I’m not a big fan of the Beatles. I am able to get into them, but they’ll never be one of my favorite groups. I do believe they were genius pop song writers and completely changed the face of pop culture and you gotta give em props, but I didn’t grow up listening to them. I grew up listening to the groups they influenced, but the actual music the Beatles made doesn’t push my buttons like Queen, for instance. I prefer a little more ‘rock’ in my pop music. I think the Beatles were amazing, but I’ll never be a disciple.
Huh. I had an experience similar to Pepper’s, in that I had not grown up listening to the Beatles. Not that I hadn’t heard of them, just that I hadn’t heard much of their music. My dad just adores music, and can’t stand the Beatles. If you ask him, he’ll tell you that they made bubble gum music, and he was actually a teenager when they made it big, so it’s not like he wasn’t there or anything. In my first year of college, though, my roommate was the world’s biggest Beatles fan. I think she could compete with Pepper and Phil for this title, honestly. Naturally she listened to their music all the time, not to mention wearing Beatles t-shirts, watches, decorating our room with posters, etc., etc. So, for the first time, I was really exposed to Beatles music. And guess what.
I don’t particularly like them.
I don’t hate them. I really like a few of their songs. But I don’t own any of their CDs, and have no desire to. IMHO, the Beatles are kind of lame, and I truly doubt the alleged songwriting genius of Lennon and McCarthy.
Your musical taste is your business, but I get pissed off when I hear that “if I don’t like the Beatles, I don’t know anything about music.” Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. I get to like whatever music I like. It’s not a personal slam against you.
I’ve liked the Beatles more or less continuously since I was about 12 - I’ve found that even as my musical tastes have changed over the years, at least part of the Beatles’ stuff has always been appealing to me (different parts at different times).
I don’t have any musical training aside from five ghastly years of piano lessons as a youngster, so I’m not really practiced at making rational arguments for why the Beatles are good. If you don’t like 'em, fine, but there’s no point in questioning why other people like 'em.
One thing I’ve started to wonder about is whether George Martin has been given due credit for the Beatles’ success. From what I’ve read, a lot of the really innovative things that appear on their records were either Martin’s doing or else something Lennon thought up and Martin vetted. I’m thinking of things like the high trumpet on “Penny Lane”, the tape looping, the arrangement of songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, and the use of unusual instruments (have to give George credit for the sitar though). These kinds of things seem too highfalutin to have come from the boys themselves (considering their later solo work). As time goes on, this innovative aspect looms larger and larger when people talk about why the Beatles were good. Any of you Beatles freaks care to weigh in?
Let’s not forget: they recorded their first album in twenty minutes, and the second one took even longer! They created a musical legend that will last a lunchtime. Why, without the musical contribution of Dirk, Stig, Barry and Nasty, popular music today wouldn’t----oh, I’m sorry. I’m thinking of The Rutles!
Please continue…
Omni-- by golly, you might be right; perhaps my subconscious mind somehow superimposed the early-image, clean shaven lads on that one photo in MMT (weren’t they in white tuxes or something?). More research is definitely warranted.
Thank you and the others for your suggestions in trying to jog my memory.
Here is a Beatle freak hijacking the thread for City Gent:
I think George Martin was given adequate credit for his role. If anything, his role was is overestimated, at least by mid-period.
Martin discusses his role in great detail in his own book, and never fails to stress that the ideas came from the Beatles, and to them go most of the credit.
The piccolo trumpet from “Penny Lane” was Paul’s idea, according to George Martin in his book “All You Need is Ears”. As for the arrangement, in the same book Martin states that “Paul would think up the notes he wanted, and I would write them down”. That was more or less the situation with most of the arrangements by the time of “Rubber Soul” or so. Martin was excellent at executing their ideas on a technical level and in transcribing their arrangements, but he freely admits that any good producer could have done that. From very early on, the Beatles were interested and creative in the recording process.
The Beatles always overruled him on any decision regarding their music from the very beginning, when Martin urged them to do a cover song instead of “Love Me Do”. Martin also lobbied to have “Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane” on Pepper and the make The White Album a single album.
Early on, Martin attempted to learn guitar so he would have a common instrument with the Beatles, but gave up when Paul and John learned piano much more quickly.
Martin’s greatest genius was the fact that he didn’t try to impose his own musical vision on them and instead devoted himself to helping them realize their ideas, and in the fact that he was able to create an atmosphere in the studio which was creative and experimental but efficient and productive. He should get a great deal of credit for his role here, but the myth that some Beatle detractors have constructed that he was the real force behind the Beatles is just silly.
pl, I can’t believe you left out Husker Du. For shame. And I’m pretty sure John Deacon never sang lead. (BTW, a Beatles cover band sounds great. And I play drums! However, I’m not going to move to some freezing-ass region of the midwest just to join a cover band).
