Though I recognize the Beetles’ collective talent, I’ve never been a fan. For whatever reason, their music just never hit that chord inside of me. Are they relevant today? Sure. For one thing, a lot of current music builds on their legacy. And the Beetles have new fans, too. My youngest daughter (11 years old) recently discovered the White Album and has become a huge Beatles fan, complete with a crush on Paul McCartney!
Beatle fan checking in, that’s where I get my name. Nothing to do with the military.
Anyway, I’m 26 and discovered them in my teens when I took the blue album my parents had. I wanted to listen to “While my Guitar Gently Weeps” backwards. I had heard there was weird stuff there. Of course there wasn’t, but afterwards I listened to the rest of the album and the red album. My parents also had the white album, so I got into that as well. Those albums got me hooked. While growing up, I had heard them on the radio but never appreciated them until I listened to those albums.
Since then I got all their major albums and continue to listen to them today. Usually I’ll go through periods where I’ll listen to their early stuff, or switch to their later stuff. It also depends on singing. I love singing along, so I’ll often discover I can sing songs that I thought I couldn’t and that will prompt me to go through it again, seeing if I can sing it.
I would love to hear some bootlegs. Studio chats are really interesting, and also the development of songs. That would be fascinating to listen to.
And since I can’t write today I will leave it at that.
Absolutely. And that’s still a good thing; many of today’s greatest bands – such as for example your darling Wilco – are heavily influenced by The Beatles, and would probably be the first to admit so themselves. So even though you personally don’t care for their music – which is perfectly understandable – I still can’t imagine why you would say something as ridiculous as: “the music world needs to get over the Beatles,” just a few posts back, when clearly Beatles inspired music still manages to excite you.
Wrong. ‘Tomorrow Never Knows’ is definitely a primitive form of electronica; it utilizes tape loops, layered drones and almost mechanically precise drum patterns, all characteristics of most music that falls under the increasingly ambiguous genre known as electronica. It has been recognized as a predecessor to the genre for a long time, both by critics and musicians, the song ‘Setting Sun’ by The Chemical Brothers, for example, is an homage to ‘Tomorrow Never Knows,’ even sampling it’s characteristic drum track.
To answer the OP, yeah, The Beatles still means a lot to me, not my favorite band by a long shot, but they made some really great albums, which I revisit time after time. The Beatles are essential if you want to understand the history of popular music.
Stephen King’s Dark Tower series takes place in an amorphous quasi-futurist post-apocalyptic world, which may or may not be in earth’s future. Anyhow, in this world Hey Jude is a popular folk song.
I think that says a lot about the quality of the songs The Beatles wrote. They are so good that they could become folk songs.
Do they still matter to me? Yeah, but I’m a baby boomer.
What matters is that my 18 year-old son, who’s a guitarist, listens to those 35 year old tracks, tries to pick up Harrison’s fingering and McCartney’s bass line and build his own compositions on it. He’s not stuck in the past, he does the same thing with contemporary artists.
So I’d say the Beatles still matter at least as much as John Phillip Sousa does to marching bands, or Gilbert and Sullivan do to musical theater. Maybe not fresh or contemporary, but certainly as a root musicians still draw from.
A lot of these bands were influenced by the Beatles.
Elvis Costello even had Paul McCartney play on his album and cowrite a song: “Veronica”. Great song, any Beatles or Paul McCartney fan should hear it.
And often all on the same album!
One of my daughters (14) has entered a Beatles phase and we played a bunch of albums in a row (didn’t take long–their albums run short) and I started being a fan all over again as I heard song after song that was both very well made and completely unlike the song before and after it.
Though I still think most of the songs were written by George Martin and some collaborators. My wife is convinced they were written by Cynthia Lennon. The albums after the divorce do blow, after all, and the solo work? FEH! The only one whose solo songs sound like they were written by the same guy as wrote the ones credited to him while still in the band is George. Not saying either was all that good, but they at least sound related.
And, regardless who wrote them, most of the songs are really, REALLY girlie. I’m glad I’m secure enough in my heterosexuality to be able to pull it off. 
The Beatles are one of my favorite bands. They are the reason that I am so in to music now. I began to listen to them, and they led me to other bands like Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane and Frank Zappa.
What’s the New Mary Jane is one of the better tracks on the Anthology series.
Not only do the Beatles still have relevance, but I honestly believe that in 500 years the Beatles will be the band remembered that defined our age. They’ll be perhaps the only band of our era to remain a household name.
One day, the Beatles’ music will be in the public domain. I predict that when that happens its popularity will explode again, after fading a bit in the intervening years.
They co-wrote several songs together, including two on Paul’s Flower’s in the Dirt album. My Brave Face and You Want Her Too.
