they were singing along with the words.
- Jason Mraz covers "In My Life," October 2009:
- Nick Jonas covers "I Saw Her Standing There" in Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 2011.
And the girls scream and sing along.
- Yesterday only got attention because it was the first Beatles song with strings. It is not a great song.
- "And Justin Bieber covered The Beatles on New Years Eve, 2011, 45 years later, because the Beatles were "cute and stylish" in 1964?
I'm not saying it was a good cover, I'm just saying it was still relevant to his live audience and they were singing along with the words."
This only proves was how relevant The Beatles were to pop culture, THEN & NOW.
A craptaculous 'singer', such as This Year's Model AKA Justin Bieber can perform a Beatles cover and his young fan base can enjoy a classic old Beatles song, they even knew the words! It completely proves the longevity of The Beatles music and their contribution to pop culture.
- People forget that the Beatles were only around from 64-70
They stopped touring in 66.
They put out a huge volume of music in that time.
2 or 3 albums a year.
Try to imagine today's top 10 singles chart containing 5 songs from the same artist. It just doesn't happen.
The day after the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan, every kid and his brother started a band.
- Yes, but EVERYONE put out at least two albums a year, even Streisand did.
- The Punch Brothers cover "Paperback Writer," bluegrass style, March 2011.
And that's why these songs are called "standards." Because they sound good in any style of music.
- Sorry...MOTOWN all the way! Beatles & Stones co-opted (actually stole) R&B and white folks claimed them unique.
Best songwriters EVAH: Holland–Dozier–Holland (Lamont Dozier and brothers Brian and Eddie Holland)
- Troll thread
- Completely agree with you R138.
- I don't recall Streisand personally writing ALL the songs herself on every album after the first one or two, R136. If she had, that would really be something.
Here's the Punch Brothers at the Living Room in NYC on Thursday, March 12, 2009: P-Bingo Night #4, singing The Beatles "Baby's in Black."
- Forget it.
This is one very real case of:
YOU HAD TO BE THERE.
You had to be a kid who not only had a president assassinated, but ALSO WITNESSED a REAL MURDER live on TV (LHO).
You had to live through the 60's, IOW.
- r138, I love Motown as much as any white kid, saw the original Temps, the Four Tops many times and met them, and got Diana's autograph when I was 16 in 1967.
You need to direct your "thief" accusation at Col. Parker and Elvis.
- My nieces age 10 and 14 love the Beatles and can sing their songs by heart for hours.
My nephew age 18 plays guitar in a rock band, and like an upthread poster, remarks on how deceptively hard the Beatles songs are to play. "I Saw Her Standing There" sounds like three chords but has 11, including a handful that are highly unconventional.
Young people do appreciate their music and it is not just old farts by any means.
- "Yesterday only got attention because it was the first Beatles song with strings. It is not a great song.
by: Richard Rodgers"
Apparently much of Earth disagrees with you. From Wikipedia:
"Yesterday" is a song originally recorded by The Beatles for their 1965 album Help! The song remains popular today with more than 2,200 cover versions, and is one of the most covered songs in the history of recorded music.
"Yesterday" was voted the best song of the 20th century in a 1999 BBC Radio 2 poll of music experts and listeners and was also voted the No. 1 Pop song of all time by MTV and Rolling Stone magazine the following year. In 1997, the song was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame. Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) asserts that it was performed over seven million times in the 20th century alone.
Personnel as given by Mark Lewisohn and Ian MacDonald: 
Paul McCartney – lead vocal and acoustic guitar
Tony Gilbert – violin
Sidney Sax – violin
Kenneth Essex – viola
Francisco Gabarro – cello
George Martin – producer
Norman Smith – engineer
So one guy with a guitar and a string quartet is nothing but an overproduced gimmick? You must not have listened to any music in the last thirty years.
- R141, Babs was only one person, so no. Baby's in Black, btw, is a direct rip-off of Oh Dear What Can The Matter Be.
- "Sorry...MOTOWN all the way! Beatles & Stones co-opted (actually stole) R&B and white folks claimed them unique.
Best songwriters EVAH: Holland–Dozier–Holland (Lamont Dozier and brothers Brian and Eddie Holland)"
I actually mentioned that Motown was one of the most important areas of American pop music at the time, are you READING every post here or just ignoring others information?
Little Richard (who The Beatles got their 'whooo" trademark from) and Jimi Hendrix were just as much innovators as The Beatles were, please don't turn this into a racist argument. Because that is not what this thread is about, but, as usual, someone has to come to DL and turn it into a black versus white thing. Please don't troll either.
Music transcends all races, creeds and religions, music IS a universal language.
As far as black artists recording Beatle songs, Aretha and Tina recorded Beatle songs and so many other important black performers recorded and re-interpreted the The Beatle song catalog. Beatle songs were that good they could be recorded by any singer. Even Sinatra and Tony Bennett recorded Beatle songs.
IIRC, even Nat King Cole covered The Beatles, but I might be wrong. I am not a Beatles archivist.
Besides black pop and R'n'B artists, jazz and even country musicians recorded Beatle songs, there were also classical interpretations of Beatle songs and once again, everyone was recording Beatle music! Even Muzak had Beatle songs on their playlist!
- One more thing, r141. Singer-songwriters is what ruined popular singing. Great singers like Streisand, Sarah Vaughan, Nat Cole, Sinatra, Ella, Tony interpreted music written by others. The singing was better and the songs were better. You can't compare a pop vocalist and a rock band. I'm wondering it you are under 25.
- [quote]I thought George Harrison's contributions were quite underrated.
I couldn't agree more. I read somewhere - I think in Clapton's autobiography - that George's contributions were often ignored by Lennon & McCartney.
I wonder what we never heard.
- R145/141, I'm wonder why you're so threatened by other opinions. Is it like you have to prove you're "right" because some agree with you? It's really childish.
- I don't understand the name calling. I think it is a valid question as to how someone doesn't understand the 'greatness' of the Beatles. It doesn't make that person an idiot. But, what do you expect from baby boomers. Typical behavior.
- r105: Tell us about the concert. Where? How close were you? What songs did they play? What did they say during the concert? Thanks.
- On the contrary, r151, it's today's youngsters who buy the Beatles hype hook, line and sinker. Baby boomers such as myself who were there enjoyed the Beatles, but we can put them into perspective today. I think this very perturbed individual that goes into psychotic rages over the Beatles is a kid.
- The Beatles had more range than a lot of contemporary songwriters. They could be satirical and political, but also uplifting, emotionally vulnerable -- even spiritual. Their songwriting evolution sure went beyond puppy love in a short time.
- They were really the first self-contained band to reach superstardom worldwide, setting the stage where artists could control everything in their careers, including songwriting, producing, singing, performing, etc. Before that, labels did everything for you and controlled everything, including your money.
