I don’t mean to flame, I just want a honest explanation. . .
What was so great about the Beatles? This weekend at the announcement of George Harrison’s death, people were acting like they lost a close family member. CNN broke from war coverage to focus on George’s death!
Were the Beatles that good? I listen to their songs and while they are nice to listen to, I wouldn’t call them spectacular.
Note : I am 30 something. Is this a generation thing? Did you have to be there to get it?
There are plenty of threads in this board (Cafe Society in specific) where people explore the (un)worthiness of the Fabs.
As someone who is a musician and also 30-something, I think they are all that they are hyped up to be, one of the few things in this life that are. But YMMV. As to why, too many points to mention in the limited time I have - check the older threads, or I am sure others will contribute.
The reason why you don’t think the Beatles are spectacular is that so many others have been imitating them that you can’t see how original they were.
I’m barely 21 and have liked the Beatles as far back as I can remember; my sister, 35, doesn’t really feel strongly either way; my brother, 31, loves them… so I don’t think it’s a generational thing.
As for why people moved by Harrison’s death…
The Beatles early material, far from spectacularly innovative, was still very catchy and energetic and sincere, and, excepting a few songs, completely original [in the authorship sense]. Later albums like Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery, etc. were less “Pop” and more explorative.
I guess I would have to second RealityChuck and say that, while they certainly didn’t try every musical nuance possible, they certainly tried many that paved the way for other bands and people to explore and develop.
Aw man, I’m 19 and I realize how great the Beatles were. I mean, there are some groups I’m not fond of but I realize their importance. They were very original. Also, the Beatles helped America get over the death of President Kennedy, which was very traumatic to America.
[sub]If one of your reasons for not getting the Beatles is because they were before your time, then I pity you. That’s a horrible reason.[/sub]
Familiarity with the music scene immediately prior to the Beatles certainly helps in understanding their impact.
Popular music, with a few honourable exceptions, had become stale and repetitive. This is obviously a personal opinion but a glance at the early 1960’s chart listings will confirm or deny this view.
The Beatles changed all this at a stroke, not only by releasing the first of some seminal recordings but by stimulating a change in musical taste which benefitted other new bands.
The Beatles first No. 1 From Me To You reached this position in the UK in May 1963. From this point onwards, and maybe earlier with Please Please Me, the nature of the chart listings completely changed. The old order gradually disappeared, again with a few honourable exceptions, and shortly afterwards the same thing happened in the US.
It’s also worth noting that some Beatles fans are now in their sixties, or older for all I know. I don’t often agree with T. Blair Esq., but he was bang on when he said that the Beatles formed the background music to his life, and the lives of his contemporaries.
The switch in CNN coverage, and that of other broadcasters, from war to George Harrison tells its own story. The Beatles really were that important.
They represented the zeitgeist of the sixties.
Remember that comment by classical composor Aaron Copland: “If you want to learn about the Sixties, play the music of the Beatles.”
I’ve been asking the same question about Nirvana for years now…
note I like Nirvana just fine, but I don’t see what was so great about them at all.
Beatles music? I find it please pleasing.
So what I am hearing is the the Beatles “defined” the 60’s. That is the same thing I have been hearing for days since the death of George Harrison.
That they “defined” the 60’s may very well be true – but my question is ** why ** did they define the 60’s? Why them and not some other group?
I think it’s probably because they wrote better songs than anyone else in the pop-rock genre was doing at the time. This gave them a jump start compared to other bands or performers of the time, who were more likely to perform songs written by others.
If you listen closely to any Lennon-McCartney song, even from the early 1960’s, you’ll notice how neatly the lyrics fit around the main melody of the song. No one around at the time was matching their level of craftsmanship.
Another thing just occurred to me recently, while watching
historical footage of early concerts in the U.S. It seems to me that in the early days, they appealed mostly to young girls, much like ‘NSync or the Backstreet Boys do today (though I think even that early music was far better than anything a current day boy-band could hope to imagine). But the Beatles’ music quickly grew and developed, reaching new heights with almost every new album. So the fan base grew up along with the band, so to speak, as the Beatles
conceived ever more sophisticated music.
FTR I was 6 when I saw them on Ed Sullivan. I liked them from the first, although in retrospect, I was a little too young to appreciate the late-period stuff until much later in my own life.