Hey, I love the Beatles. I wouldn’t say that “the world needs to get over them”, but I will say that those everlasting baby-boomers need to get over themselves, and admit that there were other bands and solo artists in the '60s that are still worth listening to today.
I’m 34. In fact, I was born the day the story broke that Macca was leaving the Beatles. So I’m not young, but so often, it seems like to the generation that was old enough to see the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, anyone younger than they are is eternally twelve. And couldn’t possibly comprehend the greatness that is the Beatles without a seminar from them.
So they can go on ad nauseum about how they raced home with their first pressing of Sgt. Pepper to listen to it in their room in the dark (?), but if I pipe up to say, “Yeahyeah…but you know who else I like from that era?” then, suddenly, I’m living in the dark ages. “Jefferson Airplane? Who cares about them? “Incense and Peppermints”? Yeah, I heard it a million times! “San Francisco”? Puh-lease! Scott McKenzie was a one-hit wonder! Why do you care so much about these totally irrelevant bands that nobody remembers?”
The Beatles’ music is great for what it is. But I’ll say, and I’ll keep saying, that the band itself is not the first and last word on everything. For instance, you’ve probably heard the anecdote about George Harrison, post-Beatles, going to a Led Zep concert and telling the band backstage how thoroughly blown away he was by their showmanship. I mean, how could the Beatles accomplish what LZ did onstage, with their (Beatles’) three suitcase-sized amps and a crowd that was screaming louder than a fleet of Air Force jets? But the fact remains, a Beatles concert was only worth it to say you were there, no more.
Nitpick: Unless you meant “Good Day Sunshine” instead of “Good Morning”, those songs are not all from the same album. “Good Day Sunshine”, like all the others you named, was on Revolver; “Good Morning” was on Sgt. Pepper.
And one other thing to consider. Have you noticed how cover versions of Beatles songs tend to suck?
Yeah, that’s something I find really interesting. I suppose there are at least two possibilities to consider:
a) The original compositions suck, and only the arrangements/performances are good. While there are a few Beatles compositions that aren’t all THAT great, I’m hard-pressed to find any that truly suck. I’m no musicologist, but I know a good tune when I hear one.
b) The original versions are so great that it’s hard to improve on them. This is probably closer to the truth. I do like a lot of Beatles covers – Joe Cocker’s version of “With a Little Help From My Friends,” the Mamas’ and the Papas’ version of “I Call Your Name,” and Jimi Hendrix’s live performance of “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” all rule. So I guess it’s just that it takes a skilled interpreter to bring something new to a Beatles song. Again, I’m not a musicologist, but perhaps it’s because many Beatles songs have rather non-traditional chord progressions. When you play, say, a twelve-bar blues, it’s easy to add a lot of individual touches because the progression is very basic – I, IV, and V. Plus, probably everyone in Western civilization has heard a couple twelve-bar blues songs, so the progression and the scales and licks generally played over it are almost instinctively familiar. So it’s easy to vary it without the audience’s losing sight of the reference point. On the other hand, with a lot of Beatles songs, the musical structures are more unique; most of them aren’t like blues songs, where the form is so bare-bones that all of the genius is in interpretation. With the Beatles’ music, lot of it is in the composition as well. So it takes a bit more creativity to add a personal touch, which is why the only good Beatles covers tend to be by artists who are great in their own right.
c) The Beatles are so widely-loved that even artists who suck acknowledge their greatness, and hope some Beatle quality will rub off on them through their sucky covers. This is also quite true.
Yeah, I suppose “at least two” would be a conservative estimate. Note to self: proofread, dammit!
'sup, dude? Yeah, couldn’t resist, this time. At least I’m providing some balance.
I’m aware that many of my favourite bands are influenced by the Beatles, and in many cases the influence is obvious. But I still think the music world should get over the Beatles. Not attempt to cleanse itself of any trace of their sound or style - after all, many features of that style have simply become part of standard pop - nor try to engineer a circumstance where the Beatles are not listened to anymore. But the music world - those who listen to it, discuss it, make it, all involved, would benefit from taking a realistic view of the Beatles. The Beatles were a popular, influential group with some good songs. But, the amount of hyperbole written about them is incredible. For instance, it would be near impossible to find a ‘Best _’ post on this board without seeing the Beatles seriously discussed. because the Beatles were a big thing in the '60s, many people are convinced that Paul McCartney was a brilliant bassist, John Lennon or George Harrison were amongst the most proficient guitarists to ever live, the lyrics were the pinnacle of human accomplishment (and though there are a few good couplets, a whole lot of it is just nonsense that only looks deep after a few too many cones).