Creatively, they weren't particularly innovative, although they certainly were commercial and prolific.
- "One more thing, [R141]. Singer-songwriters is what ruined popular singing. Great singers like Streisand, Sarah Vaughan, Nat Cole, Sinatra, Ella, Tony interpreted music written by others. The singing was better and the songs were better. You can't compare a pop vocalist and a rock band. I'm wondering it you are under 25."
Generalize much? What an absurd statement. Are you saying there are no rock or pop singers who were as vocally interesting as the singers you've listed? That's just ridiculous and no true.
There were so many singer/songwriters who were iconic, many were not always the best of singers, such as Dylan and Carole King, but they were pop icons who wrote songs which will stand the test of time. Leonard Cohen, also comes to mind. Musicians are still recording his songs.
Cohen and Dylan songs have been recorded by so many other artists, such as The Byrds, and Jimi Hendrix, who actually made Dylan's songs bigger hits than they were for him.
Yes, there are/were singers, like the ones you've listed, who never wrote their own music, they are/were wonderful song stylists, there's no denying that, but to say singer/songwriters "ruined popular singing" is a bizarre proclamation.
In the pop/rock genre, Rod Stewart comes to mind as being a great song stylist, he's recorded songs by Tom Waits, Tim Hardin, Holland/Dozier/Holland and many other songwriters.
Rod didn't have the best of voices, in the mode of the singers you've listed, but he sure knew how to interpret others music, the same can be said of Joe Cocker. Joe's recorded everything from Dylan to Leon Russell to Cohen to Beatle and Box Tops songs!
- Creative is what they did best. If it was not for their exceptional body of high quality songwriting, they would have been a flash in the pan.
St. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band was the album that took Pop music into the realm of a serious art form for everyone, not just the Beatles.
R155 is a Justin Bieber supporter.
- They never did a narcissistic vocal run. They sang to let the words tell a story, not to show what great singers they were.
That alone makes them stand out as unique in pop music history.
- Wow, R156 is just all over this thread. You make some excellent points but, man, rein it in at bit. You sound like you're coming unhinged.
- Crunch all of Madonna's singles into the time period 1984-1990.
ALL of her singles, and Beatles still had more singles into the same time period from 1964-1970...
That's how prolific they were...
- "What am I missing?"
- Honestly, I don't like the Beatles either. That's not to say I think they're bad, but I don't like listening to them.
- They were better songwriters because they understood musical phrasing better than almost anyone since.
- The only reason people hate the Beatles is the residual of Christian hate propaganda. And why did the Christians hate them so much? This song.
- Today we are besieged by Mormon republican scum. And that's who started this thread, you can depend on it. And all you DL idiots who think that you hate the Beatles for aesthetic reasons, it's not true. I will repeat once again so you can get it through your little puny brains. The only reason you have been taught to disdain the Beatles is because they wrote a song celebrating an end to religion. You just don't realize that this is what happened.
- Yeah, I love the Beatles but I can understand not liking them. I don't like opera but I understand and respect the artistry of it and appreciate why people love it.
- But "Imagine" is not a Beatles song. It was written by Lennon after their breakup (inspired by one of Yoko's poems) and was featured in his second album.
- i Mean i LIKE THE Beatles too but you queens are wayyy too generous... you fell for the propaganda that they are the greatest because White teenagers bought their music more than others. Whites just wanted a group that sang the same songs the Black singers were singing and saying "Yeah we got our own soul singers now, they don't sound like Pat Boone and we don't need you anymore"
The Beatles and the Rolling Stones STOLE Black soul music. Plain and simple.
- Lennon's remark back in 1965 about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus took more of a toll than the "Imagine" song. In fact, a number of Christians have covered that song over the years (remember CeeLo Green changing the lyric "and no religion, too" to "and all religion is true"?)
Then there's always the Ballad of John and Yoko lyric: "Christ, you know it ain't easy/You know how hard it can be/The way things are going/They're gonna crucify me"
- I always preferred The Rolling Stones.
- But that's just it. These terrible communist atheists came to the US singing about teenage love but really they had a hidden agenda that didn't pop out until around 1970, by which time American youth were BRAINWASHED! The hate of the Beatles among the Christian right is so rabid it is something you never would believe but it is real and it is why the young are taught to disdain the Beatles.
- The Beatles did far more than steal black music. Are Eleanor Rigby, Cry Baby Cry, Paperback Writer "black"? Not at all.
- To the posters upthread who don't understand why Nirvana is considered so great:
Like the Beatles, it's easy to overlook or not understand it if you were too old or too young to experience it as a kid/young adult. And no, I am NOT saying the impact Nirvana had on the pop world rivaled the Beatles; it didn't. The Beatles did it first, better, and more comprehensively.
However, they were one of the only bands in history that changed "everything". One day, music was Micheal Jackson and GNR and Poison. Vapid empty rock, lame, overproduced pop, image over substance. Nirvana openly and brilliantly mocked those endeavors.
Nirvana brought back artistic integrity to the pop/mainstream world. They altered fashion, questioned the social mores of the time (Kurt was intensely pro gay, considered himself a feminist, etc.), championed lesser known artists, musicians, etc. and did so as they sold millions of records to frat types the world over.
That's sort of the overview of why Nirvana is great in the bigger picture.
Now, as a band, can they be considered derivative? Sure. Kurt openly admitted that. Hell, by 1991, everything in pop music was derivative. But there was something in his voice, his lyrics, and in his simple, but refreshing approach to songwriting that connected with millions and millions of listeners in a way that transcends comprehension (like any great artist, IMHO).
- "Wow, [R156] is just all over this thread. You make some excellent points but, man, rein it in at bit. You sound like you're coming unhinged."
Typical reply on DL when a person has nothing valid to contribute to a thread. Calling someone "unhinged" is a typical DL response when you have nothing to contribute.
As for the black racists here who keep yelling that The Beatles, an many other white bands, ripped off black musicians, you seem to have reading comprehension problems, black musicians contributions to pop and rock music have been acknowledged many times in this thread. Read and comprehend.
Then again, there are so many trolls in this thread, posters who couldn't give a flying shit about ANY type of music let alone black musicians, you need to get the fuck out of this thread, go shit all over the less serious threads on DL, there are many.
- R168, the Beatles were certainly influenced by R&B and soul music particularly in their early years when they did a lot of covers, but it's disingenuous to say the "stole" black music. I can hear more of a Tin Pan Alley and even classical influence in terms of their melodies. And then there's the influence of Eastern music as well.
A better argument could be made about the Stones ripping off black artists, but even they were able to turn that into their own style.
- r174 Bitch you need to smoke 5 bongs... chill the fuck out. You UNHINGED queen!
- The Beatles were selected by the powers of the New World Order, Travistock Insitute division, to help introduce drugs to the American public - correctly predicted to be the worlds biggest goldmine market - starting with the youth. Thus all their 'drug music'.
