Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Why were The Beatles so great?

I'm in my 30s and I have never understood why they are so revered. What did they bring to the music scene that changed everything?

For example, if someone asked me how did Nirvana change music, I can give a reasonable explanation. I have listened to The Beatles and their sound wasn't exactly revolutionary for the time.

What am I missing?

by Anonymousreply 45111/24/2015

New DL low.

by Anonymousreply 107/18/2012

Guuurl, you in trouble now!

by Anonymousreply 207/18/2012

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.")

by Anonymousreply 307/18/2012

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.....

by Anonymousreply 407/18/2012

What are you missing?

A brain

by Anonymousreply 507/18/2012

I'm with R1.

by Anonymousreply 607/18/2012

Op, are you serious? Really?

by Anonymousreply 707/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 807/18/2012

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 infinitum.

by Anonymousreply 907/18/2012

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 an unmitigated idiot.

by Anonymousreply 1007/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1107/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1207/18/2012

Up until the Beatles, Popular music was just a bunch of white guys stealing songs from black guys. See Elvis Presley for details.

by Anonymousreply 1307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1407/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1507/18/2012

[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"?

by Anonymousreply 1607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 1707/18/2012

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]


by Anonymousreply 1807/18/2012

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?

by Anonymousreply 1907/18/2012

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!"

by Anonymousreply 2007/18/2012

Beatles is as bad as frank Sinatra yuck

by Anonymousreply 2107/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2207/18/2012

R20, good for you that you use Golden Girls episodes as your benchmark when judging music.

by Anonymousreply 2307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2407/18/2012

[quote]. I found their music just okay and their lyrics straw-clutching and amateurish.

Straw-clutching? Amateurish?


by Anonymousreply 2507/18/2012

I don't think their pre-64 stuff is all that good, but from 64/65 on, there was no better.

by Anonymousreply 2607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2707/18/2012

R19 - The Beatles did indeed appear on bubble gum cards. I had a Huge collection.

by Anonymousreply 2807/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 2907/18/2012

They also changed fashion and hair styles. They were very cool for the period.

by Anonymousreply 3007/18/2012

"Let It Be."

by Anonymousreply 3107/18/2012

"Eleanor Rigby."

by Anonymousreply 3207/18/2012

"Here Comes the Sun"

by Anonymousreply 3307/18/2012

"In My Life"

by Anonymousreply 3407/18/2012

"All You Need Is Love"

by Anonymousreply 3507/18/2012

Harrison's work is underrated.

by Anonymousreply 3607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 3707/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 3807/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 3907/18/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 4007/18/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 4107/18/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 4207/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4407/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4507/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4707/18/2012

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

by Anonymousreply 4807/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 4907/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 5007/18/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 5107/18/2012

OP, you really must not be very familiar with what pop music sounded like before The Beatles. Their immense impact is obvious.

by Anonymousreply 5207/18/2012

Tim McGraw is better. And that Chesney guy.

by Anonymousreply 5307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 5407/18/2012

Though it could have ended at R1's correct response, many of you are kind to continue schooling the OP.

by Anonymousreply 5507/18/2012

Just Harrison's contribution alone is better than anything Nirvania did.

by Anonymousreply 5607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 5707/18/2012

The progression between Love Me Do through A Day in the Life is pretty astonishing...

And in less than 5 years...

by Anonymousreply 5807/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 5907/18/2012

OP listen to these few songs from Abbey road and you'll be embarrassed by your thread.

by Anonymousreply 6007/18/2012

whoops missed link

by Anonymousreply 6107/18/2012

and listen on

by Anonymousreply 6207/18/2012

then follow that up with the next three songs from Abbey Road and then talk to us.

by Anonymousreply 6307/18/2012

Yeah but Lady Gaga has more followers on twitter

by Anonymousreply 6407/18/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 6507/18/2012

LOVE Norweigen that an alt take 65? Or an unfinished version. I like it, less polished.

by Anonymousreply 6607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 6707/18/2012

You had to be there, Toby. Do some research and listen to what passed for music pre-1963.

by Anonymousreply 6807/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 6907/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7007/18/2012

OP was just being a silly billy.

by Anonymousreply 7107/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7207/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7407/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7507/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7607/18/2012

"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...

by Anonymousreply 7707/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 7807/18/2012

For R75, "She Loves You," as performed on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1964.

by Anonymousreply 7907/18/2012

Then that CUNT Yoko Ono ruined it all.

by Anonymousreply 8007/18/2012

Wasn't Yoko's fault. They were falling apart anyway.

by Anonymousreply 8107/18/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 8207/18/2012

R79, "Yeah, yeah, yeah" -- you call that music?

by Anonymousreply 8307/18/2012

R79 - they progressed far from yeah, yeah, yeah by 1965.

by Anonymousreply 8407/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 8507/18/2012

For the first time in the United States, February 9, 1964, on The Ed Sullivan Show: "Ladies and Gentlemen, The Beatles!"

by Anonymousreply 8607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 8707/18/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 8807/18/2012

"Revolution," 1968

by Anonymousreply 8907/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9007/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9107/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9207/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9307/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9407/18/2012

"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".

by Anonymousreply 9507/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9707/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 9807/18/2012

"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. .


by Anonymousreply 9907/18/2012

Didn't that one guy strangle Jodie Foster in order to win the affections of Ringo Starr?

by Anonymousreply 10007/18/2012

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)

by Anonymousreply 10107/18/2012

A lot of their songs seems like novelties without much emotional depth.

by Anonymousreply 10207/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 10307/18/2012

The last song recorded by The Beatles "I Me Mine" -

by Anonymousreply 10407/18/2012

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!

by Anonymousreply 10507/18/2012

I still can't think of any rock band that's incorporated as many classical instruments into their music. "For No one" -

by Anonymousreply 10607/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 10707/18/2012

Smells old in here

by Anonymousreply 10807/18/2012

"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!

by Anonymousreply 10907/18/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 11007/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 11107/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 11207/19/2012


by Anonymousreply 11307/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 11407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 11507/19/2012

[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?

by Anonymousreply 11607/19/2012

Reread your OP and take it apart using logic. Hopefully, you'll see how ridiculous it is.

by Anonymousreply 11707/19/2012

Oh dear God, someone has finally wired Shady Pines for internet access.

by Anonymousreply 11807/19/2012

They wrote the best song ever about fisting...I Want to Hand Your Hole.

by Anonymousreply 11907/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 12007/19/2012

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....

by Anonymousreply 12107/19/2012

Why do some of you immediately go to a place of anger?

by Anonymousreply 12207/19/2012

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, 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.

by Anonymousreply 12307/19/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 12407/19/2012

Eleanor Rigby

by Anonymousreply 12507/19/2012

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?

by Anonymousreply 12607/19/2012

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.