Summarized from http://www.allmusic.com (the best site on the web behind straightdope.com) …
It’s difficult to summarize their career without restating cliches that have already been digested by tens of millions of rock fans. To start with the obvious, they were the greatest and most influential act of the rock era, and introduced more innovations into popular music than any other rock band of the 20th century. Moreover, they were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did, and the most popular at what they did. Relentlessly imaginative and experimental, the Beatles grabbed ahold of the international mass consciousness in 1964 and never let go for the next six years, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of creativity, but never losing their ability to communicate their increasingly sophisticated ideas to a mass audience. Their supremacy as rock icons remains unchallenged to this day, decades after their breakup in 1970.
Even when couching praise in specific terms, it’s hard to convey the scope of the Beatles’ achievements in a mere paragraph or two. They synthesized all that was good about early rock and roll, and changed it into something original and even more exciting. They established the prototype for the self-contained rock group that wrote and performed their own material. As composers, their craft and melodic inventiveness were second to none, and key to the evolution of rock from its blues/R&B-based forms into a style that was far more eclectic, but equally visceral. As singers, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were among the best and most expressive vocalists in rock; the group’s harmonies were intricate and exhilarating. As performers, they were (at least until touring had ground them down) exciting and photogenic; when they retreated into the studio, they were instrumental in pioneering advanced techniques and multi-layered arrangements. They were also the first British rock group to achieve worldwide prominence, launching a British Invasion that made rock truly an international phenomenon.
More than any other top group, the Beatles’ success was very much a case of the sum being greater than the parts. Their phenomenal cohesion was due in large degree to most of the group having known each other and played together in Liverpool for about five years before they began to have hit records. Hamburg was the Beatles’ baptism by fire. Playing grueling sessions for hours on end in one of the most notorious red-light districts in the world, the group were forced to expand their repertoire, tighten up their chops, and invest their show with enough manic energy to keep the rowdy crowds satisfied. When they returned to Liverpool at the end of 1960, the band – formerly also-rans on the exploding Liverpudlian “beat” scene – were suddenly the most exciting act on the local circuit. They consolidated their following in 1961 with constant gigging in the Merseyside area, most often at the legendary Cavern Club, the incubator of the Merseybeat sound.
The Beatles phenomenon didn’t truly kick in until “Please Please Me,” which topped the British charts in early 1963. This was the prototype British Invasion single – an infectious melody, charging guitars, and positively exuberant harmonies. The same traits were evident on their third 45, “From Me to You” (a British #1), and their debut LP, Please Please Me. Although it was mostly recorded in a single day, Please Please Me topped the British charts for an astonishing 30 weeks, establishing the group as the most popular rock ‘n’ roll act ever seen in the U.K.
What the Beatles had done was to take the best elements of the rock and pop they loved and make them their own. Since the Quarrymen days, they had been steeped in the classic early rock of Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and the Everly Brothers; they’d also kept an ear open to the early '60s sounds of Motown, Phil Spector, and the girl groups. What they added was an unmatched songwriting savvy (inspired by Brill Building teams such as Gerry Goffin and Carole King), a brash guitar-oriented attack, wildly enthusiastic vocals, and the embodiment of the youthful flair of their generation, ready to dispense with post-war austerity and claim a culture of their own. They were also unsurpassed in their eclecticism, willing to borrow from blues, popular standards, gospel, folk, or whatever seemed suitable for their musical vision. Producer George Martin was the perfect foil for the group, refining their ideas without tinkering with their cores; during the last half of their career, he was indispensable for his ability to translate their concepts into arrangements that required complex orchestration, innovative applications of recording technology, and an ever-widening array of instruments.
Just as crucially, the Beatles were never ones to stand still and milk formulas. All of their subsequent albums and singles would show remarkable artistic progression (though never at the expense of a damn catchy tune). Even on their second LP, With the Beatles(1963), it was evident that their talents as composers and instrumentalists were expanding furiously, as they devised ever more inventive melodies and harmonies, and boosted the fullness of their arrangements. “She Loves You” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand” established the group not just as a popular music act, but as a phenomenon never before seen in the British entertainment business, as each single sold over a million copies in the U.K. After some celebrated national TV appearances, Beatlemania broke out across the British Isles in late 1963, the group generating screams and hysteria at all of their public appearances, musical or otherwise.
The Beatles’ television appearances on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in February of 1964 launched Beatlemania (and the entire British Invasion) on an even bigger scale than it had reached in Britain. In the first week of April 1964, the Beatles had the top five best-selling singles in the U.S.; they also had the first two slots on the album charts, as well as other entries throughout the Billboard Top 100. No one had ever dominated the market for popular music so heavily; it’s doubtful than anyone ever will again. The Beatles themselves would continue to reach #1 with most of their singles and albums until their 1970 breakup.
