View Full Version : What's so great about the Beatles?
sluggish
03-07-2010, 02:08
I seek a multinational perspective on this because I've just never gotten what the big deal about the Beatles is. Now I'm not saying they're bad, and I'm not talking about a vs. the Stones thing. I just don't understand we're all basically required to like them so much.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 03:15
No offense, Steve, but that's kind of luke warm. But then again, that's how I feel about them too. So-so.
Well with The Beatles being my parent's music it didn't help to get me into them, but I was always of the same opinion - "so what?" but then all I'd really ever heard were the radio-friendly singles, and I think the impact of them (innovation wise) was softened, as when I got to hear them they were already 15-20 years old, post disco, post-punk, post pretty much everything.
But, after joining this very forum, I too asked the question, and ended up buying the CD remaster of Abbey Road late last year. Suffice to say, after listening to a whole album, I started to "get" that they are not just about the hits. Inevitably, I now own ALL of the remastered CDs, and whilst not every one is a masterpiece, I have finally "seen the light". In fact, I think I'll put one on now!
No offense, Steve, but that's kind of luke warm. But then again, that's how I feel about them too. So-so.
No offence taken, but I also am not a great fan, I didn't get the Beach Boys either
Whether or not someone from a more recent era appreciates the Beatles isn't the point. You need to assess their music with respect to its era. Would it be successful today if it were being released for the first time? I doubt it but it was groundbreaking at the time and holds strong memories and associations for many.
I'm 52 and I don't get the beatles, I do however agree that at the time they were innovative as I said in my first post on the subject. I did quite enjoy Wings back in the early 70s, I was more of a Clapton fan
Anyone who doesn't like The Beatles is wrong.
I'm 52 and I don't get the beatles, I do however agree that at the time they were innovative as I said in my first post on the subject. I did quite enjoy Wings back in the early 70s, I was more of a Clapton fan
You are probably too young to have really grown up with the Beatles, you need to be closer to 60.
Well, I'm 53 and a half, and grew up with them in the 60's. You have to understand how fast things were changing back then in music and fashion.
Maybe the Beatles have become figureheads for those times, and I feel we owe George Martin so very much for steering them (and the studio technology then available) to such great heights.
The Beatles' music is near the beginning of the rock and pop road. Many of the songs, however, are truly timeless and adapt themselves to many styles I think. I wouldn't say that they were especially wonderful as musicians, especially when compared with the incredible musicians from the prog era (who knew it too IMO), but they worked so well together for those few years.
My son is leaving Primary School this summer and he's been learning "A little Help From My Friends." He was rather shocked when his Mum and I started singing it without mistakes, totally unprompted :)
As we're talking ages, I'm 53; 54 this month. My sister is 5 years older than me which tended to get me into music earlier than friends without older siblings. For the early Beatles, which are the more significant influence in terms of culture, I'm a little "young", my sister will have experienced the changing world at that time even more than I did. The world was still recovering from WWII at the end of the 50's so the early 60's were a rapid time of change as you say Dave. The first Beatles LP was in 63. I think to really experience what it meant probably you needed to be at least about 13 to 15 in '63.
At the end of the 60s when their youthful creativity was drying up and they were no longer best mates living in the same town, they released Abbey Road, a great rock album. If they had started up later in the 60s and hadnt done the teeny bopper stuff , they could have been producing albums that rivaled the best west coast psychedelia. They were a band of their time and were definetly revolutionary.
Their magic did something to me as a little boy in the 70s. Life looked grey and dull back then but i discovered the escapist joys of record collecting, every week buying a 7" Beatles reissue complete with a picture sleeve.
Agree about Beach boys , most of my music collection is American artists but dont have any Beach boys. I dont get how Pet sounds is regarded as a classic
..... If they had started up later in the 60s and hadnt done the teeny bopper stuff .......
...they would not have been the band that they were. Don't be too swift to dismiss the 'teeny bopper stuff', there is much in their early output which is in fact as revolutionary and musically inventive as any of the later stuff.
What happened between the early and late music was the 60's itself, a cultural and social revolution we have not seen the like of since, which of course they played no small part in themselves!