"Eleanor Rigby"

by Anonymousreply 12707/19/2012

The Beatles made it big because they were cute and stylish.

by Anonymousreply 12807/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 12907/19/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 13007/19/2012

Jason Mraz covers "In My Life," October 2009:

by Anonymousreply 13107/19/2012

Nick Jonas covers "I Saw Her Standing There" in Sao Paulo, Brazil, September 2011.

And the girls scream and sing along.

by Anonymousreply 13207/19/2012

Yesterday only got attention because it was the first Beatles song with strings. It is not a great song.

by Anonymousreply 13307/19/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 13407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 13507/19/2012

Yes, but EVERYONE put out at least two albums a year, even Streisand did.

by Anonymousreply 13607/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 13707/19/2012

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)

by Anonymousreply 13807/19/2012

Troll thread

by Anonymousreply 13907/19/2012

Completely agree with you R138.

by Anonymousreply 14007/19/2012

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."

by Anonymousreply 14107/19/2012

Forget it.

This is one very real case of:


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.

by Anonymousreply 14207/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 14307/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 14407/19/2012

"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,[2] 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[17] and Ian MacDonald: [21]

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.

by Anonymousreply 14507/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 14607/19/2012

"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!

by Anonymousreply 14707/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 14807/19/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 14907/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15007/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15107/19/2012

r105: Tell us about the concert. Where? How close were you? What songs did they play? What did they say during the concert? Thanks.

by Anonymousreply 15207/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15307/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15507/19/2012

"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!

by Anonymousreply 15607/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15707/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15807/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 15907/19/2012

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...

by Anonymousreply 16007/19/2012

"What am I missing?"

The boat.

by Anonymousreply 16107/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16207/19/2012

They were better songwriters because they understood musical phrasing better than almost anyone since.

by Anonymousreply 16307/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16507/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16607/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16707/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 16807/19/2012

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"

by Anonymousreply 16907/19/2012

I always preferred The Rolling Stones.

by Anonymousreply 17007/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 17107/19/2012

The Beatles did far more than steal black music. Are Eleanor Rigby, Cry Baby Cry, Paperback Writer "black"? Not at all.

by Anonymousreply 17207/19/2012

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).

by Anonymousreply 17307/19/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 17407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 17507/19/2012

r174 Bitch you need to smoke 5 bongs... chill the fuck out. You UNHINGED queen!

by Anonymousreply 17607/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 17707/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 17807/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 17907/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 18007/19/2012

[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."

by Anonymousreply 18107/19/2012

MPC, 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.

by Anonymousreply 18207/19/2012

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".

by Anonymousreply 18307/19/2012

r183 would you mind saying that to the Jamaicans, particularly Bob Marley and the Wailers, who recorded lots of ska songs before those bugs?

by Anonymousreply 18407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 18507/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 18607/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 18707/19/2012

Dr. Pepper? Oh, dear!

by Anonymousreply 18807/19/2012

R187, thanks so much for showing the love for my wonderful commercial from the 70's!

by Anonymousreply 18907/19/2012

"When I'm Sixty Four"

by Anonymousreply 19007/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 19107/19/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 19207/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 19307/19/2012

Who said anything about the 50s?

by Anonymousreply 19407/19/2012

Not true R193. Watch "Chuck Berry Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll" where Berry talks about being influenced by Tommy Dorsey.

by Anonymousreply 19507/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 19607/19/2012

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

by Anonymousreply 19707/19/2012

I bet R197 is wearing right now the same costume that Paul wore on the cover of Dr. Pepper

by Anonymousreply 19807/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 19907/19/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 20007/19/2012

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!

by Anonymousreply 20107/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 20207/19/2012

As songwriters the Beatles had nothing on George Gershwin, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, Harold Arlen, or Irving Berlin.

by Anonymousreply 20307/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 20407/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 20507/19/2012

Well, you're right about me, R164. I'm 32 (b. 1980) and don't like/get The Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 20607/19/2012

ITA with what R-10 said.

by Anonymousreply 20707/19/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 20807/19/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 20907/19/2012

It seems like you guys are naming the same 5 songs. We get it, Eleanor Rigby is a good song.

by Anonymousreply 21007/19/2012

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...

by Anonymousreply 21107/19/2012

I think that is appalling what r169 said, re Cee Lo changing the lyric in Imagine - what a cunt. How dare he..,..

by Anonymousreply 21207/20/2012

All he/she said is that CeeLo changed the lyric, nothing else. Go find something else to get your panties in a wad over.

by Anonymousreply 21307/20/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 21407/20/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 21507/20/2012

This thread is hilarious! Eldergays werkKK!!!

by Anonymousreply 21607/20/2012

""Little little bee gypsy get around

Get your feet up off the ground

Little little get around"

Oh, dear. Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 21707/20/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 21807/20/2012

You better watch out. R156, who had posted about 200 responses here, is about to be going on a psychotic rampage.

by Anonymousreply 21907/20/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 22007/20/2012

OP, Maxwell's Silver Hammer gonna get you.

by Anonymousreply 22107/20/2012

I like many Monkees songs better.

by Anonymousreply 22207/20/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 22307/21/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 22407/21/2012

I have listened to Mr Moonlight about 183 times in the past John.

by Anonymousreply 22507/21/2012

I remember My Boy Lollipop - that was ska? I must not know what ska is then.

by Anonymousreply 22607/21/2012

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".

by Anonymousreply 22707/21/2012

(208) listen to side 2 of Abbey Road..def. not bubblegum. I'm 34, by the way.

by Anonymousreply 22807/21/2012

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!

by Anonymousreply 22907/22/2012

The Beatles were so huge because they sanitized the blues music for a large white audience. They made boring tunes for boring white people.

by Anonymousreply 23007/22/2012

Oh, r230 thinks he is pithy!

by Anonymousreply 23107/22/2012

R223, definitely needs to renew the lithium.

by Anonymousreply 23207/23/2012

Born in 1972, have loved the Beatles since I was a kid.