For this reason they were knighted by Queen Elizabeth for 'service to the empire', specifically the narco division.
- Everything went downhill after the Beatles came along.
They encouraged drug use, Hari-Krishna, yoga, and all other non-Catholic behaviors.
Now, before you call me crazy, I want you to know that I am a Beatle fan. Love the music!
But I can put things in an historical context and chart the deterioration of our great country.
First of all, the true talent in the Beatles was the producer, George Martin. Without him, the Beatles were a hopeless bar band with cornball tastes. If you ever hear a recording of their early years you can see that they were simply awful.
For some reason, Martin was told to take these men and make something out of them. I don't know who made that call, but there was no reason to listen to that drivel unless there was an ulterior motive.
The Beatles were promoted to inspire decadence in America. First, and we laugh about this, was the long hair. Then came the drug references, Hari-Krisna, and the Yoko sickness. Nothing in show business is an accident, so this was planned out.
John Lennon and Yoko Ono were heroin addicts who never left their beds. Harrison was a Hari-Hari who flaked out on his women and got throat cancer from all of the crap incense he inhaled. Paul is left-handed which explains everything.
The only decent one is Ringo.
Team Rolling Stones
- Listen to 'All Apologies' and then tell me that Nirvana didn't change music forever.
I like a handful of Beatles songs, but they never did it for in the way they must have done it for some of you. It is nice to see people passionate about something on here that doesn't involve Anderson Cooper's love life.
- We doubt that either John Lennon or Yoko was a drug user, they were too crafty for doing something that might jeopardize the zillion$$ they were accumulating. The Beatles were of course promoted as being drug users, like the Stones, to encourage young people to buy/consume drugs, but we highly doubt they actually were.
- [quote] The Beatles were of course promoted as being drug users, like the Stones, to encourage young people to buy/consume drugs, but we highly doubt they actually we
Yeah. I doubt the person who wrote this was high
"Little little bee gypsy get around
Get your feet up off the ground
Little little get around
Admiral Halsey notified me
He had to have a bath or he couldn't get to sea
I had another look and I had a cup of tea and a butter pie
The butter wouldn't melt so we put it in a pie
We're so sorry Uncle Albert but we haven't ate a bloody thing all day
We're so sorry but the kettle's on the boil and we're so easily called away
Hands across the water, hands across the sky."
you know, if Keith Richards was anything close to the heroin addict he was promoted as he would have been dead twenty times over.
I was told that Richards wore junkie 'make-up' to look sickly. He is just another con-job, like all of the others.
Poor Kurt Cobain bought into the whole junkie-rocker lifestyle and didn't make it past 27, and that's because real junkies die young.
If Cobain had known that people like Richards and Lennon were not hardcore drug addicts and it was just p.r. he may still be alive.
- The Beatles recorded the first punk song with "Helter Skelter" and the first ska song with "Obla-di, Obla-da". They explored and created so many musical styles that there's something for anyone to enjoy or take off on. They also did all of this without knowing how to read music. Paul learned later when he wanted to compose classical music.
Dave Grohl said he spent years trying to learn how to play "Blackbird".
- r183 would you mind saying that to the Jamaicans, particularly Bob Marley and the Wailers, who recorded lots of ska songs before those bugs?
- I agree the OP is an idiot, but the point needs to be made that they got their start mimicking black artists like Bo Diddley.
In the beginning years, they were CERTAINLY derivative and exploitative, just like many acts at the time.
Once they got famous, they started their magnificent writing. Good for them that they were actually talented at it.
- What is it about this insistence that there has be the "greatest"? There is plenty of greatness in music thoughout the years. There is no greatest.
I just spent last evening watching youtube vids of Queen reliving my youth. Like I said there's plenty of room for greatness in music.
- I hated bubblegum and most pop, so although I recognized the Beatles' talent, I wasn't interested.
One morning I was watching the Today show and Hugh Downs said an album had come out that day that would change the course of music. Of course he was talking about Dr. Pepper.
I became a convert. I didn't like everything they did, but White Album and Abby Road are still sublime. Eleanor Rigby says it all. I had one of those wonderful Akai reel to reel tape decks that American servicemen loved for smuggling hash and heroin into the country from Vietnam. I wore that thing out.
- Dr. Pepper? Oh, dear!
- R187, thanks so much for showing the love for my wonderful commercial from the 70's!
- "When I'm Sixty Four"
- Just for the record, not everything done by black groups was "original". There was a lot of synergy in the 60s and 70s between white and black musicians.
- [quote]They also did all of this without knowing how to read music. Paul learned later when he wanted to compose classical music.
McCartney has never learned to read or write music.
- R191, that's bullshit.
There was NO synergy between anyone black or white in the 50's...for any purpose at all.
It was a different time, and black artists inspired each other, and were inspired originally from the late great blues artists of the South....who were BLACK.
- Who said anything about the 50s?
- Not true R193. Watch "Chuck Berry Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll" where Berry talks about being influenced by Tommy Dorsey.
- R188, history is different when you weren't there to see the context and you lump everything together.
Dr. Pepper was groundbreaking when it came out. It was not my favorite work of theirs by far, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize its significance at that particular time.
- Ummm r196 I dunno if you're in on the joke but just to clarify to the idiots who don't know... Dr. Pepper should've been Sgt. Pepper... ok!
And Blacks were BANNED from ever learning Euro-centric classical music... they used the spiritual and gospel roots and were "inspired" by some of the works of Euro-classical music and formed ragtime/jazz... and then from the sample, spiritual and gospel came the Blues.... then came R&B and Rock & Roll...
There was no "synergy" and if Chuch Berry said that he was just being gracious... You best believe that
- I bet R197 is wearing right now the same costume that Paul wore on the cover of Dr. Pepper
- Looking back, I think the most extraordinary thing about the Beatles and their peers like the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys was the incredible explosive artistic growth they went through in what today seems like no time at all. The Beatles went from "Please Please Me" to Abbey Road in about the time it's been since "SexyBack" came out. Looking at the timeline of their accomplishments you have to wonder if years were somehow longer then.
- "And Blacks were BANNED from ever learning Euro-centric classical music"
Certainly not true. Indeed, the Detroit public schools which cranked out the Motown stars specialized in it.
Now in the South, it's true, there weren't any proficient crackers to teach anyone classical music, but, well, that's the south.
- Oh and THAT is genius.... the Blacks being BANNED form ever learning music, forming a genre of music that is truly American and its hybrids and sister genres, which the White men have taken and bastardized.
THAT is true genius! Not fucking Sgt Pepper!
- I am only 31 yrs old OP, and I am nearly obsessed with the Beatles, if you don't get it, then too bad & too sad for you. I loved Nirvana too, but they cannot hold a fucking candle to the Beatles & they readily admitted to that btw. You can hear their influence in virtually all pop music that has come after them, and that is pretty powerful.