Cheers:cool:
I can imagine after Georgie Fame and Cliff Richard , hearing the early Beatles fresh from Hamburg would have been mind blowing.
quadsugdenman
03-07-2010, 14:15
Well, I'm 53 and a half, and grew up with them in the 60's. You have to understand how fast things were changing back then in music and fashion.
Maybe the Beatles have become figureheads for those times, and I feel we owe George Martin so very much for steering them (and the studio technology then available) to such great heights.
The Beatles' music is near the beginning of the rock and pop road. Many of the songs, however, are truly timeless and adapt themselves to many styles I think. I wouldn't say that they were especially wonderful as musicians, especially when compared with the incredible musicians from the prog era (who knew it too IMO), but they worked so well together for those few years.
My son is leaving Primary School this summer and he's been learning "A little Help From My Friends." He was rather shocked when his Mum and I started singing it without mistakes, totally unprompted :)
You are spot on David. I am 57 and grew up with the Beatles. It was a time of change and innovation and the Beatles (and George Martin especially) were at the centre of the whole pop music revolution. The gradual shift from early 60's chart hits to Rubber Soul / Revolver to Sgt Peppers and beyond in 5 years was and still is an astonishing journey. They changed popular music forever - end of!!!:youtheman:
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 15:51
Beatles are brilliant
What do you think was the most groundbreaking at the time The Beatles with 'Sgt Peppers' or The Pink Floyd with the debut 'The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn'? both in Abbey Road at the same time being recorded?
quadsugdenman
03-07-2010, 16:17
Beatles are brilliant
What do you think was the most groundbreaking at the time The Beatles with 'Sgt Peppers' or The Pink Floyd with the debut 'The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn'? both in Abbey Road at the same time being recorded?
They both were groundbreaking in their own way IMHO. The difference was the Beatles relied heavily on George Martin for the orchestration and production of those amazing tracks as they were often unfamiliar with modern studio and production techniques.
Floyd and especially Syd Barrett on the other hand knew exactly what they were doing and relied very little on influences outside the band to produce that really spaced-out album.;)
sluggish
03-07-2010, 17:35
Wow, thanks everyone -- lots of good stuff here. But have any of the Beatles non-initiates been swayed? To me, the thing that is at the core of this has to do with seems to be a nearly compulsory duty to think the Beatles are wonderful. I can see that they may be extrinsically wonderful, within the context of their time and culture. But as for their intrinsic value, irrespective of their time and culture, to me they still seem to be a decent enough but rather bland and innocuous pop band.
Rare Bird
03-07-2010, 17:43
Hi Randy
I said the Beatles were Brilliant but i'm sorry to say i have to pass on the early clobber
Wow, thanks everyone -- lots of good stuff here. But have any of the Beatles non-initiates been swayed? To me, the thing that is at the core of this has to do with seems to be a nearly compulsory duty to think the Beatles are wonderful. I can see that they may be extrinsically wonderful, within the context of their time and culture. But as for their intrinsic value, irrespective of their time and culture, to me they still seem to be a decent enough but rather bland and innocuous pop band.
Then you've not been listening to, for example, 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'I Am The Walrus' or 'Tomorrow Never Knows'.
No-one has to like The Beatles, any more than they have to like Shakespeare, or Tolstoy, or Mozart, but to describe them as a 'bland and innocuous pop band' is missing the point by several light years.
Pete The Cat
03-07-2010, 18:26
It's easy to become over-exposed and desensitised to things down the years when you keep hearing them as background music. When you listen to The Beatles' less familiar tracks you begin to understand the appeal as people did when they were fresh. I didn't hear "The Night Before" until I was mid 30's, it was probably just an album filler by their standards but knocks spots off most of what's being released by so-called "indie bands" this week.
Pete
sluggish
03-07-2010, 19:37
Joe, comparing them to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart isn't overstating it a bit, is it? This is the attitude of compulsory devotion I'm talking about. Whereas I agree with Clive that they had real merit when framed within the context of their time and place, and I can easily acknowledge that prog rock fans like Andre will appreciate the contributions the Beatles made to the concept album as a genre, I don't accept that I have to grant the Beatles any uniquely special status, that especially, intrinsically important.
