I wasn’t actually comparing the Beatles to rap, just the analogy. Just because they were influencial, to me, does not make them worthy of of my “ear time”. The Beatles were greatly influenced by Bob Dylan, who to me, sounds like a constipated walrus. I’m not saying Dylan wasn’t influencial to many, or did not break many barriers. Just that I can’t listen to him. I also am not comparing the Beatles to other bands. If I would though, I would say that, for example, I love the Animals. I know they were influenced by the Beatles, but to me, they sound a lot better. In the early stuff, yes, most the stuff the Beatles did seemed rushed. The harmonies aren’t quite in step, there are a few slight mistakes on instruments, etc. No, I can’t name songs as I don’t like them, so I can’t recall titles. In the later days, it wasn’t so much an “unfinished sound”, but just that there was something missing, to me. There are many times I’ve heard their later stuff and have thought, "if they’d only had a piano in the background, or… if they’d done it as a group harmony rather than a solo… etc.) I never had a problem with the lyrics, even the weirder stuff. I admit freely that they were greatly influencial, if not the most influencial group to ever make music. But their influence doesn’t make them sound better to me. I will give them all my gratitude for what they did, because one can arguably say that without them, we’d all still be listening to country bluegrass or bubblegum crap. But I’ll never put one of their albums on the turntable.
Tracer said:
Actually if they used eight chords they were by definition on a plane other than the three chord one. And the tune itself was composed by a pre-teen Paul heavily influenced by his father’s jazz records.
Pestie said:
But why weren’t they “that good”? You’re willing to admit their innovativeness ( is this a word? If so how is it spelled? ), the overall quality of the sound ( melody, arrangements, production, etc… ) and their vast influence.
I can’t see how George “sucked”. He wasn’t a very gifted guitarist in the technical sense but he made all the notes he played worthy to compensate for that. He wrote beatiful ballads ( Something comes to mind ), meditative eastern music ( and it was brilliant. If you don’t get it listen again ), gorgeous vocal-harmonies drenched pop ( If I Needed Someone ), nice rockers ( Taxman ), playful silly songs ( Here Comes The Sun ). What else can you want?
And note that’s only the Beatles work. Did I mention he recorded one of the best album of all times?
HumHumAll-Things-Must-PassHum
And Ringo, well, he defined the bands sound. But yeah he was the least talented Beatle ( But I actually love Don’t Pass Me By ).
PepperLandGirl said:
Well, there was the Motown scene, the Kinks, the Beach Boys and The Who. In the earlier years that is. Latter it got much rougher.
And I hardly see how could the Stones be “just a blues band”.
And about the concept album, that Pepper was the first one is highly debatable. We have anything from the Beach Boys “Little Deuce Cup” to Frank Zappa’s “Freak Out” that came earlier.
Pepper was hugely influencial and creative, but not brcause it was the first concept album.
I think that this page is very valuable for the amount of reader comments alone ( and Mark has an excellent writing style, even tough it’s overbearing sometimes ). McFerrin’s one has a very interesting “born again” aproach and Starostin’s own page has IMO the best, most comprehensive aproach even tough he’s a bit of a devotee.
Keep in mind how prolific they were. Groups in the 1960’s usually released 2 albums a year, and at least 2 or 3 singles as well. In 7 years the Beatles released about 200+ songs. Out of them 10 or so absolute classsics, many other good ones - and a few clunkers.
By the 1970’s the standard for Rock groups became 1 album a year - and few seperate singles. Now your typical band today may take a 2 or 3 year break between albums. Its sort of unfair to compare the Beatles with later groups that had the luxury of taking a year or more to finish an album. Also realize that even the best groups such as the Stones and the Who made some really awful albums in the 1960’s under the pressure of deadlines. At least no Beatles album was a flat outembarassment like “Satanic Majesties”. If the Beatles released only 1 album a year of their stongest material; they would compare favorably to any band even today.
Jaimest said:
What do you mean ten classics? I can think of at least 30 without triyng hard!