Here’s another example:
Oh, the Beatles are so great! Of course their songs will be the folk songs of the future! [/sarcasm]
So what I mean by ‘get over,’ is ‘get over the hyperbole.’ Why is it such a preposterous notion that the Beatles have been bettered in the 30+ years since their breakup? Why can’t the notion that Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is better than Revolver be entertained. Why can’t the Beatles be treated as just another group, rather than 4 moptopped Jesuses?
Yeah, I meant “Good Day Sunshine.” Wires crossed, there. “Good Morning” is pretty awful as well, but it’s not as bad as “Good Day Sunshine.”
I literally just had a conversation about The Beatles with my co-worker so this is oddly coincidental timing!
My first exposure to The Beatles was through my mom (who was a Boomer Beatlemaniac). She used to play John Lennon’s album while she cleaned the house. Whenever I hear “Woman” I remember my mom vacuuming and me playing with that building kit with jacks and straws.
Then, “Yellow Submarine” was on TV one night when I was little. I LOVED it. I remember the silly sounding voices and the sorrow I felt listening to “Nowhere Man”. For a while, I got Monty Python’s animated bits and “Yellow Submarine” mixed up to the point that I thought The Beatles were part of Monty Python. When you’re little, British people all sound and look the same.
As I got older, my mom gave me Beatles albums for my birthday. Plus thanks to video cassettes and VCRs, we were able to watch “Hard Days Night” and “Help!”. Through most of my teen years, I had a crush on George. College and beyond, John became my favorite. Paul always looked like he was half fish and half lightbulb to me (Hello, Mr. Sparkle!) When I was little, I thought Ringo’s caveman movie was hilarious but beyond that, not a big fan.
I’d like to disagree about Beatles covers. A lot of them are really good! Eddie Vedder’s cover of “Hide Your Love Away” and Fiona Apple’s cover of “Across the Universe” are both excellent.
I would defiantly consider myself something of a music fan and so felt obligied to post in this thread…
I first got into The Beatles when i was about 16 and really loved them - first heard them for real through the number 1 album. I own revolver, abbey road, rubber soul, sgt peppers and the number 1’s album and still consider them one of the greatest bands of all time, but i just matured out of their music into ‘better music’. Now at 19 my favourite band is Led Zep and for me in almost every aspect (barre some of LZ lyrics which I accept are a bit throwaway sometimes or lost under the song itself) better than the beatles (or any other band). I think the trouble with the Beatles is they spread themselves so widely but also tried to stick to by the book pop. I think as a pop band the beatles are the best there will ever be, and as a rock/psychdelic etc etc band they are also amazing, but they lack that something (to me) that means i choose a led zep album over a beatles album 90% when im just randomly putting on a cd.
It hard to explain what I really mean but i think basically i find a lot of the beatles stuff trite - michelle for instance - i think this is a classic example of Pauls ability to actually write very poor songs (as well as amazingly good ones.) Its just such a base song; the trouble is it ends up being labelled ‘ecletic’ by reviews because todays modern bands (the ones that everyone knows) stick to a selling formulae, rather than ever experimenting.
I ought to clarify i still really like the beatles and will never sell their cds and will probably go on to collect all their seminal works (i can leave some of the pop ones) but I just find that there the kind of band you use as a stepping platform to another band. I know lots of people who like the beatles, and like me used to love them, but now they have moved on a whilst the beatles still hold a place in their, and my, heart i just feel ive outgrown that phase and am now moving on to more exciting ground.
im sure this comes across as a weird rambling post but ive written so many essays this term ive lost the will to write coherently when im not being assessed, please forgive any blantant spelling mistakes, but if i know anything about the SD i know that i will probably been torn to shreds by sarky comments… 
Yeah, I was pretty mature at 19 too 
I went through various bands in my teens (other dopers too no doubt) favourite were Beatles/Floyd/Zeppelin. That is once I’d “grown out” of the Beatles and was listening to nothing but Pink Floyd I wondered what I’d seen in them (PF were so much more atmospheric), same happened when I moved on to Zeppelin (PF seemed very lightweight suddenly). After I got over Zeppelin my tastes got so eclectic I had no problem liking them all. Still do.
Zeppelin are not better than the Beatles any more than bananas are better than peaches. You’re allowed both.
And Homer one day you might wanna try one of those those Bach/Mozart/Beethoven guys.
Speaking as a 23 year old as well as a musician, I think the Beatles are definitely still relevant. Some of the songs they did, especially later in their career, sound timeless and experimental to me even now. I understand the fact that they are considered by most polls to be the safe pick for best band of all time, and maybe that is nostalgia at work at least in part, but they did basically invent a lot of the bases that pop music written today relies on and reacts against.
I only meant I had matured since I was 16, not that I was totally mature at 19.
Good call on the Pink Floyd, and I do listen to Mozart and Beethoven, have a few of the ‘popular’ ones on my media player as it happens.