True, their music may be a repository for the feelings and outlooks of those who experienced an important time, but these were largely the views of white middle class teens -- not an especially important group. To put it into context, the 1863 civil rights march in DC was important, the '64 Civil Rights Act was important, the '64 Ed Sullivan appearance was background noise. Sinatra to the Ramons to Tupac were all highly relevant to those who were young during their respective periods, yet few of even their most devoted fans have the hubris to compare them to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart with a straight face. What makes the Beatles so special? Was it the band, or was it their particular contemporary group of teenage and young adult fans grew up to consider themselves uniquely important and special? Do baby boomers confuse extrinsic value with intrinsic value when it come to their pop icons?
I don't think the comparisons are overstating the case; certainly with regards to their influence on the direction of popular music The Beatles were as influential as Shakespeare and Mozart in their fields. Comparisons to the impact of contemporary political events are really beside the point.
Tell you summat, when an amateur guitarist friend tried some of their tracks, he found the chords often difficult to play properly, as you needed VERY agile fingers to get the correct positions one after the other on the fret..
For me, the songs on each album and single went from one mood to the other. Rubber Soul was the first LP I ever bought for myself in 1966 and I know and love the songs more and more as the decades pass. "In My Life" was played at our wedding..
sluggish
03-07-2010, 20:01
Joe, I've always heard they they are so important/influential, but the argument is always presented in a self evident or tautological way. I'm willing to listen if you can explain it to me in a fairly robust fashion. Lots of artists were influential, but liking Son House or Bob Dylan in a devotional way is not nearly as compulsory as is liking the Beatles in that way, nor do so many people think your weird if you don't.
Beyond that, either they should be viewed a product of their time, or they should not. If they viewed are a product of their time, then gaging their relative importance during that time is fair -- The vaunted Sullivan appearance is not that important relative to other events of the time. If they are to be viewed on their intrinsic merit, irrespective of time and place, then it's fair to not that to many of us who weren't there at the time, the band's music does indeed sound bland and innocuous today. Either way, comparing them to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart will be a tough sell, but I'm willing to open my mind to a strong case for it.
Either way, comparing them to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart will be a tough sell, but I'm willing to open my mind to a strong case for it.
I expect more people today are aware of The Beatles than Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart. So who is more relevant? Even Dylan is not hugely referred to outside of the US. It's all very well to look at The Beatles in purely musical terms but your really must look at their cultural impact too, or rather their part in changing the world we live in. This is actually more fundamental than the impact of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart. Possibly not Tolstoy.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 20:17
Dave, I've no doubt they were/are great musicians, nor am I saying they're not significant. I just saying that not only do I not "get" them, I don't see why it's not OK to not "get" them. Not getting hip hop doesn't make you a racist, and you can not be devoted to prog rock, yet legions of ELP and Yes fans won't hunt you down, but not "getting" the Beatles, these icons of boomer culture, somehow makse you weird or tin eared or misguided or just plain ignorant. Why is not liking/appreciating/admiring/respecting them intensely so wrong? Why is saying that they were just OK not good enough? Can they really be that obviously great yet missing it for years?
sluggish
03-07-2010, 20:21
Clive, who will be more relevant in 100 or 200 years? Will the beatles stack up against the BiIg 3 then? MAybe, sure, but I'm still not getting it. The band must have been quite a thing in their time, agreed, but will they become merely a nostalgia piece or a temporal marker? If not, why?
sluggish
03-07-2010, 20:23
Let's put it this way: In what ways did the Beatles change the world, and how did they do it? That they wrote highly marketable pop tunes with enduring appeal is a fact that I freely acknowledge. But to say that they changes the world or that they compare to Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart, these are extraordinary claims, and they will require extraordinary support. Usually, however, this support come in the form of some kind of circular argument that boils down to "it is so because it is so." Can anyone do better? How about the converted, those who only later came to see the Beatle light?
Randy,
I think what Joe, was saying was you don't have to like the Beatles, any more than you have to like Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or Mozart.