Hard as it may be to believe today, the Beatles were often dismissed by cultural commentators of the time as nothing more than a fad that would vanish within months as the novelty wore off. The group ensured this wouldn’t happen by making A Hard Day’s Night in early 1964, a cinema verite-style motion picture comedy/musical that cemented their image as the Fab Four – happy-go-lucky, individualistic, cheeky, funny lads with nonstop energy. The soundtrack was also a triumph, consisting entirely of Lennon-McCartney tunes, including such standards as the title tune, “And I Love Her,” “If I Fell,” “Can’t Buy Me Love,” and “Things We Said Today.” George Harrison’s resonant 12-string electric guitar leads were hugely influential; the movie helped persuade the Byrds, then folk singers, to plunge all-out into rock ‘n’ roll, and the Beatles (along with Bob Dylan) would be hugely influential on the folk-rock explosion of 1965. The Beatles’ success, too, had begun to open the U.S. market for fellow Brits like the Rolling Stones, Animals, and Kinks, and inspired young American groups like the Beau Brummels, Lovin’ Spoonful, and others to mount a challenge of their own with self-penned material that owed a great debt to Lennon-McCartney.
Between riotous international tours in 1964 and 1965, an insatiable market placed heavy demands upon their songwriting, and some of the originals and covers on these records, while brilliant by many group’s standards, were filler in the context of the Beatles’ best work. But when at the top of their game, the group were continuing to push forward. “I Feel Fine” had feedback and brilliant guitar leads; “Ticket to Ride” showed the band beginning to incorporate the ringing, metallic, circular guitar lines that would be appropriated by bands like the Byrds; “Help!” was their first burst of confessional lyricism; “Yesterday” employed a string quartet. John Lennon in particular was beginning to exhibit a Dylanesque influence in his songwriting on such folky, downbeat numbers as “I’m a Loser” and “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away.” And tracks like “I Don’t Want to Spoil the Party” and “I’ve Just Seen a Face” had a strong country flavor.
Although the Beatles’ second film, Help!, was a much sillier and less sophisticated affair than their first feature, it too was a huge commercial success. By this time, though, the Beatles had nothing to prove in commercial terms; the remaining frontiers were artistic challenges that could only be met in the studio. They rose to the occasion at the end of 1965 with Rubber Soul, one of the classic folk-rock records. Lyrically, Lennon, McCartney, and even Harrison were evolving beyond boy-girl scenarios into complex, personal feelings. They were also pushing the limits of studio rock by devising new guitar and bass textures, experimenting with distortion and multi-tracking, and using unconventional (for rock) instruments like the sitar.
As much of a progression as Rubber Soul was relative to their previous records, it was but a taster for the boundary-shattering outings of the next few years. The “Paperback Writer”/“Rain” single found the group abandoning romantic themes entirely, boosting the bass to previously unknown levels, and fooling around with psychedelic imagery and backwards tapes on the B-side. Drugs (psychedelic and otherwise) were fueling their already fertile imaginations, but they felt creatively hindered by their touring obligations. Revolver, released in the summer of 1966, proved what the group could be capable of when allotted months of time in the studio. Hazy hard guitars and thicker vocal arrangements formed the bed of these increasingly imagistic, ambitious lyrics; the group’s eclecticism now encompassed everything from singalong novelties (“Yellow Submarine”) and string quartet-backed character sketches (“Eleanor Rigby”) to Indian-influenced swirls of echo and backwards tapes (“Tomorrow Never Knows”).
With the appearance of the “Penny Lane”/“Strawberry Fields Forever” single in February 1967, frequently cited as the strongest double-A-side ever, the Beatles were now pushing forward into unabashedly psychedelic territory in their use of orchestral arrangements and mellotron, without abandoning their grasp of memorable melody and immediately accessible lyrical messages.
Sgt. Pepper, released in June 1967 as the Summer of Love dawned, was the definitive psychedelic soundtrack. Many were convinced that it represented pop’s greatest triumph, or indeed an evolution of pop into art with a capital A. In addition to mining all manner of roots influences, the musicians were also picking up vibes from Indian music, avant-garde electronics, classical, music hall, and more. When the Beatles premiered their hippie anthem “All You Need Is Love” as part of a worldwide TV broadcast, they had been truly anointed as spokespersons for their generation (a role they had not actively sought), and it seemed they could do no wrong.