Still waiting for r105 to tell us about the concert.

by Anonymousreply 23307/23/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 23407/23/2012


by Anonymousreply 23507/23/2012

I am almost 50 and never could get into the Beatles.

Van Morrison rules

by Anonymousreply 23607/23/2012

Awaiting R223 to comeback and attack R234! Psychosis Rules!!!

by Anonymousreply 23707/24/2012

Sir Paul getting choked up at The Olympics singing Hey Jude bump

by Anonymousreply 23807/28/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 23907/28/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 24007/28/2012

[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 Anonymousreply 24107/30/2012

^ By-R105

by Anonymousreply 24207/30/2012

Thanks, r105/r241 for sharing.

by Anonymousreply 24307/30/2012

Oh! And I'm gonna go look up that concert.

by Anonymousreply 24407/30/2012

Was it this concert from 1965? I think I have backstage photos of this in one of my books.

by Anonymousreply 24507/30/2012

[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!!

by Anonymousreply 24607/30/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 24707/31/2012

A nervous, giddy, star-struck Elton John (I know, I know everybody here hates Elton, but....)tells us why the Beatles are important.

by Anonymousreply 24807/31/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 24907/31/2012

This was the #1 song before The Beatles arrived.

The difference is shocking...

by Anonymousreply 25007/31/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 25107/31/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 25208/03/2012

Without "A Day in the Life" there would be no...

"Stairway to Heaven"

"Bohemian Rhapsody"


"Paranoid Android"

All epic longer than usual tracks...

What other proof do you want?

by Anonymousreply 25308/03/2012

r86 - an older friend of mine was at that show. I'm jealous!

by Anonymousreply 25408/03/2012

They were brilliant songwriters, having written countless wonderful songs that will live on forever.

by Anonymousreply 25508/03/2012

Ask Meryl Streep.

by Anonymousreply 25608/03/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 25708/03/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 25808/03/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 25908/03/2012

Paul McCartney had a lot of great solo tunes regardless of what the fools at R251 and R252 think.

by Anonymousreply 26008/05/2012

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!!!

by Anonymousreply 26108/22/2012

R252-There are ALOT of "artists" who should not have recording contracts...JL & PM are not among them.

by Anonymousreply 26209/25/2012

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":

by Anonymousreply 26309/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 26409/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 26509/25/2012

Agree op the Beatles were like the backstreet boys of the 60s.

by Anonymousreply 26609/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 26709/25/2012

If you have to ask, you won't understand any answer.

by Anonymousreply 26809/25/2012

are you out of your mind, r252? Lennon was incredible.

Starting Over Nobody Told Me There'd Be Days Like These Instant Karma Whatever Gets You Through The Night Watching The Wheels (my fave) Love Mind Games Jealous Guy #9 Dream Woman, etc...

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.

by Anonymousreply 26909/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 27009/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 27109/25/2012

There are The Beatles.

And then there is everyone else.

You had to be there or you'll never understand.

by Anonymousreply 27209/25/2012

Download "The Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl" and you'll see.

(It's not for sale anywhere)

by Anonymousreply 27309/25/2012

"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!

by Anonymousreply 27409/25/2012

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

by Anonymousreply 27509/25/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 27610/11/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 27710/12/2012

The Beatles compilation 1s was the biggest selling CD of the 2000s.

I think they have stood the test of time.

by Anonymousreply 27810/12/2012

Bumping an old Beatles trolling thread? Really? Has it come to that?

by Anonymousreply 27910/12/2012

I think that they taught us that all you need is love but one Japanese cunt can cause it all to go to shit.

by Anonymousreply 28010/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 28110/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 28210/12/2012

Any moron that worships the beatles deserves to have their ass beat.

by Anonymousreply 28310/12/2012

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??

by Anonymousreply 28410/12/2012

Great post, R276.

by Anonymousreply 28510/12/2012

An interesting perspective on the significance of the Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 28610/12/2012

Most of their music was shallow and inconsequential, about stupid topics and only superficiality pleasing. Even for the 60's.

by Anonymousreply 28710/12/2012

R284 here. Sorry, but my thank you was for R276!

by Anonymousreply 28810/12/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 28910/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 29010/12/2012

[quote]Any moron that worships the beatles deserves to have their ass beat.

I feel the same way about Mozart.

by Anonymousreply 29110/12/2012

Neither deep nor emotionally moving.

by Anonymousreply 29210/12/2012

Agreed, R291, but the beatles are certainly worse. I'm the guy you were quoting.

by Anonymousreply 29310/12/2012

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!

And on

And on

And on

And on

by Anonymousreply 29410/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 29510/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 29610/12/2012

r277 and r284 both sound like neurotic, know-it-all, shallow fraus--BEGONE BITCHES, YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE!!

by Anonymousreply 29710/12/2012

Why don't the anti-Beatles people tell us what bands are better.

by Anonymousreply 29810/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 29910/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 30010/12/2012

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)

by Anonymousreply 30110/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 30210/12/2012

ehhh, r299, you need to wipe your ass more--you sound like you're full of shit.

by Anonymousreply 30310/12/2012

R298, Pink Floyd

by Anonymousreply 30410/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 30510/12/2012

"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.

by Anonymousreply 30610/12/2012

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".

by Anonymousreply 30710/12/2012

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?

by Anonymousreply 30810/12/2012

Beatles snobs...go away. They had some good songs but also plenty of overrated mediocre and shitty ones as well.

by Anonymousreply 30910/12/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31010/13/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31110/13/2012

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. ;)

by Anonymousreply 31211/13/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31311/13/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31411/14/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 31511/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31611/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31711/14/2012

The biggest "band" in the world before the Beatles were the Beach Boys.

by Anonymousreply 31811/14/2012

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.

by Anonymousreply 31911/14/2012

So much anger r319.