It's very easy to be defensive, partisan, nationalistic or even jingoistic about the Beatles. At the very least they wrote some excellent pop songs. Later they started to write songs displaying acute, insightful and sensitive social observation. Just listen to 'Elenor Rigby' or 'She's Leaving Home' and tell me you're not moved. How about 'Penny Lane'?
Of course they were not the only ones doing this: The Beach Boys 'Pet Sounds' is as an eloquent expression of the doubts and emotions a teenager (of that time) goes through as you could wish for.
Later still, the Beatles experimented with effects and ideas, with varing success, like others such as The Pink Floyd with their 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn'. However it was the Beatles (with George Martin's help) that, I believe, gave others (at least in the UK) license to 'have a go'.
I am of an age where I must honestly say that the Beatles had a seminal influence on me. But then, so too did The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Who and many others, including Dylan and Joan Baez and later Buffalo Springfield, The Mothers of Invention, Steppenwolf, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen, ...........
At the end of the day, you either like the Beatles or you don't - but don't dismiss them as not having made an important contribution to popular music. They did.
Regards
Let's put it this way: In what ways did the Beatles change the world, and how did they do it?
It's never as simple as that. They didn't do it on their own, they were doing something that contributed at the time that chimed with a big change, indeed they were a major catalyst. More so I believe that even Shakespeare, who in his time wasn't as revered as The Beatles were in there's, part of that is due to better comms in the 60's though nothing like we have now though. What did Shakespeare change in his lifetime? Hard to answer due to our not being around then but a lot less I believe.
The life and values of my parents are so very different to the 60's values, The Beatles were a huge part of that.
Hi Clive,
The first Beatles LP was in 63. I think to really experience what it meant probably you needed to be at least about 13 to 15 in '63.
I think you're dead right. You need to be that age at least to truly 'get' what they're about and the impact they made on the music scene in those days - truly groundbreaking.
It must've been a marvellous time to have been around at the right age to appreciate it all :)
Sadly, I wasn't even a twinkle in my father's eye in '63!
Marco.
For me-
Listening now to The Beatles - they sound dated - any album but esp. Sgt Pepper whereas Jimi Hendix, Black Sabbath and Led Zep don't.
That's not in the least to decry the cultural influence which was significant (and the majority of Lennon's solo stuff which I rate and which does not sound dated either).
Remember, there is only 5 or 6 years seperating these bands which we will all agree (as we are all 40 plus I am guessing) is nothing in temporal terms.
Comparing to Shakespeare, Mozart etc. Well, come off it - that's rhetoric IMHO - it's comparing apples and oranges. The legend of the Beatles will always persist but will dilute with each passing generation and their music will become a historical record. Will that happen with Hendrix? or Mozart?
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:08
Nicely done, Barry. And everyone please know that I'm not trying to dismiss the Beatles; I just don't think that they are Mozart level good, and I do often suspect that their more rabid fans feel entitled to expect others to share their devotion. And yes, some of their music was great, but is it fair to toss away the early stuff and overlook the pop drivel like Yellow Submarine or Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da in order to support their godlike status? No. In fact it is these boy band, pop fluff, and dance hall songs that have helped to keep them in the popular lexicon -- the "bad" songs (many of which I personally like quite a lot) provide the lowest common denominator component that supported, and continues to support, their massive perennial sales.
On the other hand I failed to consider the "UK-ness" of the band, or that they had special national significance. Of course they do, and I apologize for not bearing it in mind. In fact their very ubiquitousness that allowed me to overlook this aspect does speak to the breadth of their appeal. So very special, yes. World changing? I don't think they did much one way or the other to "make" the 1960s, but I can see how they may have had a deep effect on the British music world.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:14
Martin, I agree. That's a great point. Jimi Hendrix, Sabbath, and Led Zep are all artists/bands that I've come to "get," and they are all aging well. But not the Beatles. And I'm 42 and have a brother who's 52 so the late 60s/early '70s are not an entirely foreign temporal context to me.
I've never managed to "get" the Beatles... probably never will now at 47. :confused:
Martin, I agree. That's a great point. Jimi Hendrix, Sabbath, and Led Zep are all artists/bands that I've come to "get," and they are all aging well. But not the Beatles. And I'm 42 and have a brother who's 52 so the late 60s/early '70s are not an entirely foreign temporal context to me.
