|
|
Joined:
June 2005
Posts: 1320
Location: Round Rock, TX | The short version (for Paul ;) ):
I like a lot of musicians, but the Beatles are the only band that I can listen to all day and not want to listen to something else.
The long version:
I have my own categories for musical accomplishment. The next to the top level is Genius. There are lots of geniuses. Zappa is a genius, Beethoven is a genius, the list goes on and on. The top level is Mutant, people that are so good that they transcend human. I only have three entries in my mutant category. J.S. Bach is a mutant. Mozart is a mutant. The Beatles, collectively, including George Martin, make up a mutant. While I like some of their solo stuff (Harrison,s All Things Must Pass, Lennon's Imagine and Double Fantasy (Lennon's parts of it anyway), and Macca's first two spring to mind), none of it compares to the stuff they did together. In seven years they went from a well-regarded pub band to world-changing icons and put together a library that, 40 years later, still excites a huge population of fans of all ages, races and cultures. No other band has done what they did. AND they did it all with no musical training (except for GM), terrible management and on serious drugs. Amazing.
George Martin was, in my mind, crucial to their success, but name me one other band he produced that did nearly as well as the Beatles. On their own, none of them had more than a few genius moments (Harrison more than the others, IMO) while most of their post-Beatles stuff is "merely" great (I except Wings, which rarely, if ever, did anything great). The five of them, together, however, produced true mutant-level music. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| It's been my experience that when someone asks me what I think, they're really using it as an opening to tell me what they think.
So what do you think, Brooklyn? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | Losov, my wife and I run our own business, and we're generally each other's company, so you can imagine that it's rare that someone asks my opinion, so I'm honored. I love the Beatles. I started playing guitar because of them, I agreed with the statement that they're up there with those other mutants, Bach & Mozart. I agreed with a news reporter who said, 'great music is heard in the heart and body & soul and the least important place you experience it is the ears.' That's what I think of the Beatles. Thanks for asking! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1478
Location: Michigan | they were the reason that i got into music.
it was so cool to see them in the beginning stages of the group how much they enjoyed playing together and how equal they all seemed to be with each others roles ,and then as fame and fortune started to grow on them so did their talents and egos.it was great for music but the end for the band as equals.that's the way it goes with huge success but they did completly turn the world on their ass with their music, wit and personalities and i don't think that anyone or group in my lifetime will ever top them.
that is why they are called the fab four.they made the music history books that our grandkids are reading about today.the were the biggest life altering band that i have witnessed in 55 years.
GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 5563
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains | Sure wish I still had my collection of early Beatles 45s and albums.
Brad, guess what else is "under my bed"...lol
I have a complete set of Beatles Capitol LP's, and Lennon Capitol LP's and many 45's...and I recently bought a vintage Sansui stereo to listen to my records again the way they were meant to be heard...loud and proud...as Al says, "If its too loud, then you're too old"!
The Beatles are responsible for opening my ears to music...from a tiny transistor radio w/one earpiece...my first iPod...lol
George Martin was a genius...and the Boys were simply great!
"Beatles 65" IMHO is one of the best albums of all time..."I'm a Loser" still grabs me even today... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 416
Location: On the Coast - Halfway between SF & OR | Bach, Mozart and the Beatles? Sorry, I just can't see it. Maybe it's just a matter of time and place. My youth was filled by Bill Monroe and his ilk; the Beatles, though known, just weren't a part of my world. I came to appreciate some of their work but that work will never have the power to move me like Bach or Mozart can. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
I've said this before, and most of you didn't hold it against me, but I didn't like them at all. I was listening to John Mayall and FZ, and, even though the term hadn't been coined yet, they sounded like bubblegum to me. I didn't think theyir songwriting was all that great. Sounded to me like they just chose random words because they rhymed. I didn't think they were exceptional musicians either. They were in the right place at the right time, and with heavy promotion, they made it big. Sorry. Nothing to be sorry about. I'm right with ya. Maybe it's a CT thing? I like a few of the songs over the years.. Birthday, Helter Skelter, WHile my Guitar Gently weeps and a few others, but as a group.. and all the fuss... just didn't get it.
That answers the topic question, but moving onto philosophy... Everything has to start someplace... and thanks to the right group of guys, including George Martin, at the right time, and much MUCH larger than the music, they created the concept of the "Super Group." It's the reason everyone from Hannah Montana to Madonna to Britney Spears to US, to the Jonas Brothers and the list goes on and on.... achieved what they have achieved.
The concept model of making music for the largest audience that's likely to hear it, hyping it, creating an image, launching a brand. The Beatles did it first and while the formula may have been tweaked a bit to accommodate modern times, it essentially has remained the same.