How are the Beatles ruining your life?

by Anonymousreply 32011/14/2012

[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.

by Anonymousreply 32111/14/2012

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?

by Anonymousreply 32211/14/2012

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"

by Anonymousreply 32302/13/2013

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!

by Anonymousreply 32402/13/2013

[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?

by Anonymousreply 32502/13/2013

How else do you think they got there? Mummy drove them? There were promotions on all of the NY radio stations.

by Anonymousreply 32602/13/2013

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 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.

by Anonymousreply 32706/22/2013

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 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.

by Anonymousreply 32806/23/2013

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...

by Anonymousreply 32906/23/2013

If lady Gaga would have been performing in that era, the Beatles would not have had a chance.

by Anonymousreply 33006/23/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 33106/23/2013

Diane would have eaten Googoo's lunch, R330.

by Anonymousreply 33206/23/2013

Stars of the '70's do a tribute.

by Anonymousreply 33302/11/2014

[quote]What am I missing?


by Anonymousreply 33402/11/2014

As R328 pointed out so well, The Beatles and other 60's acts just came out on stage and played their instruments and/or sang and danced their hearts out.

There were no pyrotechnics, no laster light shows, no twirling around on a trapeze while lip syncing to their lastest tune (a la Pink at the Grammies).

With the exception of Macklemore, what current pop artist uses their music to talk about controversial issues. Hell, even Motown artists like Marvin Gaye, the Temptations and the Undisputed Truth (thanks to Barrett Strong and Norman Whitfield) got into socially aware music.

by Anonymousreply 33502/11/2014

The biggest "band" in the world before the Beatles were the Beach Boys.

Thanks for finally mentioning the Beach Boys!

by Anonymousreply 33602/11/2014

The Beatles were just so different from the music we'd heard up through the end of 1963. And it was good, original, tuneful music.

And because we associated it with the Kennedy assassination, we were sick to death of the music we heard at the end of 1963. The Beatles were a gift to us from England as 1963 turned into 1964, and they were only the beginning of the British Invasion. Nothing helped us out of the sadness of our mutual American psyche at that time as much as the Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 33702/11/2014

It was a completely different sound from the American Rock n Roll hits of early 1964. It was also the immediate aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, as young kids tried to move on and experience something new.

by Anonymousreply 33802/11/2014

the most overrated recording act ever. They have [italic]SOME great songs but plenty of shit songs that became hits too. People act like everything they did was amazing-it wasn't.

They certainly were never great singers either.

by Anonymousreply 33902/11/2014

The Beatles were revolutionary. Maybe you had to be there. But they were stunning.

Music was the most important element of being a teen back then. None of the social media or other distractions that teens now embrace. There was a dance at school every week. Car radio, home radio, phonographs - all were tuned in. It's what we talked about, thought about - what made us teens. Crossed all barriers.

by Anonymousreply 34002/11/2014

Their lyrics were also extremely irrelevant. Nobody can really understand the half of them...that or they make up "deep" connections.

by Anonymousreply 34102/11/2014

[quote] For example, if someone asked me how did Nirvana change music, I can give a reasonable explanation

Well, OP? What's your reasonable explanation for how Nirvana changed music? I'm dying to hear it.

by Anonymousreply 34202/12/2014

[/italic]Closing italics.

by Anonymousreply 34302/12/2014

In popular music, they simply did everything firsthand, From writing their own music to putting their lyrics on the cover of their most influential album, St. Pepper. They were capable musicians if not technically great. But they got the most out of their instruments without the help of modern electronics. Every album reached a new level of greatness which could not be matched by their peers. John & Paul were great singers too. Above all they were witty and likable. Their work is simply magnificent and timeless.

by Anonymousreply 34406/04/2014

Early Beatles are fab. All around, truly innovate. Yet, I get burnt out on listening to them at times, and their are periods when I stop playing their music.

by Anonymousreply 34502/14/2015

Because of media hype.

by Anonymousreply 34602/14/2015

They've always been massively overrated *awaits angry baby boomer responses*

Did they have some catchy songs? yes. Did they have a few deeper songs? yes. That's it. More than half of the Beatles biggest hits aren't anything profound. A lot of their songs are drug-created shit. None of them were ever good looking. None of them were great singers. They can all sing in an acceptable fashion but certainly not amazing vocalists. They played instruments decently.

Boomers loved the rebellious spirit and look of the group with their hair and clothes. The media has hyped them up to no end. After Elvis they were the second example of what media hype can do for a music career.

by Anonymousreply 34702/14/2015

They could sing. They actually played musical instruments. They wrote their own music. They were different from the generations before them. They were genuinely humorous and playful. They were curious and experimental and relevant to their time. They didn't have auto tune and extensive photoshopping of an "image."

by Anonymousreply 34802/14/2015

R348 They may not have had autotune, but they did use studio trickery,available in the studio, to make their vocals sound better, just sayin !!

by Anonymousreply 34902/14/2015

You only have to look at the respect they have had from GENERATIONS of artists since their heyday to understand WHY. Uninformed, uneducated and uncultured types should really go fuck themselves before posting their ignorance on this thread.

by Anonymousreply 35002/14/2015

Harrison and Clapton - While My Guitar Gently Weeps

by Anonymousreply 35102/14/2015

The Beatles were not great, they were a grotesquely overrated boy band. Brian Epstein was a marketing and promotional genius. After he died it all fell apart.

by Anonymousreply 35202/14/2015

Why were The Beatles so great? They just were OP, so deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 35302/14/2015

I feel so sorry for r352.

by Anonymousreply 35402/14/2015

If the OP doesn't understand why the Beatles were so great there's little hope that he understands ANYTHING. What a cluck.

by Anonymousreply 35502/14/2015

Who do you think will die next, Paul or Ringo?

Ringo's older but looks better than Paul who aged badly.

by Anonymousreply 35602/16/2015

Wayne Newton singing Danke Schoen is the deepest, most scintillating single of the '60s.

I could drive the PCH from L.A. to SF listening to it alone.

by Anonymousreply 35702/16/2015

They fucking aint!!

by Anonymousreply 35802/16/2015

Ever listen to them op? Jesus help us all.

by Anonymousreply 35902/16/2015

Enough Beatle worship. I personally prefer the beach boys and James Brown. Let's face facts. The Beatles came along right after the Kennedy assassination. We Americans were in moratorium and mourning. Our young hot president had just been about.

Then along comes four white guys in suits (they borrowed the style from our popular Motown singing groups) screaming like little Richard and James Brown - (who they admitted to admiring and ripping off). And all of a sudden teenage girls can scream again.