I'm 42 this year so we are contempories - although seperated by a couple of thousand miles of water. I was born and raised in Liverpool (I left in 1987) My mother who is 70 this year saw the Beatles on a couple of occasions at the original Cavern but she went there for the trad jazz that was the club's mainstay in the early sixties, not for new fangled pop music.
I had some family members, uncles and the like who knew some of the Beatles before - so quite close to the source, comparatively. There is a lot of hero worship in Liverpool still. Don't get me wrong though - there's a couple of Beatles tracks that still get me misty eyed, I'm not saying which ones:)
Stratmangler
03-07-2010, 22:29
There is one enormous thing you have missed Randy, and that is The Beatles were the first of the British invasion of America.
The significance of that is that it was they and other British bands who sold the music of America back to America.
Over in the US the Artists who influenced the music scene here in Britain were completely ignored.
It took the British invasion to capture the imagination of American youth at the time, and then provide the inspiration to go back and find out about all the forgotten original Artists, many of whom were still alive and definitely not making a living out of playing music.
So they were the first of a whole string of bands who showed America its' own musical and cultural heritage.
The problem is that one person's dated is another's classic. How many people have you heard say that classical music is dead peoples' music? If that view doesn't suggest dated then I don't know what does. BTW, I don't feel classical is dated but it's what some say. Some "dated" music comes around again too, loads of 90's stuff was close to 60's. If dated is being suggested, how can anyone say that Beatles is dated but say Led Zep I isn't? It's very enjoyable but not what generally would be produced today so that makes it dated I suppose. I think dated is not a good concept, it's entirely relevant to an individual at a point in time, nothing more.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:39
Yes, I understand. When I was younger I lived in North Carolina for a while as a teen, and I had a girlfriend whose mom had an actual shrine to Elvis in her living room. Elvis was very important to the South, and understanding that he helped that then often overlooked part of the country be taken seriously was important. I wouldn't have dared make fun of that shrine, and I respected that he was very important to many, but that didn't change the fact that I never really got post-Sun Elvis, either. There are obvious parallels to our broader broader discussion here, but it also was true that while the Elvis devotees demanded and rightfully expected your respect, they did not demand you share their devotion. Also while the serious Elvis thing was mostly a regional thing, the hard core and insistent Beatles types are plenty common in the US and probably elsewhere well beyond Liverpool or the UK.
The problem is that one person's dated is another's classic. How many people have you heard say that classical music is dead peoples' music? If that view doesn't suggest dated then I don't know what does. BTW, I don't feel classical is dated but it's what some say. Some "dated" music comes around again too, loads of 90's stuff was close to 60's. If dated is being suggested, how can anyone say that Beatles is dated but say Led Zep I isn't? It's very enjoyable but not what generally would be produced today so that makes it dated I suppose. I think dated is not a good concept, it's entirely relevant to an individual at a point in time, nothing more.
Imagine the Jimi Hendrix Band had never existed until they release Are You Experienced in 2010 i.e today. Everyone would hail it as superb, exciting, original music. Now draw the same analogy with the Beatles. That's what I mean by dated.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:44
Chris, I see the point, but wasn't that really more a Stones thing? Their whole catalog was deeply informed by American Blues and Country, but the Beatles, other than some Buddy Holly-esque early diddies, had a goodly share of Music Hall cheese as well as their own, admittedly unique, later work.
Yes, I understand. When I was younger I lived in North Carolina for a while as a teen, and I had a girlfriend whose mom had an actual shrine to Elvis in her living room. Elvis was very important to the South, and understanding that he helped that then often overlooked part of the country be taken seriously was important. I wouldn't have dared make fun of that shrine, and I respected that he was very important to many, but that didn't change the fact that I never really got post-Sun Elvis, either. There are obvious parallels to our broader broader discussion here, but it also was true that while the Elvis devotees demanded and rightfully expected your respect, they did not demand you share their devotion. Also while the serious Elvis thing was mostly a regional thing, the hard core and insistent Beatles types are plenty common in the US and probably elsewhere well beyond Liverpool or the UK.
