Well, as much as I love Paul (He is my favorite musician of all time), I think the reason he didn’t get as much respect for Wings is because he turned out a few real stinkers. Paul is a pretty sappy song writer, and when he was in The Beatles, Lennon kinda kept an edge to the music. I can imagine if something was too sappy, John called him on it. And it worked the other way. Sometimes John’s music was too edgy, and Paul would make a few suggestions to kinda balance it out. I know they didn’t always write songs together, but the influence was still there. After they went their seperate ways, they weren’t even talking anymore, much less influencing each other.
Besides that, he’s Paul McCartney, who’s going to tell him, “Uh, Macca, that song is really corney. Can you change it?” George Martin maybe, but he didn’t produce all of Paul’s work.
First, thanks all for the info on George not playing lead on “Taxman” and “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”.
Second, I’ve been thinking about what a few other posters have said about the Beatles being a “boy band” and wanted to expand on that a little.
In retrospect I think it’s perfectly legitimate to look at the early Beatles (say, up until Rubber Soul) as a “boy band”. Take a look for instance at the concert footage for the show at the end of Hard Day’s Night - lots of 13 year old girls screaming for their favorite Beatle. I really doubt whether any of those girls cared much about what they were singing. Indeed at the time the Beatles were little more than the next flavor of the month, although they did show more staying power than most. Indeed, my wife (who is a huge Beatles fan) has often asked me why the Beatles were so popular in the early years - to her ears at least there’s not much difference in what they’re doing compared to any one else, particularily on the very early stuff when they’re doing lots of covers.
What made the difference was their growth as musicians and songwriters. They could have kept churning out “Beatles for Sale”-like albums and been at least moderatly successful for a few more years, but instead released “Rubber Soul”, “Revolver”, and “Sgt. Pepper” in succession. How many other bands have traveled a distance equivelant to that between “Love Me Do” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” in the course of their entire existance, let alone in just a few years. I mean as much as I like the Stones, for instance, I don’t think they’ve grown as much over 30+ years as the Beatles did in 3.
So I can understand (sort of) not liking the Beatles music, but I really can’t understand anyone really believing they suck.
(snicker) From a trivia quiz in a 1977 issue of the late lamented National Lampoon:
Q: When did Paul McCartney record “Silly Love Songs” ?
A: 1962-1977.
omni-not, here’s something a little more contemporary, from The Beatles Anthology, published last year (p. 309):
OK, I’ll allow you your dewey-eyed adoration of the Beatles (even if I think it’s overdone), but don’t start bashing the Stones. I would say the Stones showed at least as much growth as the Beatles over the same time span, progressing from their roots as a blues cover band to producing such gems as “Gimme Shelter” and “Paint It, Black”.
I can get a bit carried away sometimes - after all, in the long run they were just a band.
I deny any attempt to bash the Stones, though. They are one of my favorites as well. In fact, the very first CD I ever bought (back when you bought CD’s to replace albums or cassettes) was a Stones CD. And although I sadly never had the chance to compare them there’s no doubt in my mind that the Stones were always a better live act than the Beatles.
To my ears, though, even something as brilliant as “Gimme Shelter” seems like a logical conclusion when you think about where the Stones started out. Kind of like they got pointed in one direction and just kept going. Sure, they went light-years beyond where they started, but it seems like there is some connection there. Admittedly this is from a 30+ year perspective and not as it happened, and there’s the distinct possibility I’m full of crap.
By the same token, though, I don’t see how anyone could listen to “Love Me Do” and make the leap that in just a few years the same group of people would create something like “Tomorrow Never Knows”. Even with the 30+ year perspective it still seems like one of those “you can’t get there from here” things.
But that’s just my opinion, and worth just what you paid for it.
2 things: 1) I would never judge music based on what its categorized as. Its the media that categorizes Public Enemy and Arrested Development as “Rap”. If I was an artist, I would not want anyone throwing me into a genre. I’d like to think that there was something special about me that separates me from the other artist in my category.
- I never argued that many of today’s popular and not-so-popular artists claim to be heavily influenced by the Beatles. As I said, if they were constantly on the radio for 15 impressionable years of your life, you’d have no choice in being influenced by them. This does NOT make them great and it does not grant them immunity from criticism. Hey, if you name 10 “great” bands that say that they were influenced by the Beatles, I’m sure you’ll be able to find another 1,000 “bad” bands that also were. I’ll bet that there are far more “bad” bands that were more influenced by the Beatles than by any other band, just as there were far more “great” bands that were.
So, in short, the objective criteria that you’re looking for in measuring greatness doesn’t exist. But I do understand where you’re coming from. You love the Beatles and you consider them to be the “greatest”. And by having so many others agree with you, it makes it easier for you to believe this. But I think that this reasoning is flawed. Its flawed in the same way that “Since most people voted for President A, that he must be the best”, and “Since most people are Christian, Jesus must be the real god.”
Since this thread shows no signs of dying any time soon, I am officially tired of receiving the email notification so I’m just posting here to uncheck that little box. Pretend you never even saw this.
Hey, I admitted that my search for objectivity in a case like this is impossible. Nor do I love the Beatles, or think they’re the greatest band in the world. I’ve stated that I don’t even own a Beatles album. I do really like them, however, and although I like bands like The Smashing Pumpkins, XTC, the Buzzcocks and the Jam better, I think the Beatles were the most influential pop band ever. And because I trust my ears AND the opinions of other musicians I respect, I come to this conclusion. Hey, you obviously disagree, so fine. I still want to know what precisely it is you don’t like about the music. I honestly do want to understand why you think they suck. I get the sense from most people that they think the Beatles “suck” because, well, it’s just cool to be anti-mainstream, to be a contrarian. Well, it seems that you don’t fall into this category. You seem to like the Smiths (I love ‘em, too. Also influenced by our Liverpudlian pals,) you seem to like Radiohead (so do I. One of the greatest bands of the 90s.) I just want to know where this falls apart. We have similar tastes in music, and I’m just curious why you personally think they suck. It’s not about you just not liking them; you seem to objectively think they were a terrible band. It’s like somebody who was into Bartok, Ives and Shoenberg saying that Mozart or Bach sucked. Ah, too mathematical, that Bach. Mozart and his fuckin’ cliche Alberti bass in the Sonata for C minor. C’mon can’t we stray away from the I, IV and V7 chords a little more?
Really, I’m trying to understand here.
My explanation for why I think that they “suck” has been given already. To repeat, I think that their music is average, their vocals are average, and their lyrics are below average, IMHO. I agree that they probably influenced The Smiths and Radiohead to some extent or another (although I don’t hear much resemblance to either band). But I still don’t like their music. I could be bored as hell with a pile of Beatles CDs, a pile 'N Sync CDs, and a CD player, and I would be indifferent as to which CD to put in the player. And I think I’ve probably only heard 2 'N Sync songs in my life, both of which I didn’t particularly like.
So I guess that there’s no real explanation.
But I do like XTC alot.
all right… fair enough. i think it’s time to put this thing to bed…