I love them because when I hear their music on the radio it instantly cheers me up, and moves me. You can feel the excitement of Beatlemania even after all these decades. &
They influenced musicians from their generation & beyond.
They influenced fashion and style greatly in their generation.
They were all outspoken, but especially Lennon.
They were very charming, talented, and interesting.
4 amazing artist who were very close to one another, and loved each other like family is endearing to fans.
I do not know how anyone could not enjoy them OP, the same way I do not understand people who hate animals, to me I find it strange, and do not want to associate with such people.
- As songwriters the Beatles had nothing on George Gershwin, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, Harold Arlen, or Irving Berlin.
- Duke Ellington was born in 1899 and had a piano teacher at 7. He also took music in high school. After 1865, black people were not banned from learning music, at least not in the North.
- I would be interested in the age of the people who don't get or don't like the Beatles.
I want to say they were born between 1962 and 1981. Mere speculation but I'm curious.
- Well, you're right about me, R164. I'm 32 (b. 1980) and don't like/get The Beatles.
- ITA with what R-10 said.
- I was born 1993 and I like a few songs, but I really don't get what was so special about them. Seems like bubblegum pop. I find the Motown stuff from that period much more interesting.
- [quote]Seems like bubblegum pop.
I'd hardly consider "Eleanor Rigby", "A Day In The Life" or "Norwegian Wood" to be "bubblegum pop." And those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.
- It seems like you guys are naming the same 5 songs. We get it, Eleanor Rigby is a good song.
- R208, if you were listening to the first couple albums, then yes, it's very bubblegum.
Listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road. That was after they started taking acid...
- I think that is appalling what r169 said, re Cee Lo changing the lyric in Imagine - what a cunt. How dare he..,..
- All he/she said is that CeeLo changed the lyric, nothing else. Go find something else to get your panties in a wad over.
- "Generalize much? What an absurd statement"
r156, you are a fucking LOON. What you were responding to has been said and written about for 45 years. But you wouldn't know that. Or much else.
Now, take those meds.
- I was born in 1954. LOVED the Beatles when I was a kid; couldn't get enough of them. But as I got older and more musically sophisticated, my tastes became more sophisticated. 50% of the Beatles were the times and the hype.
The Beatles are like a teenage romance for me: I appreciate how I felt, but the feeling's gone. I still like them, think they did some really good stuff, not great stuff.
- This thread is hilarious! Eldergays werkKK!!!
- ""Little little bee gypsy get around
Get your feet up off the ground
Little little get around"
Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
Live a little, be a gypsy, get around.
- I was born in the 60's. I generally prefer solo singers and like a wide variety of musical genres, but I've never been into rock bands or rock music in general. I realize that makes me the odd one, so don't jump down my throat. But, just like I felt like an island growing up the gay kid in a small midwestern town back then, I felt like one of very few who didn't give a flip about the Beatles. Still don't; I like certain of their songs, some of the ballads, but have never been into them performing their material.
- You better watch out. R156, who had posted about 200 responses here, is about to be going on a psychotic rampage.
- If you want fine songs written in the 60's by white guys using more than 4 chords check out the work of Burt Bacharach and Hal David.
- OP, Maxwell's Silver Hammer gonna get you.
- I like many Monkees songs better.
- R214, you need to find a nice big cock then stick it down your throat, fuck off. Perhaps that big dicked guy who was just stopped before boarding a plane, might just have the right size cock to shut your big mouth!
You are the loon, you a re fucking clueless and a fucking TROLL who has absolutely NOTHING to add to this fun music thread except bitter invectives.
The kids and freepers who now permeate DL are really pathetic and psychotic.
- Now, back to the thread:
"The Beatles recorded the first punk song with "Helter Skelter" and the first ska song with "Obla-di, Obla-da"."
Err, no, many many rock fans would debate this, The Standells "Dirty Water" and even "Louie, Louie" are considered punk, but of course, that type of raunchy rock wasn't yet called 'punk'.
Re ska crossing over to a white audience, Millie Small, a British woman of Jamaican descent actually recorded what was considered the first universal ska hit, "My Boy Lollipop". Rod Stewart is rumored to be playing the harmonica on it. It was released in the US on Smash records.
"There was NO synergy between anyone black or white in the 50's...for any purpose at all."
Wow, you sound incredibly closed minded and very bitter! Not to mention making such a blanket statement, shows you are a troll.
There sure was LOTS of synergy in the 1960s! Ever heard of the Brill Building, Phil Spector and Carole King and Jerry Goffin? They all collaborated with black female groups such as The Ronettes, The Shirelles and let's not forget Burt Bachrach/Hal David had a TON of hits, thanks to the voice of DL fave Dionne Warwick recording their songs!
The people in this thread just pulling lies and miss-information out of their fat pimpled asses is ridiculous.
- I have listened to Mr Moonlight about 183 times in the past month...love John.
- I remember My Boy Lollipop - that was ska? I must not know what ska is then.
- Yes, "My Boy Lollipop" was considered ska.
In the 80s, British ska punk band Bad Manners re-recorded it as "My Girl Lollipop".
American R'n'B singer Jimmy Soul, who, IIRC, was born in Jamaica, also had few ska tunes on his debut LP and that was released way before The Beatles did "Obla-di, Obla-da"
Jimmy's US hit was "If You Wanna Be Happy".
- (208) listen to side 2 of Abbey Road..def. not bubblegum. I'm 34, by the way.
- Most of the people posting negative things about The Beatles most likely never listened to a Beatle song straight through.
Today's youth have the attention span of a gnat.
They probably think Britney Spears and boy bands are the epitome of pop music geniuses!
The more shallow and ignorant a pop, rock, or hip-hop performer is the more famous the fans make them.
We now live in such a disposable culture, no one takes the time to really listen and absorb anything. Shallow be thy name!
- The Beatles were so huge because they sanitized the blues music for a large white audience. They made boring tunes for boring white people.
- Oh, r230 thinks he is pithy!
- R223, definitely needs to renew the lithium.
- Born in 1972, have loved the Beatles since I was a kid.
Still waiting for r105 to tell us about the concert.
- So anyone who doesn't like The Beatles is either an ignorant child or a right wing fundie, hey r223? And you complain about others and their 'invective' (trolls are rarely self-aware). I've listened to plenty of The Beatles - I didn't have much choice in the matter - and while I wouldn't say they're shit, they never did much for me. I'm 38 and I love music with a passion that borders on obsession. I buy 2-3 albums a fortnight, with a collection that currently sits at around 1400 CDs. The Beatles' popularity was due to a number of factors, including the early electronic mass media beaming them into households around the western world. They're obviously a sacred cow to some baby boomer types but it is still legal to hold the opinion that they were not the greatest musical act that ever was or ever will be.