I'm sorry but "raw talent" was NOT the key to their success. I'm not saying they weren't great musicians, singers and songwriters, I'm just saying that without the machine, the hype, the branding, the marketing, I doubt we would be having this conversation. They'd be like all the great musicians who came before them and after them that we'll never hear of.
There is one thing that has erked me about the Beatles that I've never really heard anyone address, and that's the famous "kids against the barrier at the airport" film when they arrived in NY. I remember, even as kid wondering... how did all those people find out what flight they were going to be on, what day, and where. Even today, with cell phones, twitter, that interweb thang.. unless it's leaked information (which in most cases it is) no one knows when anyone shows up anywhere. What did it take in the early 60's to get 1000's of screaming kids to mob the right airport at the right airline at the right time for the right people? I've always wondered about that........
So yes... great musicians, but that was only a part of what was known as "The Beatles." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | I remember watching The Beatles at Shea Stadium on TV (in B&W) and I could hear... well nothing.
Later on in life I discovered that if you went to any of those concerts you wouldn't Hear the concert.
I am trying to remember what music I was Really listening to back then. (early 60's)
I believe that it was Peter Paul & Mary, Burl Ives, Johnny Rivers... (I was really young)
In the later 60's, Donovan, Steppenwolf, Cream, Iron Butterfly, Ten Years After, The Animals...
[I didn't much like the Stones back then either] |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 214
Location: Stratford, Connecticut | Timeless and Memorable... Madonna is not that... Elvis on the other had was/is.... FZ and Mayall albeit amazing technical musicians... not timeless and memorable... and I mean that with the utmost respect for their talents. This is how I see it.. just basic common sense "to me". |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | What a boring world this would be if we all liked the same things for the same reasons. Thanks for all the comments so far, on both sides of the appeal spectrum. It's what I hoped to see, and it's always an education when people are willing to say 'what' backed up by 'why' |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| When I was younger, people would sing incredibly bad versions of "Michelle" when they found out my name. I just wished that the song would die! :mad: Now that I'm an "old fart", how I wish that someone would sing it to me! :D
I do like some of the Beatle's stuff, especially "In My Life". But I wouldn't say that they were a big influence on me musically. I would consider The Lovin' Spoonful to be a bigger influence on me musically than the Beatles. JMO of course.
Michelle |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | ~Michelle, ma belle, son les mots que vont, tres bien ensemble, tres bien ensemble ... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | I liked them. Their impact was hugh. How many times have you read in guitar mags that "I started playing guitar after I saw them on the Ed Sullivan show" THAT FAMOUS NIGHT THAT THE WORLD CHANGED. So the rest is about their impact on music, which was also great, and much of that credit needs to go to George Martin.
Now I find their music really dated, I can't stand to listen to it. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| Originally posted by an4340:
~Michelle, ma belle, son les mots que vont, tres bien ensemble, tres bien ensemble ... Thanks, An! That made my day! :)
Michelle |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | There's no question that the music of the Beatles was (and is) extremely successful, certainly financially and most definitely with respect to cultural popularity. However, I'm not sure I'm ready to place them on the same historical shelf as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Verdi. They may well be remembered more for their place in pop culture rather than their musical prowess. Maybe those who are listening to music 250 years from now will have a better idea of how the Beatles stand up over the test of time. The same goes for other popular 20th century musicians such as George Cohan, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Frank Sinatra and many others. Leonard Bernstein and Andrew Lloyd Webber might have a better chance of still being played in the year 2400. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15664
Location: SoCal | The Beatles' music was fun. To make more of it than that is a mistake. They were the right people with the right tunes at the right time. Their early stuff was light fun pop. I started getting tired of them when they started thinking too highly of themselves -- mid 60's or so. It became interesting, but boring.... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Originally posted by Mr. Ovation:
There is one thing that has erked me about the Beatles that I've never really heard anyone address, and that's the famous "kids against the barrier at the airport" film when they arrived in NY. I remember, even as kid wondering... how did all those people find out what flight they were going to be on, what day, and where. Even today, with cell phones, twitter, that interweb thang.. unless it's leaked information (which in most cases it is) no one knows when anyone shows up anywhere. What did it take in the early 60's to get 1000's of screaming kids to mob the right airport at the right airline at the right time for the right people? I've always wondered about that........