It was timing that made them so famous. I agree they are good songwriters. But really they were just the first packaged boy band. Hardly original though....

by Anonymousreply 36002/16/2015

You threw a bomb with this OP.

Boomers (e.g. most DL posters) revere the Beatles the way ISIS reveres the Prophet.

My younger cousins all learn to sing Beatles songs in school. Yellow Submarine is big with preschoolers and stuff like Yesterday gets sung at school pageants and all.

by Anonymousreply 36102/16/2015

R360 you think that in the early 60s only Motown performers were wearing suits? That is one of the most ridiculous claims on this incredibly ridiculous thread. Everyone wore suits, bands wore matching suits.

They weren't a packaged boy band, they got together before meeting Epstein and they wrote their own songs.

You don't have to like them but you should at least try to stay within the realm of sanity.

by Anonymousreply 36202/16/2015

362- once they made it in the us they were a packaged band. It's what we do here. ..try to keep up darlin. ..why do you think they came to the us when they did? It was the perfect time to get the public out of mourning. They were smart enough to take advantage of that. ..But they borrowed a lot of what made them great. Most people realize this. It's no big deal. While they were good songwriters they borrowed enough from american music culture - a little from Motown a little from buddy holly and mixed them together. Four white guys up front and bam you have a hit. Smart guys.

by Anonymousreply 36302/16/2015

This wins the prize as the Ultimate Stupid OP Post.

It's akin to "Why was Abraham Lincoln considered so great? I've read about him, and we've had better wars since then. Plus, he got killed and all."

by Anonymousreply 36402/16/2015

The Beatles were revolutionary, they took existing musical styles then re-vamped them, basically made others music their own. They were into Little Richard and American rock'n'roll.

The Beatles original style of dress was the leather Teddy Boy look which was popular in the UK. if you Google old photos of the Beatles, when they were playing in Hamburg, they wore leather and jeans, they also greased their hair. IIRC, their late bassist' girlfriend, Astrid was the woman who created the Beatle haircut.

Brian Epstein was smart enough to see their Teddy Boy leather look was too hard for US audiences. Being gay, Epstein also knew there were gay overtones to that leather look, that it would not pass muster in the US, especially with the young demographic Epstein wanted to market The Beatles to, small kids and teens.

by Anonymousreply 36502/16/2015

It isn't a great read, but Patti Boyd Harrison Clapton's autobiography gives a valuable background picture of the British cultural explosion happening in fashion, hair styling, art, music, and spiritual exploration during the 60s. A lot of cultures moved through London as a travel hub, and due to British colonial history. She was a rather sheltered Brit child, raised mostly in Africa and culturally repressed by Catholicism. When she became a model and hit the cultural revolution starting in London she had a prime window seat on it all (and she does a pretty good job documenting that in her book.) All those elements fed one another and collaborative stuff that created a look/style/sound emerged. The Beatles mirrored all of that and the exotic unfamiliarity of it all hooked American teenagers - their music, sure, but that entirely unfamiliar cultural flavor was a drug in and of itself to the pretty homogenized world of white 60s America.

Also someone (several maybe) up thread noted that the Merseyside sound was an important part of the Beatles formative sound, and the rough world of Liverpool culture was as much what the Beatles were about as the influences of Anerican giants in R&B and Blues on their evolution.

by Anonymousreply 36602/16/2015

Nice try 366 - American teens were already hooked by this an entire decade earlier. It was quickly squashed because of racism. Cant have little sue screaming over black rockers; but the influence, the slick back hair, the wild dress the wildness was born out of the 50s era rock and roll and specifically african americans like little Richard and chuck berry. They were the victims of pure racism in the us that caused them to be ripped off and not given the rights to their innovations. Do you really think Europeans didnt see what was going on in the us?

This kind of ripping off is still going on in the us today. Essentially the beatles are the iggy azaleas of their time. Its accepted if it's packaged with the right face.

by Anonymousreply 36702/16/2015

Baby boomers and their reverence lmao "Sacrilege!" "You can't say the truth about the Beatles!"

Another reason to despise Boomers.

by Anonymousreply 36802/16/2015

The "truth" about The Beatles never includes an informed discussion about what was actually going on musically or historically at the time. Instead you just get trolls prattling on like R363/367 who know just enough to think they know everything, yet get so much wrong.

And it's not just Boomers, R368. I'm a Gen X-er and I completely understand the fuss about The Beatles (at least from a musical standpoint since I didn't witness the cultural aspect firsthand).

by Anonymousreply 36902/16/2015

"Another reason to despise Boomers."

Actually, it's idiots like you that tend to be despised. You're such an asshole.

by Anonymousreply 37002/16/2015

I understand all the reasons why The Beatles are considered so important, but I've only liked a couple of their songs over the years. I've had my Boomer relatives explain the cultural impact to me. As a teen in the 80s, the only comparison I can make is Michael Jackson. He was just huge and his influence could be seen in modern dance, the emerging video scene, fashion, etc. His songs weren't like anything else on the radio at the time. Same with Prince.

I remember I read on a site discussing The Beatles that some people don't like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and some people don't like The Beatles. There's no reason to get mad about it.

by Anonymousreply 37102/16/2015

I don't think most people are upset about people not preferring The Beatles' music, R371. Liking or not liking someone's music is a matter of personal preference. I don't like opera, but I understand why it's a revered art form. What we're talking about here is people like the OP and others who don't understand the impact of particular artists or why they are respected for their contributions.

by Anonymousreply 37202/16/2015

Boomers and younger people who are spoon-fed Boomer propaganda get SO bothered, mad and pressed if you disagree with them! The Beatles were overrated as far as their singing ability, writing ability and looks were concerned. They had [italic]some[/italic] good songs but a lot of their hits were pure crap. Get over it, Beatles stans!

by Anonymousreply 37302/16/2015

The Beatles were great, but I honestly preferred The Monkees.

by Anonymousreply 37402/16/2015

I love mysic from the 60s IMHO the Beatles are quite overrated. Give me the velvet underground and Rolling Stones over their tired crap any day.

by Anonymousreply 37502/16/2015

Brought to us all by a homosexual....

by Anonymousreply 37602/16/2015

Most musicians know better, R373/368. But I understand your need for iconoclasm. John Lennon would've probably appreciated it, too.

