People always forget that John and Paul fired the handsome guy who drew the chicks and replaced him with the goofy-looking Richard Starkey because Ringo was considered the best drummer in music-crazy Liverpool.
All of this occurred in a 10 year time span. That’s 10 years starting with night clubs to studio recording, world tours, and movies. It’s really 7 years as the Fab Four. 5 major hits on the charts at one time. I’m completely gobsmacked by the op’s thread.
What’s really amazing is that when Martin gave them a chance all they really had in the tank was Love me do, and a few others. They rose to the occasion to say the least.
All of the sudden there was She Loves You and the rest. Within a year it was I saw her standing there, If I fell, things we said today etc.
Aside from the fact that each Beatle is in the same pose and attitude, and doing the same thing with their hands, holding something or in the pockets?
McCartney was the Beatle most commonly regarded as “pop star.” The following clips highlight just how far removed Paul drifted from teenybopper/boy band music. They describe the making of Paul’s two solo albums which he put out between the Beatles and Wings (and are my favorite McCartney albums).
McCartney(a one-man album: composer/performer/producer)
Of course, Lennon’s and Harrison’s solo works speak for themselves: raw, gritty and genius, IMHO.
The Beatles didn’t simply turn off the teenybopper switch and play *mature *music after they broke up—it was in them from day one. They were just talented enough to play multiple types of music from a young age—including teenybopper music. In fact, I believe the Beatles could have been nearly as successful (though not nearly as polished) if McCartney focused on producing the Beatles (he did a fine job on his solo albums).
So a large part of your position is about suits worn, indicating something?
They “wholly created” their own songs. There was no scheme on anyone else’s part to do this or profit from it until they did that creative act.
When you refer to “necessary songwriting skills” that should read “necessary to start a revolution in music that we still hear today.” It was above and beyond necessary.
They were “guiding” much more so than “guided.” The goal, of them and industry people they worked with, was to sell records, as many as possible, as with all recording artists, to the prevailing audience. Without the Beatles you certainly would not know Martin or Epstein, Dick James, or, in all likelihood, the Rolling Stones, the Who, the kinks, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Elton John, the Ramones, Talking heads or whomever you like. They all knew that. Maybe you had to be there?
Again, one side of this debate is focusing on whether they were wholly constructed and managed being the defining quality that makes a “boy band”, and the other seems to be focusing on whether the output is safe music marketed at teen girls being the defining quality. I focus on the latter, because that’s what I can actually see and judge directly. The rest is generally conjecture and hearsay, if we even have that information.
I have already said they were a “real” band, and I noted in my original statement on the subject that the “boy band” era wasn’t their entire output.
Now, I was wondering if I was the crazy person in the room this week, so I asked a couple dozen different musicians I know the question: “Were the early Beatles records the output of a boy band?” Other than one person saying “Well, I never wanted any of The Beatles to fly into the side of a mountain.”, they all understood what I meant by the question and agreed with my position. I know two of them are hardcore Beatles fans.
As my wife said about it, “It’s not an insult, it just what they were then.”
Umm, no. Martin would have been perfectly happy producing them on a diet of covers. In fact, he didn’t like the demos recorded by the band very much, and took them on because he thought they were clever and funny, not because he thought they were amazing songwriters.
But he did not take them on as teen idol types either. He took them on as a self-contained rock band, a reasonable risk to him, having to do with song publishers interests and lobbying, personal connections, and that Parlophone was an “off” label. They hadn’t written any grade A stuff yet, but the writing was part of the deal from the start. He realized they were amazing songwriters within a couple of singles. There was no “industry” reason why the Beatles were signed. It was fairly accidental.
The Beatles would have been dropped if they hadn’t been very talented writers who caught the public’s ear quickly. And then you would never have heard of … David Bowie
So you have backed off of defending the OP in any way?
This is completely historically wrong. The Beatles were “safe” only in hindsight because the Rolling Stones (and others of course) capitalized on their worldwide success, by being the anti-Beatles and being “not-safe” in relation to The Beatles, a very gullible way to look at music. The fabs were not notably safer or unsafer than any other musicians at the time. Their goal was to write the better songs. And they did. The rubes bought into the safe unsafe dichotomy. That’s what the industry was selling then, not Boy bands as you would have it. That came 20 or 30 years later. But why let that get in the way of a tired story? And you know who the teenage girl is in this story? I’ll give you one guess.
Whenever some band cites Satan, burns a church, eats someones brains, throws feces, uses the pentagram, says they’re anarchists, they are just trying to be the anti-beatles again. It never ends. And it is as boring as your argument. Unless you get away from image and assess the music. Hey, there’s a novel idea.
I don’t think I’ve backed off of anything. It looks to me as if you’ve projected…I dunno…something from inside yourself onto my posts in this thread, and see the world as some Beatles/Anti-Beatles dichotomy. I don’t.
I disagree. There’s no money in a cover band. That’s different then saying there’s no money in a cover SONG. But if your intent is bringing on new talent then original songs are what you’re going for.
Martin’s job was to get them to that point.
No he wasn’t. That’s a ridiculous statement, and the reason that threads like this need to exist. Any competent jazz drummer, let alone one of the greatest ever, play anything Ringo played in his sleep. Or anything any other pop/rock drummer played, for that matter.
But Ringo was the best (rock) drummer in Liverpool. They needed him. Turns out he was just what was needed.
Agree with the business plan or not, that appears to have been his original plan. Martin was a pop producer, and at the time most pop records included a lot of covers. An artist performing their own songs in the pop world was rare at the time.
The thread is “The Beatles aren’t so great.” You have plenty of posts here defending bizarre propositions. There is no need for me to project anything that you did not say or write yourself.
Are you going to give cites for anything you say here, or just make things up? This comes from total ignorance of what actually happened.
Epstein couldn’t get a record deal. He got in with a publisher first, and then angled towards Parlophone from that end. The novelty, why they were noticeable, is that they wrote their own songs, and a publisher, who Martin knew, was lobbying for them to perform them on their records. That was the reason for the whole thing at first.
They weren’t going to make covers Lps at all.
That’s reasonable, but it’s not the claim that was responded to. Claims like the Beatles had the greatest cultural impact of any band, or innovated the most in a 7 year period or whatever are sustainable, but hyperbolic claims that they were the greatest musicians or writers in history are not.
Rich played independent of the musicians around him. Unless he was doing a drum solo it was painful to listen to.
Sure. Don’t know what you mean by writers, though. They must be on the shortlist for best songwriters ever. Also McCartney is on the list for bassists. Is that reasonable?