Monkeys? Pshaw. The real Pre-Fab Four are the Rutles.
As someone else mentioned, they had music for every mood. What I think was very unique about the Beatles (other than what has already been mentioned) is that they had a real pulse on what was going on in the world during those years and their music reflected that. We didn’t outgrow them because they grew with us. For those of you that weren’t around or too young, well, you missed a lot.
My daughters love the Beatles too just because they like the music.
Put on Good Day Sunshine and I’m boppin’. 
Don’t rub it in! 
It’s also important that they broke up before they started to suck.
I think this is why far few people my age (early 20s) appreciate the Rolling Stones. I wouldn’t say they suck, but they’re just missing the raw blues and sexual energy their early work had. “Gimme Shelter” is one of the most sexually charged songs I have ever heard. Nothing they make today comes close.
As for The Beatles, I absolutely love them. I was watching M2 today and a video (well, sort of) for “Hello, Goodbye” came on. Yeah, the Beatles, surrounded by the likes of Eminem, Radiohead and Limp Bizket. Aside from that, the oldest song you’ll see on M2 is “Video Killed the Radio Star.” I bought the 1 compilation that’s out right now (and topped the Billboard charts, I believe) and at first was listening to a few songs I knew were my favorites. But then I listened to it all the way through. Every single song was just wonderful. And this album has nothing from Sgt. Pepper’s on it… damn.
I’ve been a fan since the Ed Sullivan show. And I’m listening the the “White Album” right now. I was a little surprised when I found out my nephew (born 1982) had several of their CD’s. So do a lot of his friends. Pepperlandgirl and RealityChuck explain it well.
I also wonder what is so great about the Beatles.
I have heard people say it’s because their pioneers, they were the first to do this or that. Going by that theory if someone else was the first would they be as popular?
(note, they weren’t the first to do some of the things they might be accredited to, they just did it and got noticed.)
I’m not against the Beatles. I do enjoy some of their songs, I just don’t get why they are considered by many to be the best artists of rock and roll (I vote for Queen or the Stones for that glory.)
What some of you are saying makes some sense, but it doesn’t completly explain it. I asked my ex-GF while we were dating why she liked them. Her only answer was,
‘because their awesome.’ Not much of an answer.
Beatles? They were a band or something, right?
ducks, but doesn’t run just yet
Honestly, from what I’ve heard of their music, they aren’t that great. Not bad by any means, just not great. The sorta stuff that might be amusing to hear while shopping or at the dentist’s office. If their music is on already, I’ll usually listen.
The Beatles are alright, but not something I’d ever listen to on purpose.
Disclaimer: I’m not a big fan of music in general.
I think many people view the Beatles today as one views the Mona Lisa or Orsen Well’s Citizen Kane: “Yeah, it’s not bad, but what’s the big deal?”
The deal is the Beatles’ music, much like the Mona Lisa, was something that hadn’t been done before. I’m not a fan of their pre-Sgt Pepper’s bubblegum pop, but once they stopped touring and holed up in the studio, they did things musically that no one had ever heard before.
The Beatles turned pop music into art, receiving both critical and popular acclaim by succeeding artistically and commercially. By today’s standards you may hear their music and think, “So what’s the big deal?” The big deal is today’s rock music is Sgt. Pepper’s grandchild.
Find some other music from the year before the Beatles released Sgt Pepper’s. Listen to music from all the different successful artists of the day. Then play Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club and pay attention to how different it is from anything else at the time.
I’m only 19, but I have been a Beatles fan for as long as I can remember. The first three cassettes I ever bought with my own allowance were Cyndi Lauper, Cheap Trick, and the Beatles. My mom used to dance me aroud the kitchen to “I Saw Her Standing There” - they’ve always been a part of my listening repitoire (that might sound cooler if I could spell :p).
The reason I love them so much has to do mostly with my ability to relate to their music. And I don’t know how to put it, but hearing many of there songs evokes a powerful reaction in me. There’s a sense, when I listen, that they looked beneath and beyond the superficial to create something entirely personal but still universal. The Long Medley, “Let It Be,” “Julia,” “In My Life,” and “Strawberry Fields Forever,” some of my fave Beatles songs, fit this criteria. When I was 16, I was completely engrossed in their music - owned every CD, listened to them nonstop, religiously, read every Beatle book. I remember being enthralled by their lives, by that time period, by the idea that they lived inside their own private world created by their fame and were able to see a different world, a different view, and share it with the world. Now I don’t listen so much, but I still feel like listening to Sgt. Pepper once in a while.
