I agree, but I voted that I’d be fine and get over it in this poll. While I do believe they’re the absolute pinnacle of pop songwriting and voted them “greatest” in the other thread, it wouldn’t bother me in the least if I never heard a Beatles song again. I’ve heard them enough in this lifetime.
I’d certainly miss “A Day in the Life”.
I’m definitely more of a classic rocker Stones & Zep kind of guy, but there are lots of Beatles tunes that I love to sing along to in the car.
I have two Beatles songs on my iPod. I like them, and I enjoy listening to them when they come up on shuffle. But I would happily never listen to either of them again if it could mean that I am never again subjected to “Yesterday”.
I like the Beatles a lot but I’ve heard most of my favorites hundreds of times, so I could get by. Really there is so much good music that there is no-one I couldn’t live without hearing again.
Sorry, but those 4 wonderful guys were the reason my high school fellow students stopped calling me “Nazi Pig” back in the early 60’s.
Heard them, saw them, grew my hair out, grabbed my Mama’s pots, pans and wooden cook spoons and became Ringo.
Taught myself to play an old used “trap set” (what we used to call a drum kit) , got my Dad (himself an accomplished drummer) to buy me a set of Gretsches and the rest is history: I was instantly popular, all past “sins” were forgotten and I had girls out the ass had I wanted them. (Didn’t though: there was Lynn who stood by me even when I couldn’t manage to say “y’all” like I do today - used to come out “yell” - and Lynn was my girl who used to sit onstage right beside me in The Watchmen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrFcH5eQi4
Sorry, no video, but that’s me on the drums. It’s a very primitive rendition (4 track reel to reel), but it sure would please me if you’d give it a listen.
(And yes, it’s another shameless plug by your ol’ pal Quasi to prove he used to be able to function).
Anyway, no way would I ever give up my Beatles.
You’d have to pry them all from my cold dead heart.
Thanks so much for the thread, and the tears of happiness!
Bill
And this boy:
Really?
I guess you might think that if you’ve never listened to anything else, and never had the intellectual curiosity to step outside your own era or comfort zone.
But really, genuinely unequaled and unsurpassed? Not even once in the entire history of music?
You can say that the Beatles in their early days were energetic rock and roll performers, and I certainly won’t argue with you. But more energetic than the Collins Kids (or any of the rockabilly acts) were ten years earlier? Is the Beatles version of Long Tall Sally really so obviously superior to Little Richard’s? You can say that the girls screamed for John, Paul, George, and Ringo, but didn’t they do that for Elvis too?
You might claim that the Beatles were accomplished musicians, and I might not care to argue the point. But unequaled and unsurpassed? Would you seriously claim they are better musicians than say, any of the soloists in Count Basie’s orchestra? Were George or John better guitar players than Clapton and Hendrix? What about Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt? Is Paul a better bass player than, say, Carol Kaye?
“Ah,” you say. “But what about the harmonies? Nobody could sing three part harmonies like the Beatles.” True enough. The voice is the most unique musical instrument we human-beings have – every one is different. Were they unequaled and unsurpassed? Nope. Try the Boswell Sisters. But Paul was a great R&B style singer. No doubt about that. You know who else was a great R&B singer? LaVern Baker! But I don’t suppose a one-eyed Beatles fan would ever have heard of her.
“But come on man, they were the Beatles. They were the coolest thing out there.” Really? How about this? That, by the way, is one of my favorite Youtube clips, and it hasn’t got any Beatles in it. It’s a pretty good demonstration of what the British invasion bands missed (or couldn’t replicate) when they created their own white-bread version of rock’n’roll.
“Beatles music is influential.” Can’t argue with that. Bloody Oasis. If I never hear another Oasis song again I’ll be truly happy. But did they contribute as much to the rock’n’roll style as Led Zeppelin? What about Chuck Berry? Hell, what about JS Bach? Bach popularized the notion of equal temperament. Every musician who’s ever tuned a musical instrument for the last four hundred years is directly influenced by Bach. Every modern piano, including the one Paul plays in Let It Be bares Bach’s direct legacy. Are you really going to claim that The Beatles musical contributions are equal to the likes of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart?
“But the Beatles were still great innovators. There was nothing like them in their day.” But so what? Brian Wilson was an innovator too. So were are lot of the prog rock bands that emerged in the seventies. I personally prefer the eighties avant-garde. Beatles stuff sounds pretty staid and trying-too-hard compared to Sonic Youth, The Residents, Devo, The Birthday Party, or early Hunters and Collectors. That’s the kind of stuff I was listening to when I was sixteen, rather than “She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah.”
“The Beatles wrote great pop songs.” Yeah, they did. So did Irving Berlin. So did George and Ira Gershwin.
I’m sorry if I’m ranting here, but this is the sort of thing that gets right up my nose. It’s nice that Beatles fans (and LOTR fans) have something to be passionate about. But they are too often boorish and obsessive and make ridiculously inflated claims about the objects of their obsession. There is an entire universe of music out there beyond the 200 odd songs the Beatles recorded. I don’t understand why you would want to endure Revolution #9, Blue Jay Way, Honey Pie, or Ringo singing one single more time, when it’s all just sitting there, waiting to be discovered.