I happen to think that the Stone’s best material is the sixties one. And yeah that includes “Your Majesties…”.
And the story of the Who was quite different. They had one fiasco that was “A Quick One While He’s Away” that was prompted by the recording company. But it still boasted the title track as well as “Boris”, “Cobwebs…” and others.
I think their first album is great with the exception of the James Brown covers. The sixties also had three of the Oo’s greatest albums, namely “Sell Out”, “Tommy” and “Live at Leeds” rock’s second greatest live album ( I prefer the Isle of Wight Festival one myself ).
So as you see they had a pretty great output during the sixties. They didn’t record more because of the judicial struggle with Shel Talmy over the music rights.
Their ordinary albums compare favorably to any of today’s bands.
Quantity AND quality (that is, relatively consistent quality, by and large) I think is what it boils down to. How many one hit wonders make the top-40 and then fade away every single year? Hundreds, literally. Just take a gander at those retro compilations advertised on TV (“Just send $12.99 for CD, $9.99 for cassette to '70’s Dredge, PO Box 666, Carlton, Connecticut…”)
Hijack since this thread is attracting Fab Four connoisseurs: There is a picture I am trying to place in my head and I can’t locate it on the web… it is of the Beatles, early-ish, in suits, I think, cleanshaven anyway, all standing up in a row with one hand extended out. I thought it was an album cover for some reason but after looking for it, apparently it is not. Can anyone tell me what this is from? It is driving me NUTS.
Please tell me it won’t take that long!
I’m pretty sure that was one of the British album covers. Perhaps “Beatles - For Sale” or something like that.
George Harrison and Ringo Starr may have been the two least-talented Beatles, but they were good enough that in any other band they would have been stars in their own right. I know a lot of Drummers who worship Ringo, and George Harrison is a great songwriter and a decent guitarist. Let’s not forget “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”, “Here Comes the Sun”, “Taxman”, “Something” (the most covered song of all time, I believe, unless it’s now ‘Yesterday’), and “My Sweet Lord”. The guy had enough great songs to make a huge career without the Beatles. He also had a big hit record around 1990 with “Cloud 9” (“I’ve Got My Mind Set On You”, “When We Was Fab”), and a bunch of hits as one of the members (and lead writers) of The Traveling Wilburys.
And don’t forget, Ringo had a string of hits on his own after the Beatles broke up (“It Don’t Come Easy”, “The No-No Song”, “You’re Sixteen”, “Act Naturally”, “Back Off Boogaloo”, “Photograph”, a few others). In fact, he was the first Beatle to have a hit record post-breakup.
When I started listening to music in the early 70’s, it was just after the Beatles’ heyday, and I was firmly in the, “WAY overrated band” camp. So I pretty much ignored them until I was in my late 20’s. Then I started to listen, and started picking up on all the nuances and themes in their music. I became a fan. Now I think they are without question the greatest pop band of all time.
There is a reason they only had 10 hours to record the album. They didn’t say to their producer “Hmmm, you know what? We just don’t give a fuck. We’ll slap something together.”
It was their first album, and they were in the middle of a tour of England. They didn’t have anything fancy, and they were 3rd or 4th on the bill. In the middle of shows, they drove to London, and George Martin could only reserve the studio at Abbey Road for a day. Since they really wanted to make their album (And after six years of trying to get a break, wouldn’t you?) they took what they could get. After ten rushed hours, doing most of the songs in one or two takes, live, and all of the songs were from their show, they left, and continued on their tour.
They were allowed a whole 3 days for With The Beatles, but by the times A Hard Day’s Night came along, they were popular enough that the people in charge were willing enough to give them Studio #3. Paul McCartney still uses that particular studio.
So yes, I think that the time alloted is a valid explanation for the roughness of their first two albums.
drpepper I could possibly help you, but I need a lil bit more info than that. That could be any picture from 62-64.