- I am almost 50 and never could get into the Beatles.
Van Morrison rules
- Awaiting R223 to comeback and attack R234! Psychosis Rules!!!
- Sir Paul getting choked up at The Olympics singing Hey Jude bump
- They played My Boy Lollipop during the Olympics Opening Whateveryoucallit. Thanks for cluing me in on ska. How I got this old without knowing that is beyond me.
Both Van Morrison and the Beatles are fab and gear - digging out my Beatles scrapbook.
- I love the Beatles but what I don't get is why was Paul McCartney, post Beatles, so great? I heard a song of his during brunch today and lost my desire to eat.
- [R152&233], The concert was in Chicago at Comiskey Park.We were not very close,both concerts that day sold out in no time at all.John ran towards the fans as if he were going to join the front row,his famous sense of humor was very evident.Unfortunately,due to mass hysteria(of course)it was difficult to hear anything,but you could see 4 young men having the time of their lives.I knew that day I would never see anything like it again,it was musical history.They are timeless,what a GLORIOUS August afternoon!!!
- ^ By-R105
- Thanks, r105/r241 for sharing.
- Oh! And I'm gonna go look up that concert.
- Was it this concert from 1965? I think I have backstage photos of this in one of my books.
- [R245]- Yes,it was on 8/20/65.We bought 3 tickets at $3.50 each,what a bargain that day was.I live in a city that gets alot of great entertainment.Would love to see Paul again,gonna try!!
- Listen to "Revolver" and then remember the time that they released it.
So ahead of their time it was unbelievable.
Tomorrow Never Knows is such a classic song it could be released today.
- A nervous, giddy, star-struck Elton John (I know, I know everybody here hates Elton, but....)tells us why the Beatles are important.
- I agree R94. I find some of these posts so bizarre. Particularly the ones implying that music prior to 1963 sucked. Are they even aware of all the musical genres and artists they are referring to? Count Basie, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Nina Simone, Sara Vaughan, Thelonious Monk, Chuck Berry, Ella Fitzgerald, Little Richard, Dinah Washington, and on and on apparently all sucked.
- This was the #1 song before The Beatles arrived.
The difference is shocking...
- I cannot stand to listen to Beatles' music.
I find it harsh, boring, and not enjoyable.
And I cannot stand music Paul McCartney has done on his own as a single artist. Horrible to listen to.
I'm glad others enjoy the Beatles though.
- "I cannot stand music Paul McCartney has done on his own as a single artist. Horrible to listen to.
If Paul wasn't a former Beatle, he wouldn't have been able to get a recording contract. Same with John -- he had one good song (Imagine). His last album (Double Fantasy) was a McCartney-like mess.
Only George Harrison produced decent stuff post-Beatles...for a short time. Of course, a lot of the material was old stuff that never made it to Beatles LPs.
- Without "A Day in the Life" there would be no...
"Stairway to Heaven"
All epic longer than usual tracks...
What other proof do you want?
- r86 - an older friend of mine was at that show. I'm jealous!
- They were brilliant songwriters, having written countless wonderful songs that will live on forever.
- Ask Meryl Streep.
- Well, historically, they changed the music scene. They started the British invasion. Their music evolved incredibly over the years, and they wrote some wonderful music. As one poster said, they were the first boy band.
It's necessary, I think, to know what the music scene was like before they came along, and what it was like after. Very dramatic.
- Gotta go with [R109] on this one. To me it's the incredible way their music evolved and changed over the years. Absolutely amazing. To judge them on "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is crazy - that was just the beginning.
- [R249] Of course pre-Beatles music didn't suck at all. It's just that post-Beatles, the music scene was quite different. All the artists you mentioned are wonderful and inspirational.
- Paul McCartney had a lot of great solo tunes regardless of what the fools at R251 and R252 think.
- Over 48 yrs.since they appeared on Ed Sullivan.Their music and influence will be heard and felt forever.L&M-the most successful songwriters in history,"Yesterday"-the most covered song of all.They also had 21#1 hits.There is a great stage production of their music in Las Vegas at The Mirage Hotel.It is called"Love"& is booked up to 3 months in advance.- Love Them!!!
- R252-There are ALOT of "artists" who should not have recording contracts...JL & PM are not among them.
- r262 is right, r252. Although John Lennon's post-Beatles material (like Paul McCartney's) is no where near the excellence of the L&M catalog, he did have a few gems, besides "Imagine":
- I agree R8.
But I think if it was left with She Loves You or I want To hold Your Hand they wouldn't have such a big legacy.
If you listen to Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, The White album you can hear how inventive they were, musically and lyrically. Even in earlier songs like Norwegan Wood they seemed to be plugging in to a different channel.
- I had forgotten Eleanor Rigby which i listened to recently. It's not only incredibly melodic but the violin creates a fierce sort of rhythm and it even questions organized religion.
How many people in their mid twenties could or would write about someone older who'd died having spent her life hiding? Similar feelings with She's Leaving Home, about someone who decides to start living.
- Agree op the Beatles were like the backstreet boys of the 60s.
- The song "Hide Your Love Away", which was inspired by the Beatles' gay manager Brian Epstein, is an example of why the Lennon/McCartney songwriting was so great. Even though they could write "pop" music, they also tackled serious subject matter with sensitivity and empathy. The Beatles also employed diverse sounds/instruments/musical techniques so their output was complex and continually evolving. It is understandable why each album release was so greatly anticipated: their sound was innovative and interesting. Like a supernova, the Beatles burned bright, but could not last forever; their influence, however, continues on. This is is why the Beatles were revolutionary, and are legends.
- If you have to ask, you won't understand any answer.
- are you out of your mind, r252? Lennon was incredible.
Nobody Told Me There'd Be Days Like These
Whatever Gets You Through The Night
Watching The Wheels (my fave)
We were cheated out of a lot of future great songs when he was killed.
I'm not as big a McCartney fan, but he's written some great tunes post-Beatles, too. He's no slouch.
- r266 is not only young; he is ignorant.
Not having lived through an era is one thing; being completely obtuse to its events and their ramifications AND THEN OPINING ON THEM is beyond lamentable.
Maybe the poster would care to discuss the US Civil War with Lynard Skynard.
- The Beatles were already huge in England but EMI's American label, Capital Records didn't know what to do with them and didn't issue their singles.
The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan show on Feb 9, 1964 and the world exploded. 73 Million people watched them.
Thousands of kids started bands in their garages the next day.
All past singles were dumped on radio stations and they took over everything.
Here's the Billboard Chart for April 4, 1964
Beatles hold the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 positions as well as 7 more singles in the Hot 100.
It will never happen again.
- There are The Beatles.
And then there is everyone else.
You had to be there or you'll never understand.
57 year old
- Download "The Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl" and you'll see.