The White Album, a double LP released in late 1968, was a triumph. While largely abandoning their psychedelic instruments to return to guitar-based rock, they maintained their whimsical eclecticism, proving themselves masters of everything from blues rock to vaudeville. As individual songwriters, too, it contains some of their finest work (as does the brilliant non-LP single from this era, “Hey Jude”/“Revolution”).
The final album recorded by the group, Abbey Road, boasted some of their most intricate melodies, harmonies, and instrumental arrangements; it also heralded the arrival of Harrison as a composer of equal talent to Lennon and McCartney, as George wrote the album’s two most popular tunes, “Something” and “Here Comes the Sun.”
The popularity of the Beatles-as-unit, however, proved eternal. In part, this is because the group’s 1970 split effectively short-circuited the prospects of artistic decline; the body of work that was preserved was uniformly strong. However, it’s also because, like any great works of art, the Beatles’ records carried an ageless magnificence that continues to captivate new generations of listeners. So it is that Beatles records continue to be heard on radio in heavy rotation, continue to sell in massive quantities, and continue to be covered and quoted by rock and pop artists through the present day.
Wow…and I was just gonna say great lyrics and great music.
I would have preferred a link Hey you!, those long cut-n-paste posts make my computer hurt.
(Add to the fact that it may be copywrite infringement.)
Anyways, the main reason of my post is to agree with furnishesq. I don’t get the Beatles. The main agrument I hear is that they were innovative, or did something new. I don’t know if it’s just me, but their earlier stuff sounds just like the music that was already there. I will admit that their latter music was different, but I tend to not like it as much as the earlier music. And I don’t recall a lot of bands copying their latter style of music all that much.
And how come they are great merely for doing something new? Personally, I feel it is a much greater accoimplishment to take something that has already been done, and become great at that, in my mind it takes more skill. Sure, I can invent a new style of music that is nothing more than me hitting keys at random on a piano, does that make me great? How about instead I learn to play the piano well, and perform all the classical works better than anyone else has. I have not done something new, just done something already done better than anyone else. That seems to take a little more talent, in my opinion
Well, now that I’ve crawled out from under Hey You’s treatise–all of which I probably agree with, but I ain’t gonna take 2 days to read it all–I’ll go in the manner of Reeder, and (being one who was 17 when the Beatles sang “she was just–”) just say it was the sound, man, the sound.
Well no one is going to explain the Beatles in a paragraph or 16…you just have to listen. If you get it then…great! If not, ok. I mean I love the Beatles’ music myself, but there’s no need to force upon everyone the notion that not liking the Beatles makes you abnormal or deviant.
And if you listen, don’t just stick to the “hits” that have been played on the radio a million times, (mis)used in adverts, and converted to Musak tunes. Familiarity can breed contempt I suppose. Most of the Beatles’ best songs are surprisingly unknown to much of the ‘general public’.
What javaman said
although I was 8 years when they first appeared on Ed Sullivan, and was in my late teens when I really appreciated their later stuff.
also The Beatles broke up at the very height of their success. They left the scene while we still wanted more. And The Beatles Anthology aside, even before John Lennon’s death in 1980, we knew we weren’t getting anymore.
The Beatles went out on top, not like the Rolling Stones. The Stones haven’t put out a decent album in 20 years.
I am 15 years old and I am a huge Beatles fan. I think thay ae so important because their lyrics, music, and personalities were good.
Also, before them it was accepted that composers wrote songs which performers would play or sing (“here’s Ella with Cole’s latest hit…”).
But they were both performers and creators at once, and that was rare and exciting. Their work was tailored for themselves, and the fit was perfect.
Another rarity become commonplace.
Redboss
Things click with people, it seems mysterious and it is for the most part. There are ways to grope at explaining it on all levels of anaylsis (from biology up to psychology/sociology). Basically you can generate pleasing things formulacly (modern pop) or you can as an artist understand what is pleasing (based on your own taste) and play with it.
You get your music to click with enough people and you are considered great. In a large way this is deserved. It is very hard to grasp what it is that makes “good” music “good”, and to get even a portion of it and become popular to a reasonable amount of the population is impressive. To get as many fans as the Beatles means they were really onto something.
However nothing is going to click with everyone. Just not getting it is what it comes down to, and not in the condescending sense. If you get something that’s one more thing to enjoy and be emotionally influenced by. If not, no big loss something will click with you.
I’m not a Beatles fan, I can sorta enjoy their music and recognize their talent but it doesn’t really do anything for me. This is most likely because I find something strangely musical about noise.