by Anonymousreply 37702/16/2015

You're the foolish one 367 and I'm also gen x as well. It's you who is uninformed and whitewashed. Read the history of r&b then rock and roll and you will see what I'm talking about. I'm sick and tired of people making excuses for thieves. Then trying to say they were original. They were packaged and sold to the right customers, hence their success. It's nothing new. The OP is just savvy enough to pick up on it.

by Anonymousreply 37802/16/2015

Are you just as upset about Chuck Berry "stealing" from Muddy Waters and T-Bone Walker, R378? Read some more and maybe you'll understand how rock and roll works.

by Anonymousreply 37902/16/2015

and don't even get me started about the outcry of crazy Beatles stans whenever a very good singer covers a Beatles song, especially live. I'm all for blasting non-talents who can't sing, but the Beatles stans have the nerve to insult just about anyone who dares to perform a Beatles song. None of the Beatles were ever great singers so it makes no sense.

by Anonymousreply 38002/16/2015

The difference is they all pioneered the music from the same ancestral origins. Not to mention they all were never going to be given credit to mainstream audiences for their music and songs because of the racism that exited back then. Producers and djs were not going to play rock and roll sung by black performers. But white ones who could tone it down a bit were given the credit and money and air play - see Pat Boone who went to the tops of the charts by blantantly ripping off black artists. It's shameful but that's the way it was back then. At least now you can get paid for writing credit if you can't/don't preform it.

by Anonymousreply 38102/16/2015

The Beatles were great, but I honestly preferred The Fifth Dimension.

by Anonymousreply 38202/16/2015

You had to be there, OP.

by Anonymousreply 38302/16/2015

The Beatles dug really deep for their inspiration though...

Authur Alexander is a pretty interesting choice to draw from, amongst many others.

Besides, they defended integration at their shows in the south...

by Anonymousreply 38402/16/2015

The whole impact and shock of their arrival was fascinating and was due to many factors and details contributing to their perceived originality.

by Anonymousreply 38502/16/2015

They did an amazing job making black rock and roll music palatable to white people.

They were talented singer songwriters and were well-packaged.

But they are nowhere near as important as Boomers would like them to be.

by Anonymousreply 38602/16/2015

In these threads about The Beatles no one ever mentions that they drew from country music & Tin Pan Alley as well. I mean, they covered show tunes & Buck Owens, ffs!

The Stones were far more influenced by (or "ripped off" if you insist) American rhythm & blues than The Beatles ever were.

by Anonymousreply 38702/16/2015

Thank you 368 - case closed OP.

by Anonymousreply 38802/16/2015

The only artists/groups I can think off that come close to approaching The Beatles musical influence (ignoring the cultural impact for now) are Kraftwerk and Giorgio Moroder featuring Donna Summer. And that's not all that close.

by Anonymousreply 38902/16/2015

Many people do not realize how groundbreaking The Beatles were, simply because artists of all genres have spent the last 50 years copying their melodies and song structures. Sure, it may sound old hat to many younger listeners, but they did most of it first.

by Anonymousreply 39002/16/2015

R381Producers and djs were not going to play rock and roll sung by black performers.

You are an uninformed bore.

In 1955 Chuck Berry hit #5 on Billboard. "Maybelline" sold one million copies by the end of 1955.

Biggest selling records of 1956: #4 "My Prayer" by the Platters.

The only act that topped them in sales was Elvis Presley at #1 and #2

(a NelsonRiddle instrumental was at #3)

The Platters also placed at #12 that year... beating Pat Boone.

1957: #15 Harry Belafonte, #18 The Del-Vikings, #20 Sam Cooke, #21 The Coasters, #22 Chuck Berry. Little Richard hit #13 on the LP chart.

1958: #14 The Silhouettes, #18 The Platters, #21 The Coasters

1959: #3 Lloyd Price, #9 Wilbert Harrison, #13 Lloyd Price, #16 The Platters, #17 The Coasters, #21 Phil Phillips

1960: #8 Jimmy Jones, #10 Chubby Checker

1961: #1 Bobby Lewis, #6 The Jive Five, #7 Chubby Checker, #9 Dee Clark, #14 The Shirelles, #19 Ray Charles, #21 Ernie K-Doe, #24 The Miracles, #25 Brooke Benton, #26 Gene Daniels

1962: #3 DeeDee Sharp, #7 Little Eva, #8 The Sensations, #9 Chubby Checker, #10 The Shirelles, #13 Gene Chandler, #17 Chubby Checker& DeeDee Sharp, #19 Mary Wells, #23 Sam Cooke, #24 The Orlons, #27 The Marvelletes, #28 Nat King Cole

Remember: these are the biggest selling records of those years. Even though a performer like Little Richard doesn't show up in overall record sales, he placed number one 18 (!) times in 3 years, from '56 to '59.

Jackie Wilson hit #7 in 1958, #4 and #8 in 1959, #9 in 1960 (these is the general mass audience Billboard chart... not the separate R&B chart)

by Anonymousreply 39102/16/2015

R367 why the unnecessary dismissiveness of my post? I was not denying or dismissing the seduction of black music and its cultural draw for white kids. I was speaking specifically about the exotic draw of the British scene for American teenagers. Please reread my post.

I was alive during that period . My teenage female babysitters were insane for Elvis in the 50s. I learned about early blues musicians and R&B from neighbors (black & white) college kids in the 60s, and heard (then and through the years) about how much of popular music was black music ripped off by white performers. I was in my early teens when the Beatles debuted on Ed Sullivan and experienced the effects of the British Invasion firsthand. I didn't deserve your lecture or your attitude.

by Anonymousreply 39202/16/2015

The Beatels sucked. They spent the whole 70's ripping off the Jackson Five and Supremes and calling it there own - fuckt them.

by Anonymousreply 39302/16/2015

[quote]They did an amazing job making black rock and roll music palatable to white people.

What are you talking about?

The Beatles break-out hits in 1964 in the US were "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You". Those were the 2 songs that introduced them to Americans

Those songs have nothing, but nothing, to do with a black sound.

by Anonymousreply 39402/16/2015

No, R388. It should be:

Thank you, R364. Case closed.

by Anonymousreply 39502/16/2015

"But they are nowhere near as important as Boomers would like them to be."

Oh, but they are. You're just too stupid to know that.

by Anonymousreply 39602/16/2015

No other music act had such a profound change on the general culture as the Beatles did.