I guess this is all a very personal viewpoint. I think maybe some of these reasons apply to others, but that’s why they are so special to me. If I were to expand my opinion - well, I read a quote once in a book about how they created high art for the masses. They were accessible, boundless, and hugely enthusiatic about their love for their art. It all transcended the music itself and created a way a life, a freedom and talent that was admirable.
All I see is popularity. I can name 5-6 bands that very few people listen too, or admit listening too, that have changed music yet get no mention in any book. It’s always the Beatles, the Beatles, the Beatles!
The biggest band that I can think of right now that changed things would be Motorhead. They’ve been around for 25 years now and Lemmy has been around since the mid 60s. Motorhead influenced a number of the earlier metal bands like Metallica and a good amount of other new bands plus a good amount of the older 80s bands.
Next would have to be Black Sabbath. Yes Ozzy said he liked the Beatles, buts that’s a far cry from being influenced by them. Nothing before Sabbath sounded like that and I’ve heard a number of rock stars talking about how they were influnced by Sabbath.
Iron Maiden have been around for 20+ years and have also influnced newer bands like Marilynn Manson. They also had a new song last year that was on the charts for a couple of weeks even little airplay.
The last band I’m gonna say anything about is Golden Earring. They’ve been around since 64-65 so almost as long as the Beatles. I know little about the early years, 65-68 or so, because it’s hard to get their stuff on CD yet from what I’ve heard they don’t sound like anyone else at that time. Everyone of their records, over 20, sounds different from the last one, using new techneics and different instruments.
There are other bands, Queen, Van Halen but they’ve been talked about. I still think the only reason people still listen to them is because they were popular for a few years and they got lucky.
I think the enduring success and appeal of the Beatles lies in two things: admiration and enjoyment.
What we (fans) admire is:
- the innovation, melodic, lyrical, stylistic and technical
- the versatility (find me any band, from any era, whose versatility can match the White Album alone)
- the self-sufficiency (they wrote the stuff, they played the stuff in the studio, they played it live, they did very few covers after their early years) with recgnition for George Martin’s equally brilliant midwifery
- their constant striving to do better, to innovate, to push their talents to the limit
- their sense of fun and humour, they were a very un-pretentious group of lads
- the richness of the output. Some of the songs date, but many seem timeless. Which generation will not find something poignant about ‘Eleanor Rigby’ or ‘Yesterday’?
What we enjoy is:
- a very large collection of great songs for almost every imaginable mood or occasion!
- the sheer songwriting brilliance, unmatched by any other band involved in the business of enduring popular song
Woodstockbirdybird wrote:
Buddy Holly, who was the first rock musician to produce his own records, the first to use strings in a rock record (“True Love Ways”), who wrote his own songs, and whose band name (“the Crickets”) not incidentally inspired the Beatles’ band name, is surely spinning in his grave.
soccerhooligan wrote:
That’s what they said about Lassus and Palestrina, too.
I doubt very much Buddy Holly is spinning in his grave.
Buddy Holly was one of the Beatles’ biggest inspirations. As you mentioned about the name similiarities.
However, Holly’s life and music was ended tragically. For 4 years after that nothing great happened in Rock n’Roll. Chuck Berry was in jail, Little Richard had found God, The King was in the army, Jerry Lee Lewis had disappeared because of the scandle involving his 13 year old cousin/wife. So, what exactly did the music scene have? A lot of teen age crooners (hmmm, not too far from removed from The Backstreet Boys and N*Sync). Then in 1963, The Beatles burst upon the scene, and revived Rock n’Roll. They opened the doors for the British Invasion. They inspired teenagers to create their own rock bands, thus expanding music to even wider frontiers.
It’s easy for us to sit back and say “Well, Holly did that before the Beatles.” Yes, that’s true. But the Beatles picked up where Holly left off, and ran with it. Would the Beatles have been so successful if Holly had lived? Who knows.
However, we are all willing to give credit where credit is due. Holly ( and Berry, and Perkins, and Lewis) may have started the revolution, but the Beatles kept it alive, and led it into the 70s.
Hey, I’m a big Buddy Holly fan too. I know how groundbreaking and influential he was. Better than Elvis, in my book. Still, his use of strings was more in the traditional post-war pop vein, whereas the Beatles (“Yesterday” being a bad example, think more “Eleanor Rigby” or Magical Mystery Tour-type stuff) used string sections in a more modern and provocative manner. And I know Buddy Holly wrote his own songs - in fact, a lot of artists did (from country to Little Richard) from that era. But not too many groups wrote their own songs, with contributions from all members rather than just the lead singer/guitar player.