I detest the kind of intellectual laziness this sort of thing implies.
Even me?
I needed them and they saved me.
So, even me?
Quasi
You like them because you were there, caught up in that moment. Why does it have to be more complicated than that? Why render it absurd by turning it into some quasi-religion?
I personally don’t care if anyone else likes or listens to the Beatles but me. I’ve found that when people find music or something they really love they tend to want to share it with others. some get pushy about it.
I did go through a period where I didn’t listen to them at all. But since the remastered albums came out I’ve been listening to them with new ears.
Kiyoshi, I do think that a tour bus driving by daily with people singing “She Love You” would totally get on my nerves. But I have a feeling I’d think that about any song by any artist.
Good God, no. Now that I’m familiar with the Beatles catalog, I’d feel like I’d be missing something wonderful from my life without their music.
Sorry Quasi,
I went back and read your post, and maybe that was a bit harsh.
I do get the passion thing. I’m a musician myself, and from the age of about 10 never wanted to be anything else. There have been times in my life when I have been utterly consumed by music – by bands, by songs, or even by particular performances. I don’t dislike the Beatles. I’m as familiar with all those 200 odd songs as anyone else here. But even just the thought of listening to one thing, to the exclusion of everything else, makes me die a little inside.
Well maybe you could agree that they are at least as good as all the people you have mentioned that have a featured in a Rolling Stone issue rating their 100 best songs. Not best 5, or 10, or even 20…best 100. And people still complained about favorites that missed out.
Like I said, I could live without hearing their songs again but gee you have to be willfully obtuse to argue against their importance. You only have to look at the pre-Beatles charts to see what they meant.
I haven’t heard The Beatles songs in years, except for one evening on American Idol, and once in a while on the muzak in an office or grocery store. Seems like something you would have to search out to listen to, if you like them. I don’t think they play any Beatles songs on the radio, the oldies station (I would like to hear The Hollies, The Dave Clark Five, Hermans Hermits, The Kinks. All those British Invasion groups are TOO old, I guess.) I liked them then, I like them now and will listen with a certain nostalgia now, but I’d have to search around for those old albums, or maybe we have a CD of the White Album…
You could never replicate the result. The Beatles had a once in a culture opportunity to make it big in a way that nothing after could have done. They had a perfect storm of radio availability/ infrastructure, political climate, and emerging music scene coupled with a wicked PR campaign and technological restrictions that prevented the saturation/ fatigue problems of later artists. Everything after had the benefit or stumbling block of an established scene, faster communication, easier access to cheap recording media, and perhaps most importantly, a changed political climate that will not be remembered as golden and fondly as the lost summers of the 60’s.
If it wasn’t The Beatles, it would have been someone else, and we would be discussing them instead.
I was there & caught up in the moment–graduated high school in 1966; then first heard The White Album while psychedelicized. From “I Want To Hold Your Hand” to “Why Don’t We Do It In the Road” in a few short years; it was a quick, rough trip.
Then, after a number of years, I caught A Hard Day’s Night on TV once again. Hadn’t thought of the Beatles in a while–I’d been distracted by psychedelia, blues, country, folk-rock (God help me), cosmic cowboy, western swing & old timey. Some real oldtimey! I’d seen performances by Stephan Grapelli, Snakefinger, Little Feat & Sun Ra–among many others & had been caught up in quite a few “moments.” But I was struck by one of the songs in that cute little B&W movie & thought: “Hey, that’s really a great tune!”
So I still like the Beatles a lot. But they aren’t the only band I like. And Rock&Roll isn’t the only kind of music I like, either.
George had more talent in his little finger than Django.
No it wouldn’t.
And I guess you weren’t a teenager at the time. There were plenty of other bands but they just came and went, but your parents didn’t say things like, “most of your music I hate, except for …” unless they were talking about the Beatles.
I’d love to hear more about their “wicked PR campaign” that they conducted before FM radio, modern TV networks, the internet, social networking, youtube, etc, that was so much more effective than any campaign since, and totally invisible to consumers.
Which “someone else” with over 100 good songs did you have in mind?
I hope this is a post-fire joke.
I didn’t, and I won’t. The importance of the Beatles is that they set the agenda for English bands in the period from 1963 to 66. They cleared the way for English bands to tour and release records in the USA. And they were one of the bands who jumped on the psychadelic bandwagon in the late sixties, getting away from cheesy pop songs to do more experimental and substantial work.
But equally, the whole weird hero-worship that goes on around the Beatles tends to imply that they and their music came out of nowhere, like some sort of manna from heaven. That’s not true. In the early days, they were pretty much a Carl Perkins/Buddy Holly/Chuck Berry cover band.
It’s a real shame the way Beatles fans tend to think that music wasn’t invented before 1963, or that it was all Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin, or something.