(It's not for sale anywhere)
- "I find some of these posts so bizarre. Particularly the ones implying that music prior to 1963 sucked. Are they even aware of all the musical genres and artists they are referring to? Count Basie, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Nina Simone, Sara Vaughan, Thelonious Monk, Chuck Berry, Ella Fitzgerald, Little Richard, Dinah Washington, and on and on apparently all sucked."
I think reading comprehension is a huge problem on DL. Or perhaps some people here just pick and choose what they read in a thread?
The musicians you mentioned were wonderful, they were innovative and people are still listening to them. I don't think anyone here was putting down jazz, which all the artist you listed were considered jazz artists, none were not pop artists except Chuck Berry and Little Richard, who were consider rock'n'roll.
In fact, Little Richard was mentioned here, as being a rock innovator.
Sure some of the artists on your list broke into the mainstream such as Sarah Vaughan, Ella, Dinah Washington, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, but this thread has basically been about The Beatles changing the face of pop and rock music.
Besides pop music, rock and Motown, I also grew up listing to jazz music, my father was a huge Miles Davis fan, I actually have his original vinyl copy of "Miles Ahead".
In my posts here, I was referring to horrible pop music in the early 1960s, bland artists such a Pat Boone. People like Boone were hardly innovative. Boone, actually recorded "Blueberry Hill", what a joke!
In the early 1960s, managers and others in the pop music industry pushed so many middle-of-the-road performers as new and different, they were anything but.
I have to thank my family for introducing me to so many different genres of music and for also helping me to appreciate the difference between good and bad music, no matter what the genre!
- And if occasionally he'd ponder
What made Lennon and McCartney great,
Him I could love till I die
Him I could love till I die
Barbara Ono Cook
- I think I recall John Lennon mentioning once in an interview that even he didn't quite understand all the hoopla that surrounded the Beatles and that could have been partly why he mentioned the "more popular than Jesus" line--he was probably just non-plussed by it all. I think he also said that it was mainly luck and being in the right places at the right times plus good management that lent alot to their fame and success (don't confuse the two--there is a difference). Would a group like the Beatles become successful/famous today? I have my doubts. Both John Lennon and George Harrison became sooner or later quite disaffected with the whole idea of being a "Beatle"--Paul McCartney got the most out of it personally and Ringo Starr was kind of along for the ride--another lucky ducky. I liked the Beatles then and now but they had their place and time--please don't compare them to something truly artistic like classical music of Bach, Beethoven or Mozart because there is very little comparison, although Mozart might have liked them in a low brow sort of way. Just a few side notes but don't know how true they are: toward the end, the Beatles didn't usually play the instruments in their recordings and much of it was clever sound engineering they had little to do with; they saw little of each other toward the end and what little they did see were chance meetings when they may have been needed at the studio. Also they had only rudimentary knowledge of reading notes and setting music to paper, they just knew what kind of tune generally they wanted at best--the studio did the rest after they became famous; Lennon-McCartney is kind of a myth because they wrote or devised much of their music/lyrics separately, it was only a legally binding agreement that their names had to appear as if they composed together like Rogers and Hammerstein or something, in fact Paul McCartney recently wanted to make it "McCartney-Lennon"--don't know where that idea went but probably didn't go far. Did the Beatles take alot of drugs and have lots of sex? Probably at one time or another but John might be the biggest "offender" in that regard. Has their music stood the test of time? I can't say and neither can any of the "expert" bitches who have posted here, for one thing, they are too recent to tell.
Brian Epstein (I was hot for John but had to hide my love away)
- On a thread filled with pretentious music experts, R276 takes the cake. The Beatles spent many years on the road developing their skills. Paul's bass, Ringo's drums and George's lead guitar are all very distinctive and well regarded by other musicians. Yes, classical musicians came in a played on songs like "Penny Lane", but they were playing music that was written by The Beatles. The Beatles didn't need anyone to play their instruments.
- The Beatles compilation 1s was the biggest selling CD of the 2000s.
I think they have stood the test of time.
- Bumping an old Beatles trolling thread? Really? Has it come to that?
- I think that they taught us that all you need is love but one Japanese cunt can cause it all to go to shit.
- Like any recording act claimed to be so wonderful, the Beatles have some good songs but for the most part they're vastly overrated. A lot of their songs are shit. Average lyrics, average vocals, average instrumentals...I like some of their songs but a lof them are pretty annoying. People forget they wrote a lot of those weird songs while high.
I have said this to the faces of some hardcore Beatle stans too and it was amusing to see them get so pissed about it.
- No one has tried to hide that many of the "Lennon-McCartney" songs were written separately. The link includes John and Paul quotes going back to the early 60s that describe how some songs credited to "L-M" were written by one or the other.
- Any moron that worships the beatles deserves to have their ass beat.
- Thank you, R277.
Why the fuck would anybody say such stupid shit? Did he gain this knowledge from some particularly dumb friend/relative? Or did the fool at R276 just pull all that out of his ass??
- Great post, R276.
- An interesting perspective on the significance of the Beatles.
- Most of their music was shallow and inconsequential, about stupid topics and only superficiality pleasing. Even for the 60's.
- R284 here. Sorry, but my thank you was for R276!
- "And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make."
The end of "Abbey Road." Pretty profound and timeless R287.....
However R287, you may be happy to know that is followed by "Her Majesty."
Which is probably what you meant..
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl,
but she doesn't have a lot to say
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
but she changes from day to day
I want to tell her that I love her a lot
But I gotta get a belly full of wine
Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl
Someday I'm going to make her mine, oh yeah,
Someday I'm going to make her mine.
- R288 here. Sorry, R284, but I was wrong and meant to say R285 in reference to who I was. I apologize, I had a bit to drink.
- [quote]Any moron that worships the beatles deserves to have their ass beat.
I feel the same way about Mozart.
- Neither deep nor emotionally moving.
- Agreed, R291, but the beatles are certainly worse. I'm the guy you were quoting.
- The Beatles are great!
The Beatles suck!
The Beatles were awesome!
The Beatles were overrated!
The Beatles were great!
The Beatles sucked!
The Beatles were awesome!
The Beatles were overrated!
- R276 sounds batshit crazy. It's always absurd to have a conversation about a subject that most people simply add their opinions rather than actual facts! Kind of like crazy eyed Paul Ryan lying throughout last night's VP debate. It's nice to have some actual facts along with the bullshit and gossip.
Who cares if the Beatles wrote some disposable pop tunes, they actually progressed as a band. They were incredibly prolific, considering they were not together for a very long time, their catalog is large and diverse.
They didn't feel the need to keep putting out albums of their re-vamped music such as Sting does with his classical, and jazz remixes, of his Police and solo songs.
The Beatles also had the sense to know when to bow out, lots of musicians don't know when it's time to split up their bands. They keep dragging on for decades, yet haven't created anything new.