Compare popular culture in the US in 1963... with popular culture in 1965. In just 2 years it was a whole new world in music, fashion, graphics, advertising... the Beatles really were the catalyst.

By 1967 with the introduction of Sgt. Pepper, even more so.

The Beatles lead to the British invasion. It was a huge social change.

The "Swinging 60s" really started with the Beatles.

by Anonymousreply 39702/16/2015

"The Beatels sucked. They spent the whole 70's ripping off the Jackson Five and Supremes and calling it there own - fuckt them."

You little retard. You can't even spell their name right! And to say that the Beatles ripped off the Jackson Five and the Supremes is stupidity on a grand scale. You're either just a shit-stirring troll or profoundly moronic.

by Anonymousreply 39802/16/2015

I don't get how the Beatles could have ripped off the Jackson Five throughout the 70s when they broke up in 1970?

by Anonymousreply 39902/16/2015

[quote]They spent the whole 70's ripping off the Jackson Five and Supremes and calling it there own

Your illiteracy aside, the Beatles' last album was released in 1970. They split the following year. Shut your ignorant hole.

by Anonymousreply 40002/16/2015

Did anyone here happen to see Mavis Staples sing "Let It Be" at the Kennedy Awards honoring Paul McCartney? It was a revelation. The song suddenly became a black anthem for civil rights. I get teary eyes just writing about it.

"And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree, There will be an answer, let it be.."

Ameteurish lyrics????? Please!!!!

by Anonymousreply 40102/16/2015

There's something for everyone in the Beatles' catalog of 200+ songs. All 4 members of the group wrote songs and there's a huge variety to choose from. Nobody has to like them all, but if you can't find at least one song in there that grabs you, I feel sorry for you. Even my Mom, born in 1918, and my niece, born in 2000, have liked a few of their songs.

by Anonymousreply 40202/16/2015

Even John Lennon admitted to ripping off black artists people. He would listen to riffs that he thought were good from several artists then revamp them in a song. You can hear many similarities in Beatles songs to some of the Supremes, chuck berry little Richard and on and on.

by Anonymousreply 40302/16/2015

390 no they did not do all of it first. That's just ignorant. They took a little here took a little there and ripped off some here. Then they had a smart manager tho get them branded. The fact that they were British made them a bit exotic but when you peel away the layers you find the truth.

by Anonymousreply 40402/16/2015

You've got real hangups, R403/404 etc.

It's not ripping off when you are influenced by the world around you to create something new. Which artists did The Beatles rip off to write "A Day In The Life" sound like? Or "Tomorrow Never Knows"? It sounds like nothing else from the time.

Just listen and enjoy.

by Anonymousreply 40502/16/2015

Oops. Omit "sound like."

Sorry, I got excited.

by Anonymousreply 40602/16/2015

All I know is that Oasis definitely attempted to rip off The Beatles for their entire career

by Anonymousreply 40702/16/2015

That sounds great, R401.

Paul McCartney originally had Aretha in mind when he wrote 'Let It Be'.

Similarly, Barry Gibb had Otis Redding in mind when he wrote 'To Love Somebody'.

Both songwriters tailored their songs to fit the strengths and personalities of the artists they were imagining might sing them.

by Anonymousreply 40802/16/2015

R403/R404 etc., etc., ad nauseum... Are you Al Sharpton? You sound like Al Sharpton.

by Anonymousreply 40902/16/2015

R367 is arguing with himself at R378.

by Anonymousreply 41002/16/2015

Great comeback, R409. You're truly part of the DL brain trust.

by Anonymousreply 41102/16/2015

R363, why the mad?

John Lennon proclaimed that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus, and you know what conservatives did at the time? Smash their records and try to "Dixie Chick" them.

[quote]Essentially the beatles are the iggy azaleas of their time.


Elvis Presley was the Iggy Azalea of that time.

The Beatles were more hippy than R&B, soul or gospel like black artists and Elvis. They got high, traveled to India to learn how to meditate, and sang about love.

I still stop and listen to "Hey, Jude" even after all these years.

by Anonymousreply 41202/16/2015

What is particularly infuriating about opinions such as that of the OP and his ilk is that there are actual historians who disagree with them.

Not mere nostalgic Baby Boomers; real bona fide historians of the era. Topics include “The Beatles as Lyricists,” “The Beatles’ Revolutionary Musical Poetics,” “The Beatles in the (Contemporary) Material World” and “From Analog Ashcans to Digital Diving: A Comparative Analysis of Research and Storytelling, from Pre-Internet Age to Digital Overload.”

NOTHING in American culture (or British, for that matter) went uninfluenced by the Beatles---not by Elvis (who copied his attire?); not by Chuck Berry or Muddy Waters; not by Zappa or Morrison or, later, Cobain or Metallica or whothehellever---not simply music, but movies ("A Hard Day's Night" was universally acclaimed); fashion; hairstyles; TV (See: Monkees, The); Transcendental Meditation; even the idea that a mere Pop singer could be cheeky instead of groveling with reporters, the rich, and even royalty.

Their music technically was innovative, thanks to George Martin.

Lennon and Yoko were also prominent anti-VietNam Conflict protesters.

George put together the original multi-performer "concert for a cause": the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh.

But perhaps most significantly, the Beatles were true harbingers of the Youth Culture.

by Anonymousreply 41302/16/2015

No you're wrong 412. They were indeed the iggy azaleas of their time in that the music they played was not borne of England but the United States. Same as rap wasn't born in New Zealand or wherever she's from. I give Elvis a pass because at least he was raised in the culture and sang gospel in the southern church in Mississippi so he was raised knowing his roots.

Y'all act like the beatles invented rock and roll. ..please. They copied buddy holly and the crickets (even down to the name Beatles ) and were influenced greatly by them when they toured in the UK..

by Anonymousreply 41402/16/2015

Interesting first article from The New York Times about Beatlemania in Britain... December of 1963... Always loved this quote

"Their appeal is strongest to females between 10 and 30, but Beatlemania, as it is called, affects all social classes and all levels of intelligence."

by Anonymousreply 41502/16/2015

This article from a British music critic is more defined...

It's when the serious music critics were really starting to pay attention to the structure of The Beatles music....

Leonard Bernstein noticed it as well...