Anyway, I think it’s all pretty much been said, and if you’ve ever seen any of my music-related posts you know I’m a big Beatles fan. The only issue I’d address is Turbo Dog’s assertion that he doesn’t like the Beatles 'cause they were greatly influenced by Bob Dylan. While they (John especially) have admitted to this, it certainly doesn’t come across in their sound much, aside from a few '65 tracks and a couple of songs on Rubber Soul. From what I can tell, they were more influenced by his lyrics and attitude. And you sure as hell couldn’t say either John or Paul (or even George, though possibly Ringo) sang like a “constipated walrus.”
Kyla
I agree with you’re point that “if you don’t like the Beatles, you know nothing about music” is a silly statement. However, I think if you say straight out “The Beatles sucked” I would really question your knowledge of music. Listen, I can’t stand “YES” or “ELP” or most of that prog-rock music (except Jethro Tull, King Crimson and Genesis.) Do I think they were good musicians? Yeah, on the whole. They certainly didn’t suck.
An analogy. One day I was at the Art Institue of Chicago, passing by the Kandinsky paintings with some friends. I really love his work. One of my friends said “Hell, a four-year-old can do that.” If you have any knowledge of art or its creation, you would realize the absurdity of that statement. I’ve painted on-and-off and there’s no way in hell I can come even close to imitating his style. There is art and craftsmanship in his work. He wasn’t sloppy. He was a skilled draftsman; he could paint realistically if he wanted to; he chose to do something different.
I feel similarly about the Beatles. They were great artists and skilled craftsman. At the time, their music was fresh, innovative and put together very intricately, with great attention to detail. I cannot phathom that certain people would write them off and say “they sucked.”
Philosophocles
A big nod to XTC. They never got the acclaim they deserved, but I still don’t think they’re quite up there with the Beatles. Another band that fits in this category for me is Big Star. “September Girls” is one of the most beautiful pop songs ever written, and could hold its own against anything by Lennon/McCartney, but what happened to them? How many people have even heard of them?
Actually, point of fact: Sgt. Pepper’s wasn’t the first concept album. Joe Meek and the Blue Men recorded a (truly bad) concept album called “I Hear A New World” several years (1960?) before Sgt. Pepper’s. It was an instrumental with vocal sound effects album, used synthesizers (Joe Meek’s the one who did “Telestar”) but was undeniably a concept album. If you’d said “Sgt Pepper’s was the first good concept album” I’d have agreed. 
Other than that, I completely agree with what you said, and I’m a little miffed that you and PLD said it better than I could’ve 
and left me nothing else to say except:
<AOL>
Me TOO!
</AOL>
Fenris
Sounds like a site I would like to visit, but all I get is the dreaded “404.” pldennison, Could you check on this URL?
Musicat, sorry about that. I don’t know what happened–I copied the link right from my browser. An easier way is to just go to http://rmp.simplenet.com , and click the link for “Alan W. Pollack’s ‘Notes On’ Series”. That should do it.
Musicat – link works, just delete the extraneous period at the end of the URL
Thanks, guys. Silly of me not to notice that damn dot.
I grew up with Beatles music. I took them for granted. It wasn’t until I was much older that I actually ‘got’ their name: beatles. They rock. Oh sure I used to get into drunken pointless ‘listen to Exile and tell me the Stones weren’t better than the Beatles’ debates, thinking that the Beatles were broken up, useless, the previous generations pussy glam fav band.
Then I had sex and drugs and rock’n’roll, and Beatles came back to me.
My nomination for the closest duo to match Lennon/McCartney is definitely Strummer/Jones.
Sandinista! is better than the White Album. The Beatles rocked my older siblings. I went in for the Clash. They had some reggae, and I am still trying to find any Carribean influence in the Beatles at all.
I find Beatles music to be distracting in the same way that I find Mozart’s compositions to be distracting – when a good Beatles tune or Mozart piece is on, I honestly cannot concentrate on anything else. I must listen to the music.
(Notice that I said “good” Beatles tune. This does not happen with many of the Maharishi Yoga-influenced Beatles tunes that make heavy use of the sitar.)
Many well-informed people have already posted in this thread with excellent reasons for considering the Beatles to have been one of the most influential rock bands ever. You might think their music sucks, you might not personally care for it, and that is completely valid. But if you think that they weren’t an influential group, or that their music was comparable to bubble-gum pop tunes or lacked musical complexity, then quite frankly you are an idiot.
I was reading a Joel Achenbach “Why Things Are” book that had a discussion about Shakespeare’s works, and Achenbach said something to the effect of, “It is possible to be an absolute genius and still be overrated.” I think that this might have happened with the Beatles. They were musical geniuses, and their work holds up even today and will most likely continue to hold up for countless years to come. Apart from their having been vastly innovative and influential, their tunes are really great. (In my opinion, of course, but also in the opinions of millions of other people.) But does this mean that they cannot be overrated? Well, no. They probably are overrated, or at least overplayed. Maybe that’s part of why some people seem to be really anti-Beatles. Even a four-star restaurant starts to get tiresome after you’ve eaten there a few too many times.
If the only Beatles you’ve ever heard was on the radio, you haven’t heard the Beatles.
The radio stations stick to the safe pop stuff, mostly from the early years. “Love Me Do”, “Hard Night’s Day”, etc. have been dreadfully overplayed. (probably why I don’t like this group of songs) But there’s a lot more to Beatle’s music than these songs.