- I was very, very young when the Beatles became famous but I do remember that in the 60's they were just *huge* and if they appeared on television it was truly an event (at least in the late 60's). There was a lot going on musically in the 60's, but the Beatles changed popular music. There is a very real line of demarcation musically dividing the period before the beatles and after the beatles. It's just so obvious. The early 60's music was an extension of the stuff made in the 50's and once the beatles hit the scene rock and roll simply changed.
I think one had to "be there" to really appreciate the impact they had on popular music. One can't just look at their music in retrospect and say it was simplistic, average, overated, etc. This is because one is comparing their music then to music *now*; music the beatles are directly responsible for with their influence. Before the beatles, people like frankie avalon, the 4 seasons (whom I adore), brenda lee, etc. were what the kids were listening to. Once the beatles music got here, it was so different that after a few years rock and roll completely changed. Especially after rubber soul and revolver. It was just like "wow" and so different; the lyrics, the beat, the arrangements -- everything. If one compares it to the popular music at the time.
- r277 and r284 both sound like neurotic, know-it-all, shallow fraus--BEGONE BITCHES, YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE!!
- Why don't the anti-Beatles people tell us what bands are better.
- I have not followed this thread from the beginning because I could not think of a way to explain why the Beatles were, are and always will be simply the best that ever was. Some say you had to be there, I was, so I understand that. In the beginning they were just 4 guys who loved rock and roll and wanted to make music. Their early music bears this out. Then, without compromising their rock and roll roots they released All you need is Love. Penny Lane is the exactly like an Italian art song. Then came Sgt Pepper. They were growing more mature as musicians and we as a culture were growing with them And that's what made them so special to my generation and I hope someday to yours as well just as civilization will never be without Beethoven's nineth or Verdi's La Traviata will will always have Let it Be, Yesterday, The Long and Winding Road, Imagine, and so many more.
One last thing people of my generation will always be able to tell you exactly where they were when they heard JFK had been killed. But most of us can also tell you exactly where we were when we heard the Beatles had broken up, when John Lennon was killed and when George Harrison dies. They were that important to us.
- All you Beatles fans are trying to justify their 'greatness' by giving a War and Peace exposition on their historical context. I think the OP's point is that he's not captivated by their music as stand-alone music. If he spent a year reading Beatles biographies and watching Beatles documentaries, maybe he'd 'get it' more, but it sounds like the music alone is not resonating with him.
- Lennon was a narcissistic, self-absorbed asshole. In the last years of his life, he admitted feeling horribly embarrassed by the naivete of so many of his songs. All You Need is Love (and a few hundred million dollars, a stretch limo, and a massive penthouse at The Dakota)
- Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins was just interviewed by Carson Daly on Carson's "Last Call" show. Corgan told Carson that the music of The Beatles is what got him interested in becoming a musician.
Corgan said he was five years old at the time, when he came across and bought a Beatles LP at a yard sale. He said he was so young and couldn't believe, or understand, what he was listening to, but he knew he loved the music and realized what a great influence their music was on his decision to become a musician.
- ehhh, r299, you need to wipe your ass more--you sound like you're full of shit.
Can't stand maudlin and saccharine bullshit
- R298, Pink Floyd
- OK, let's try to sort it out one more time, classical music has stood the test of time, it was composed by those who were trained in music. NONE of the Beatles had any formal musical training--much of their "success" is fame generated by a studio. To compare, r299, the Beatles with any of the classical composers of the 18th and 19th centuries is like comparing Shakespeare to Micky Spillane. If the Beatles were sort of "conflated" to the 18th and 19th centuries they likely would be regarded as "those saucy boys who play a good dance number" as in jigs and reels and maybe popular ballads. So many of these posts are just the typical American leaps to conclusion and sweeping generalization with little to back it up or as explanation and "to hell with everyone else"--I guess that must be how Nixon and bush got elected.
- "Lennon was a narcissistic, self-absorbed asshole. In the last years of his life, he admitted feeling horribly embarrassed by the naivete of so many of his songs. All You Need is Love (and a few hundred million dollars, a stretch limo, and a massive penthouse at The Dakota)"
That can be said of any celebrity, Madonna comes to mind, she has a hell of a lot less talent than John possessed in his right pinky.
The fact is, most musicians, actors and actresses, athletes and other types of entertainers, are not worth the kind of ridiculously absurd money they make. Does anyone need eight homes?
btw, I don't think there is a penthouse in the Dakota, though John and Yoko did own three apartments there.
- John Lennon did once say, r306, that at one time, hearing many in a massive peace demonstration singing "Give Peace a Chance", it moved him greatly, so I don't think he could have been a complete asshole, but I agree many of the "celebrities" you mention, especially "athletes" are paid obscene amounts of money they don't need or deserve. I've always said, show me a humble athlete and I'll show you a female pope. In many cases, again especially with "athletes", and let's throw in Madonna for good measure, everyone seems to be ragging on her around here, it's a matter of "ALL THAT MONEY AND NO CLASS".
Joseph P Kennedy (I had "class" I'll have you know)
- There is absolutely NOTHING to "sort it out one more time", the Beatles were a POP and ROCK band, comparing them to classical music, jazz, R'n'B or opera is completely ridiculous.
"classical music has stood the test of time, it was composed by those who were trained in music. NONE of the Beatles had any formal musical training--much of their "success" is fame generated by a studio."
You actually think only formally trained musicians can be better at music? What a ridiculous proclamation.
I know several people who studied at Julliard, they are horrible at composition. They were in orchestras for years playing the music of others, which was not their intention.
The sheer fact that the Beatles were not formally trained made them even more amazing. You just don't get it. I can't believe anyone is even comparing a POP/ROCK band with CLASSICAL music. Comparing music genres shouldn't even come into play here, because there can not be a comparison.
I personally would not compare the world's best opera singer with the world's best rock singer, because the fact is, you can't!
From your post, you seem to think classical music should be the only type of music which should stand the test of time? Go tell that to the fans of Sinatra, black American blues, jazz, Motown, folk music, Johnny Cash and let's not forget Streisand and Judy Garland fans! People are still listening to these musicians.
"So many of these posts are just the typical American leaps to conclusion and sweeping generalization with little to back it up or as explanation and "to hell with everyone else"--I guess that must be how Nixon and bush got elected."
What the hell are you going on about? More nonsense!
Many here have been quite eloquent in their explanations as to why they think the Beatles were important to POP culture, many even added actual facts to back up their points. I didn't see any posts saying, "I love The Beatles, so, go fuck yourself!", for the most part, the thread has been intelligent and informative.
Is reading comprehension an area you have difficulty with?
- Beatles snobs...go away. They had some good songs but also plenty of overrated mediocre and shitty ones as well.