I’m slightly confused as to the nature of this thread. Are we asking, “do you like the Beatles, and why?” Or, “were the Beatles one of the most significant musical groups of the modern age?” In response to question one, I would say yes I do like the Beatles, because I enjoy a lot of their songs (yes, I know, that’s a very redundant statement).
I think it would be very hard for someone to argue against the Beatles’ influence. Many people seem to feel that because they don’t like the Beatles, they must not be influential. I could think the theory of gravity is the most overrated, boring, talked about, ancient theory ever, but I still wouldn’t argue that because everyone today knows about the theory of gravity Isaac Newton must not have been that great. I mean, he didn’t even have a spell-check for his thesis!
Yes, I will agree that the Beatles' skill at playing their instruments is nowhere near as impressive as many many other musicians of today, and of their own time. But, that is irrelevant when talking about "significance" or "influence." The people who throughout the history of music have been the movers and shakers have not been the people who play perfectly, or the most quickly, but the people who play differently, and write differently.
Once I used to think that the Beatles were very over rated (I liked to listen to them a lot, I just didn't feel they were anything special). Then I thought about pop music before the Beatles, and pop music after the Beatles, and the difference (in my opinion) is stunning. My vote is for the Beatles as the most (or at the very least, one of the most) influential bands of rock music.This sounds like the photo on the back of MEET THE BEATLES, their first Capitol album.
On second thought, this might be the cover photo from BEATLES VI, another Capitol album.
Amen, sister!
I think they were groundbreaking and innovative for their time, but have since become cliche. I guess that’s a good thing, generally, kind of like the Shakespeare example. I just can’t stand to hear them anymore though and I will never buy one of their albums. We were in the bookstore a couple weeks ago and they had the new Beatles #1 (or whatever its called) on and it just was driving me crazy!!! It’s not music to shop by, especially for books.
I can’t describe music in terms of chords.
The Beatles where innovative for their time and some of the songs are still interesting now (like some tunes on Revolver). Now they’re like a vehicle for mass nostalgia. …and it’s safe for the children. Kinda gross. I grew up listening to the Beatles and I’m sick of hearing them now. It’s like CCR, great group, but way overplayed on those classic rock stations. There was a lot of really good music made at the same time the Beatles were out doing their thing and I never hear it except from my own collection (thinking of Captain Beefheart). Comparing the Beatles to XTC is a stretch at first reading, but come to think of it, maybe it’s just because XTC is way underrated.
Over saturated? Sure. Cliche? Yeah, but by no fault of their own.
Denying this bands significance is pure ignorance.
In a similar vein, just because you’ve seen the Mona Lisa a hundred thousand times on everything from tote bags to napkins doesn’t make Leonardo Da Vinci any less of a genius.
Just an over exposed genius.
If you don’t like the Beatles, fine. Your call.
Heck, I have a hard time listening to them because they’re so often played. But I won’t deny their talent or unparalleled influence over almost every rock band since.
Just don’t ridicule what you don’t understand.
First of all I’m a huge Beatles fan, and agree that generally neither George or Ringo get the respect they deserve. However…
George didn’t play lead guitar on either “Taxman” (that’s Paul) or “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” (none other than Eric Clapton handled that chore). Both great songs IMHO, but you can’t give George credit for the guitar work on them.
The Beatles were creative above all, constantly re-inventing themselves, and all with very limited technical means at their disposal (IIRC, a great part of their work was recorded using 4-track equipment). That they were (and still are) influential is an undisputed fact, and rightly so. Were they the most influential band? I would tend to say yes, but I’m biased.
BTW, a few of the little gems that come to mind (but have never reached the number 1 spot and were therefore not included in the latest compilation) are:
In My Life, by John Lennon
Here, There and Everywhere, by Paul McCartney.
They simply don’t make them like that anymore.
P.S.: Dr.Pepper: You wouldn’t be thinking of one of the inside cover photos of the Magical Mystery Tour, would you?