Murray the K. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2008
Posts: 90
Location: los angeles | I'm with Beal on this for being able to listen to them now. Then, there was always excitement for me to hear the newest album by them. That ended for me with "Let It Be" which I never liked from the beginning. My first guitar teacher told me to take any Beatles songbook and learn the chord progressions. One thing they did for rock and roll is integrate a lot of new chords into the mix which made it really interesting and quite beyond the Chuck Berry thing which seemed to continue in watered down form until the Beatles. Heavy marketing? Yes. They also fine-tuned the Col. Parker machine but instead of being stuck in bad movies,they got to do what they wanted to do. Are we the better for it? I think greatly. Unfortunately, I think they stopped growing by the time of Let it Be, going back to "roots" which in my opinion was not done really well. But their cultural phenomena will live on - even if I can't listen to them anymore.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
The question was "What do you think of them?" I answered it honestly. But as far as impacting the world, a lot of people would say the same about Madonna, but that doesn't mean she's a good musician. Elvis changed the world, but I wasn't a fan of his either. I was answering the question as a musician, which I already was at the time the Beatles came out. I just never could see what all the fuss was about. I agree...kinda silly, requently inane words, simple melodies...kids' stuff. Moved a lot of money around, but didn't move music forward. All of this is Just My Humble Opinion, of course, but music seemed to peak with the truly greats -- Bach. Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn... It's been little more than pretenders since. And recently, it's been all so non-musical...people who couldn't survive without their light-shows, videos, dance moves, makeup, odd hairstyles, beheaded chickens, effects, fog machines, outlandish behavior, weird clothes...all very interesting stuff, I'm sure, but all very non-musical.
And, of course, the Beatles for the longest time, were simply all about their shocking long hair,a nd the rebellion it represented, and how CUUUUUUTE they were. Again, all on-musical stuff. And, again, JMHO, but none of these fun, but largely insignificant pop bands, last very long in a dark room with the eyes shut, where their sound has to carry them.
Mozart does. He ALWAYS does. Never needs any of the non-musical, 'cause that would distract from the astonishing music.
So, if the question is what to think of them in the broader musical context, I think they were a non-musical, but historical, phenomenon. In a narrower sense -- an excuse to "dance," meet girls, become a "musician" quickly (and therefore meet more girls), and have a party, they were good enough. But, I think THAT was their principal significance. Most pop bands since then were really pretty much the same thing. Not artistically significant, but when lots and lots of money cahnges hands, then they DO become worthy of notice by historians and sociologists. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Just fun. Just a fad. Just lucky. Just good marketing.
Sure.
...of course, that makes it harder to explain why they are still ranked as either #1 or #2 (depending on the source) best selling artists of all time. And how a 'greatest hits' album released 30 years after their breakup managed to sell 12 million units in 3 weeks worldwide.
Whether you like (or liked) them or not it's hard to deny there hasn't been anything like them since. Their musical influence is still widely found in modern music. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Originally posted by AlanM:
Moved a lot of money around, but didn't move music forward.
And, again, JMHO, but none of these fun, but largely insignificant pop bands, last very long in a dark room with the eyes shut, where their sound has to carry them.
So, if the question is what to think of them in the broader musical context, I think they were a non-musical, but historical, phenomenon. Nothing personal, Alan, but I am now officially convinced you have no idea what you're talking about...
JMHO. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2004
Posts: 256
Location: chicago | I had just purchased HELP!been listeneing to it for a week straight,when I was a kid Ive just seen a face was on rubber soul(my fav. Beatles lp)now its on help like the original intention.Here comes the sun has recently motivated me to leave the capo at the 7th fret on my twelver inspiring a cool Mike rutherford anthony phillips sound......Damn Beatles,Hey what happened to the Bangles they were supposed to be the next Beatles? Jeff |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12754
Location: Boise, Idaho | I agree with Alan. Their huge popularity doesn't prove anything in terms of musical talent. Certainly they had it, but comparing them to great classical composers is pretty ridiculous, like comparing a popular current novel to a literary classic. Just because a huge group of teenagers fell in love with them, doesn't make them musical geniuses. It just makes them one of the giants of pop culture. I pretty much tuned them out at "I Want to Hold Your Hand". They got much better after that, but the popularity of that song didn't make it high art. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2008
Posts: 1119
Location: Michigan | Originally posted by Losov:
It's been my experience that when someone asks me what I think, they're really using it as an opening to tell me what they think.
So what do you think, Brooklyn? :) :) :) So true except for questions about which strings are best. :) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 795
Location: Texas | I am also with Beal, liked them a lot but can not stand listening to those songs now, specially anyone doing Beatle covers.
I still really like some of George's songs, after Beatles.
Now, Jim Croce, I can listen to him everyday. :) |
|
| |
The Beatles