R305, they learned to play and compose by ear, which, as R308 pointed out, makes what they did all the more impressive. I don't get this "generated by a studio" nonsense. They wrote the songs, and worked out their own arrangements. They were using "Aeolian Cadences" before they even knew there was a term for such a thing. It's confounding as to why you think only classically trained musicians are capable of creating brilliant music, or that "pop" music can't be sophisticated and transcendent. Read any of the dozens of books dedicated to the compositional aspect of The Beatles' music if you're looking for something to "back it up."
There's a reason why composers like Copland and Bernstein loved and respected The Beatles' music. They weren't bogged down by myopic musical snobbery as you seem to be, R305.
- R303 it was spoken from the heart. I stand by everything I said. They were a formidable part of my life This sounds very silly I know and it certainly dates me as being in my late fifties but I remember my freshman year in college sitting in someones dorm room and playing What was on the flip side. We would name a Beastles single and then would name what was on the B side. it only illustrates how we all bought 45rpm's I bought HELLO GOODBYE on my birthday in March of 68
In regard to Classical vs Rock I contend you can put ABBY ROAD up against any classical song cycle.
- Most of the Beatles' early stuff was teeny pop trash, direct predecessors to the Jonas Brothers and One Direction. Their mid-phase works created an acid-fueled prepubescent fantasy world within the brains of their listeners. Their very final recordings were for the most part just cheap sentimentality. And your average Joe tends to like these things. A lot. ;)
- There is something so silly, so stupid, just so...well, you know. A post like this is clearly bait for the uneducated, the pretentious, and queens who will slobber over Sondheim and turn thier noses up on the beauty of "Beatles 65."
Let's face it.
They have staying power. Plain and simple. All the shit that has come after them. LOL! Not much has endured. Not much at all.
Let's move on.
- Many of you confuse sales with quality. I'm not saying the Beatles were not a great pop band, but the truth is the massive marketing helped. Those screaming girls were bused to JFK, they didn't go on their own.
The Beatles (image & recordings) were re-packaged and marketed for decades after they split up. THAT accounts for a lot of their "enduring popularity." Without this marketing, I bet those of you under 50 would think of the Beatles as having made pretty good oldies.
- [quote]They had some good songs but also plenty of overrated mediocre and shitty ones as well.
Everyone has plenty of shitty songs. It's the Beatles sheer volume of GOOD songs that put them above the rest.
And they were only around for 6 years.
- A lot of reverence for The Beatles comes from nostalgia. Most white baby boomers still lover their stuff. I never loved them myself, and I'm from the era. Their early records have good tunes and energy, but most of the time they sound too cute and pop-ish, even bubble-gummy for me.
They were important because they revitalized the values of early rock & roll, when Elvis, Little Richard and others were out of commission for various reasons. This triggered the "British Invasion" and the rest is history.
- You cannot understand the impact of the Beatles without taking a look at what pop music was like in the early 1960s just before they arrived.
It was corny novelty songs ("Speedy Gonzales", "Hello Faddah"), Bobby Vinton, the Singing Nun, the Chipmunks, cheap instrumentals like "Wipe Out" and "Telestar".... Connie Francis (sounding like air leaking from a balloon).... Fabian... Bobby Rydell... and the list goes on.
Yes, there was Ray Charles, Sam Cooke, Ben E. King, Roy Obison, and the great girl groups... but the good stuff was far out-numbered by the bad.
The 1963 Grammy Award was given to Nino Tempo & April Stevens for a song written in 1933 called "Deep Purple". Try to listen to it without clawing your face.
1964, just one year later, was a whole new world in pop music, and it was because of the Beatles.
- The biggest "band" in the world before the Beatles were the Beach Boys.
- They're overrated and while they definitely do have some great songs, MOST of them are average or shitty but as usual, the white kiddies like average to shitty songs in general. I HATE the Beattles stans who love every fucking Beatles song and proclaim them as the best ever. Heck, my Mom grew up in that era and she is reasonable about it-she likes some of their songs but not others. She was overall a fan, but not a stan. I wish more people were like that.
Nothing is more annoying than people who were born after that era who view the Beatles as some kind of music gods though...kill 'em.
- So much anger r319.
How are the Beatles ruining your life?
- [quote]It's the Beatles sheer volume of GOOD songs that put them above the rest.
Exactly. Their hit-to-shit ratio was better than just about anyone's.
- R317, Little Peggy, you only site rock n roll, you say nothing of theater and ADULT pop. Is that because you don't know anything about it?
- Because you're only 30 that's why you're questioning it. Never again will there ever be a group like The Beatles which created "Beatlemania"
- You're 30 and questioning it. You're a child and an idiot. Do you're research and find out what made them the Best!
- [quote]Those screaming girls were bused to JFK, they didn't go on their own.
I've never heard this before. Is it true? Can you provide a link, or are you just making this shit up?
- How else do you think they got there? Mummy drove them? There were promotions on all of the NY radio stations.
- First...Scrub all Music from your Memory.
Then look at BillBoards Top 100 starting at 1958.
Get yourself familiar with those songs.
Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin were on their way out and Elvis was the biggest Musically at the time.
This music snap shot in time...was the most popular music at the time.
Then Look At 1959 and listen to those songs.
Then as you get to 1963 and 1964...The Beatles sounded like no other Band....plus they PLAYED their own instruments, SANG there songs, and WROTE their own MUSIC as well as played covers.
Also...the week of April 4th 1694...the Beatles occupied the top 5 positions of the Billboard Hot 100. An achievement unlikely to EVER be equalled.
- It quite difficult to convince the last few generations of music fans...the ones who grew up on MTV, Madonna (who heralded in the era of style over substance being more important than the actual music), Rap/Hip-Hop and just plain awful pop music....as to why The Beatles, Motown, psychedelic rock, Jimi, Janis, The Beach Boys and so many other musicians of the mid to latr 1960s were so damn great and fabulous!
These musicians were so great, and transcend time, their music is still being listened to today as well as being covered by current musicians, it also explains why so many bands are going back to the 1960s for their 'own' sound and for 'inspiration'.
Hipsters seem to have no clue about most of the music they are listening to, they think these new bands are actually the originators of the sounds they are hearing. About 95% of today's music is derivative.
Not a hipster fave, but an example is Beyonce, she's a throwback to the female Motown bands of the 1960s, the groups who wore elaborate dresses and had choreographed dance routines. The only difference is, Beyonce is more a Las Vegas act than the female Motown groups were, she moves around more, she basically puts on more of a show. Do you see the show when you put on her CD?
The bottom line is, today's pop music fans need to accept that it's ALL been done before.
- One of the best things about the Beatles story is that they weren't able to diminish their legacy by returning.
It just would not have been the same...
- If lady Gaga would have been performing in that era, the Beatles would not have had a chance.
- Ok, OP. Convince me why Nirvana was such a wonderful thing to happen to music. As far as I can see, the music industry has disintegrated into nothing since they shat all over the scene.
- Diane would have eaten Googoo's lunch, R330.