Even Bob Dylan noticed their outrageous chords and chord changes..

by Anonymousreply 41602/16/2015

Why are The Beatles fans so nutty? Not all of them, but this one is definitely off her nut. In the link below.

by Anonymousreply 41702/19/2015


The problems start only when latter fans get to vocal.

Nobody likes a Beatlemaniac. It's like being a fan of the fact the sun rises. Very odd.

by Anonymousreply 41802/21/2015

The Beatles had SOME great songs, other hits of theirs are pure trash and average-sounding. None of them were great singers and were all better instrument players than singers. They are massively overrated. Should they occupy a place in music history? yes but they're way overrated and over-hyped.

Beatles fans (particularly Baby Boomers and spoonfed Gen Xers) look silly when they proclaim that the Beatles are the best music act ever and when they criticize any talented singer who covers/performs a Beatles song.

by Anonymousreply 41902/21/2015

R419 is correct.The Beatles are absurdly overatted.

The Beatles never wrote music that haunting or beautiful because they didn't know how too.

People who wax lyrical about the Beatles are just remembering the past.

My favourite Liverpudlian band is A Flock of Seagulls.

Albums 'Listen' and 'A Young Heart' are excellent.Check them out on You tube.

by Anonymousreply 42002/21/2015

No Reply :-) 419 The Beatles had some not so great songs....

by Anonymousreply 42102/21/2015

Madonna > beatles

by Anonymousreply 42202/21/2015

R414, Trolldar is not your friend.

by Anonymousreply 42302/21/2015

Baby Boomers are adult enough to know that musical tastes have changed; that music technology has improved; that the biggest influence of the past quarter-century hasn't even come from the genre of Pop.

But the Present does not negate nor change the Past.

by Anonymousreply 42402/21/2015

Why was Mozart so great? All those bad wigs and so many notes.

by Anonymousreply 42502/21/2015

I TOLD him to take some notes out, Salieri r425!

by Anonymousreply 42602/21/2015

How can you not like "Michelle"?

by Anonymousreply 42702/21/2015

I shall keep judiciously mum.

by Anonymousreply 42802/21/2015

R325 is correct about the girls being driven in several buses to get to JFK (then called Idlewild) airport. I am an eyewitness as I went with my kid sister, her friend and her friend's father who drove us to the International Arrivals bldg. The father was a jet mechanic for the now defunct Pan Am Airways. I saw all of these girls getting out of buses and they had "handlers" around them to take them to the gate when the Beatles deplaned and they started screaming. I'm sure the girls were paid or given some kind of gift for their services for the hype. They did the same for Frank Sinatra to create hype for him wherever he performed.

by Anonymousreply 42902/21/2015

Mommy, today I learned on DataLounge that A Flock of Seagulls was a better band than The Beatles!

by Anonymousreply 43002/21/2015

WINS Radio had contests invented by promoters to get kids to the airport to see the Beatles arrive in 1964. I will never understand the simple-minded people who think a bunch of mostly 14 year olds drove there on their own.

by Anonymousreply 43102/21/2015

R430 Retarded cunt who can't think for himself.

AIDS dementia is such a terrible thing...

by Anonymousreply 43202/23/2015

none of them were the least bit sexy or good-looking, that's for damn sure

by Anonymousreply 43302/23/2015

What crawled up your ass and died, R432?

You raving cunt.

by Anonymousreply 43402/24/2015

I didn't MAKE them for YOU, r433!

by Anonymousreply 43502/24/2015

The Beatles were amazing. I am 19 and I am convinced they were the best band ever. I have every Beatles CD.

by Anonymousreply 43602/25/2015

They were great fun when they started and it was interesting to watch them grow, but it ended when they became adults and wanted to go on to the next thing.

For George and Ringo, it worked fine.

John and Paul, not so much.

by Anonymousreply 43702/25/2015

OP, this was a trick question, right?

by Anonymousreply 43802/25/2015

If anyone thinks any band even approached the talent of the Beatles they are out of their mind.What artist ever came close to writing as many hit songs?Their harmonies were spectacular. No body even compares.Why do you think so many artist that came after them were influenced by them.All of you 20 and 30 somethings dont have a clue about outstanding music.All of this rap crap that is out today is just that. If you can talk you could be a rapper.

by Anonymousreply 43902/27/2015

Give OP a break R1 :). Just because one listens to music doesn't mean one knows it. I know tone deaf people who sing and say they love music. You really can't be taught a musical sense.

But composers have told me how hard or rare it is to compose a good melody and that the Beatles were great at it. Time and time again. That's why many covers are even better than their own performances.

by Anonymousreply 44002/27/2015

Just listen to these lyrics:

I love you, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love you, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love you, yeah, yeah, yeah, I love you, yeah, yeah, yeah, YEAH!

That's the chorus! Are you kidding me?????

by Anonymousreply 44105/23/2015

The harmonic language of pop music today, from alt. rock to soul ballads, owes a huge deal to The Beatles. They melded music hall; tin pan alley/the Great American Songbook; rock and roll, the blues, folk, the Anglican church tradition; both European and Indian classical music including the contemporary avant-garde; all together, into an inimitable (and much copped) body of work. While it's certainly possible to trace and dissect their influences, their music is greater than the sum of its parts.

What is so remarkable is most of their collective genius intuitive rather than formally taught.

Lyrics were never their strongest point, but in purely musical terms they're one of the greats.

by Anonymousreply 44205/23/2015

*much copied

by Anonymousreply 44305/23/2015

Should read "was intuitive rather than formally taught."

by Anonymousreply 44405/23/2015

Good discussion. FWIW, the Beatles invented the "music video" and playing stuff backwards...

by Anonymousreply 44505/24/2015

For four fairly talented guys. They sure created some less than musically talented children. Sean Lennon. WOOF! He inherited all of Yoko Ono's 'talent'.

Good group. Came up at just the right time.

by Anonymousreply 44608/21/2015


by Anonymousreply 44711/24/2015

This is a 2012 thread!

Here's all you need to know:

Beatles: Sang about love & amazing melodies Nirvana: Depressing tunes for suicidal teens

by Anonymousreply 44811/24/2015

Why resurrect this pos thread, R447?

by Anonymousreply 44911/24/2015

R441, it's SHE loves you.

My god.

by Anonymousreply 45011/24/2015
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!