The Beatles have probably created music in a wider array of musical styles than any other musician. I have been told (from a less than reliable source) that every song on the White album is from a different musical style. You like good basic rock? Try “Kitten” or “Hey Bulldog” or “Slow Down”. There’s also an great cover of “Long Tall Sally” (not an easy song to cover) and “Money (That’s What I Want)” Or “Do It In the Road” for roadhouse blues. “Back in the USSR” is a fun sendup of Beach Boys till they get bored and go back to rock. There’s one album that is supposed to be rather C&W. I only listened to it once and I mercifully purged the experience from my memory! There’s even a song on the White Album that is distinctly disco - “You Won’t See Me” except that it throws in occasional time signature changes.
Time signature changes are another area that shows the Beatles expertise. I don’t know squat about chord changes, but having danced for all of my life, few musicians in western music can match the Beatles for the complexity and inspiration of their rhythm patterns.
There are certainly Beatles songs I dislike, and songs that are incredibly stupid (“Rocky Raccoon” :shudder: ) but there are also some amazing songs out there that you have never heard, unless you have the albums or have been a regular cover band patron.
There are certain truths that aren’t relative. That the Beatles didn’t suck is one of them. It’s just a fact.
You simply are showing off your own lack of musical understanding if you think they do.
Are the Beatles my favorite band? No. I was always a Stones guy. But it is impossible to deny their melodic sound, prolific songwriting and musical invention. (A band that did songs as diverse as “Eleanor Rigby” and “Helter Skelter” is accused of being a three-chord nothing band?) Also, they share the rare distinction of being one of those few bands that can have a simplistic sound that seems easily imitated, yet no band in the more than three decades since has fully pulled it off.
So yes, you can say the Beatles aren’t your bag. It might bother you that many fawn over them, or that their songs have been overplayed since the '60s. That doesn’t mean they suck. It’s a demonstrable fact that they don’t. Just like you can’t say Hank Williams Sr. sucks or Public Enemy sucks, even though you might not like country or rap at all.
Well, I mean you can. This is America. Everybody is entitled to have a bad, wrong opinion.
I don’t think they ever released “Kitten” on an album, maybe it was on Anthology 1, I can’t remember for sure.
The majority of the songs you listed aren’t on The White Album. Well none of them are except “Back in the USSR” and “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road.” “Hey Bulldog” was on the Yellow Submarine album.
“You Won’t See Me” was Disco? I thought it was at least a good oh, 10 years or so before the “Disco Era”. It was on the Rubber Soul album.
The only album I can think of that has country influences on it was “HELP!” Ringo sang a country song “Act Naturally”
At the risk of bringing down the thunderbolts, in retrospect, the early Beatles were the Backstreet Boys of their time!
What else would you call a group that’s named the Fab Four, comprised of four young mean, each handsome in their own way (Paul with his poodle eyes, John the tuff boy, Ringo cute-ugly, and George, well, never mind), tossing their bangs and singing sweet love songs with just a hint of naughtiness (“She was just 17 / well you know what I mean”).
Listen to the Ed Sullivan tracks. You think the girls were screaming because Paul barred the bottom two strings playing the G chord on “Hard Day’s Night?”
There’s just two differences between then and now: the producers are much more efficient in marketing boy bands now, and the Beatles – who worked damn hard at their craft – went way beyond everyones expectations, even their own, artistically and financially and everything else.
I can understand people not liking them. I grew up on them, and only recently have I started collecting their albums. I didn’t need to for so long, because their music was just out there in the culture. You couldn’t avoid them even if you wanted to. A lot of what they did was ahead of their time, but that doesn’t matter now except as an interesting bit of history. What’s left is the music, and some of it will survive and a lot of it will fade away, like everything else in this life.
Oh, I can think of some more differences between the Beatles and the Backstreet Boys and the other modern boy bands…
The modern boy bands didn’t write their own music or play any instuments except their own studio enhanced voices…the Beatles did.
The boy bands are assembled by producers and record executives from want adds and talent scouts…the Beatles emerged after years of playing together in some of the toughest concert circuits imaginable in Germany and the British Isles.
The Beatles were always in full control artistically, the boy bands have no control…the Beatles were the first rock band to be praised by the mainstream critics and media, the boy bands are not…the Beatles had the respect of their peers, making rock music respectable enough artistically for folkies like Dylan and r ‘n’ b purists like the Stones to become rock acts, the boy bands do not.
Actually, when you really look at it, the only thing that the Beatles had in common with boy bands is that both attracted audiences of teenage girls, except the boy band attract audiences only of teenage girls and the Beatles had a much broader appeal.
The boy bands of the Beatle’s era were the teen idols of the Pat Boone/Fabian variety that were dominating the charts and airwaves in the early sixties. The Beatles were initally rejected for American release mainly because they were considered too hard rocking. Stuff like “I Saw Her Standing There”, “All my Loving” and “Twist and Shout” was heavier than just about anything else being made at the time.