Hey you Beatle-haters, are your favorite bands going to hit number one with on a collection of their bootleg-like rejects, twenty-five years after they break up? Are their lyrics going to recited in the most popular cartoon on cable thirty years later? This is an indication of lasting appeal. Some bands have done it bettter (I think Hall And Oates represented blue-eyed soul better than anyone else). However, the Beatles will have that appeal that will last into the 22nd century at least.
plg, how could I miss a thread like this? 
And, appropriately, on the day I’m meeting with a drummer to see about putting together a Beatles cover band.
I can understand people not liking the Beatles. Hey, it’s cool–I don’t really care for the Stones. To each his/her own, right?
But to think the Beatles were actually bad boggles the mind. All modern pop/rock music owes an enormous debt to just a few groups of people: Lieber & Stoller, Goffin & King, Holland/Dozier/Holland, Smokey Robinson and Berry Gordy, and Lennon and McCartney. (And maybe Brian Wilson.) They, collectively, invented the rock/pop/soul vernacular, undisputably. The Beatles set the standard for guitar bands with their musical inventiveness. An excellent musical analysis, song-by-song, by Alan Pollack, a PhD in music, can be found at http://rmb.simplenet.com/public/files/awp/awp.html. Even on their first album, they were a little more inventive than the average band at the time. While they were all rock-and-roll lovers from the age of 13 or so, they had grown up listening to their parents jazz and big band records, and were undeniably influenced by those and the British music-hall tradition.
I was introduced to Beatles music when I was five or six years old, which would have been around 1974-75, through my dad’s Beatles albums. I have been a fan ever since. Unlike Uke, I do still listen to my albums, but like him, I can hear the songs full-fledged in my head whenever I want.
And about this “Ringo had no talent” business–let’s settle that one once and for all. Ringo was not a songwriter–no doubt about that. Even if he had been, his stuff could only have paled next to Lennon/McCartney, not to mention Harrison. (The only other band that even comes to mind where all the members could both write songs and sing lead and backup is Queen.) But as a rock drummer, Ringo was and is top-notch. Before joining the Beatles, he was already a working professional, making a living by drumming. He and his band, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, were the most popular band in Liverpool at the time, they preceded the Beatles to Hamburg (where they played in the best clubs), and they had a regular gig every summer, all summer, at a holiday camp.
When the Beatles were signed to Parlophone, and were told they had to replace Pete Best, they were unanimous in who they wanted–Ringo Starr. His drumming at the time was consistently inventive for rock music. And if he sucked so badly, why did all of the other ex-Beatles use him on solo albums? Paul McCartney is fully capable of drumming himself; he played all the drums on the McCartney and Band on the Run albums. Yet he’s used Ringo several times on his records. John Lennon could have had any drummer in the world on his records, but who did he use much of the time? Ringo. Same with George.
And speaking of George, while he might not be Eddie Van Halen or Yngwie Malmsteen or even Richie Sambora, he was an excellent player in the rockabilly idiom (right up there with Burton and Moore–listen to his solos on “I’m A Loser” and “I Don’t Want To Spoil The Party”) and, eventually, the rock idiom. He also did excellent guitar work on songs of his own like “Savoy Truffle,” “Old Brown Shoe,” and “Something,” and on all the other Beatles work, too.
The Beatles a bad band? Perish the thought. You’d have to literally know nothing about music to think such a thing.
Cripes.
Is it, “Here, here! Great post, phil!”, or is it, “Hear, hear! Great post, phil!”?
I can never remember the written form of that particular idiom.
In any case, great post, phil.
And for you who think the Beatles are overplayed- what stations are you listening to? Most of the classic rock/oldies stations I’ve listened to seemed to conspicuously avoid playing Beatles songs except during specific time slots (you’ll get a “Beatles Break” of three songs in a row at ten-to-three on weekdays).
John
I’m with Phil and Pepper. One may eschew the Beatles as a matter of personal taste, but to dismiss their music as universally bad is not even worth replying to.