I'm live and let live on the whole worship thing. It does no harm. - I have seen a shrine to Elvis also, in Liverpool, England. Certainly both the Beatles and Elvis had a potency that went beyond the music. The wider inpact they had, generated by their personalities and presence, cannot be decried. And was a positive force. But musically - they just weren't all that in my book. Or yours obviously.
Also I'd like reserve the right to one day (when I am the crazy old bloke down the pub whose still into his music) to construct a shrine to Steely Dan.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:51
Martin, I love that game! What would the "new" Beatles be? I keeping landing on the Jonas Brothers.
And back to Chris, you make a good point, Beatles quibbling aside. We Americans owe Brits like Bill Wyman and Eric Clapton a huge debt for formally and permanently to our own rich musical heritage. That guys like these helped introduce aging but still living Blues legends to a broader audience probably contributed to that genres preservation immeasurably.
sluggish
03-07-2010, 22:54
Potency is just the right word. Well done. But you shrine to Steely Dan will have to be limited to just one story, as it should by all right be severely compressed (imagine one of damn smiley things here, dammit).
Potency is just the right word. Well done. But you shrine to Steely Dan will have to be limited to just one story, as it should by all right be severely compressed (imagine one of damn smiley things here, dammit).
You're referring to the production on the last two albums I take it?:)
sluggish
03-07-2010, 23:03
Right. Weak joke. But I like them too, and was once crazy about them.
Right. Weak joke. But I like them too, and was once crazy about them.
'Any Major Dude' will lift me up if depressed every time.
I'm live and let live on the whole worship thing. It does no harm. - I have seen a shrine to Elvis also, in Liverpool, England. Certainly both the Beatles and Elvis had a potency that went beyond the music. The wider inpact they had, generated by their personalities and presence, cannot be decried. And was a positive force. But musically - they just weren't all that in my book. Or yours obviously.
Also I'd like reserve the right to one day (when I am the crazy old bloke down the pub whose still into his music) to construct a shrine to Steely Dan.
Dammit, I'm going to have to dig out my Steely Dan LPs and give them a spin.
I did start a thread expressing my misappreciation of Steely Dan asking others to help me out. Can't find the thread at the moment - no matter, I'll put the Dan on now.
Regards
The Grand Wazoo
04-07-2010, 00:06
I constanly find it astounding that anyone would ask this question. Then I realise that often, the reason it is asked is because of the significance of The Beatles.
There are very few bands or musicians that have changed the world. Almost none in fact. Sure, plenty of bands influenced other music and changed fashion and tastes a little, but The Beatles actually made our life on this planet different.
So many times, for people who came along after their impact, the environment they came into was the one that The Beatles had helped to shape.
Don't dismiss anything they did. There has been mention of their 'teenybopper' period - look how quickly they turned from a rock & roll covers band to a hit-making monster. This is so fundamental to what the music industry became that it's hard to imagine what came before.
As for the psychedelic music - it was as important as much of what came from the West Coast of the US - those bands were watching for The Beatles next move (like a hawk).
Look what they did for songwriting - the writer owning their own publishing rights. Look how they influenced politics, art, hairstyles, fashion......
Believe me - you wouldn't recognise this world without The Beatles.
Rare Bird
04-07-2010, 00:23
Look what they did for songwriting
Take the King Crimson 'Lizard' LP for example
sluggish
04-07-2010, 00:36
Chris, you could be right. But I suspect their significance might be largely generational in nature. They could be like Sartre. People though he was totally the shit, a timeless master on par with the likes of Kant. Then he died, and poof, now he's not much more than an occasional midterm question or Philosophy midterm question material. The same fate likely awaits Derrida. And maybe the Beatles, too. Or they could just be remembered later as something along the lines of the George Martin Project.
The Grand Wazoo
04-07-2010, 00:39
Well, half of them are dead - are we both half right?!
Whether they are remembered or not, is not the point to me - they really did change the world, that's the point! However, I'm sure their work will still be appreciated long beyond living memory.
sluggish
04-07-2010, 01:23
They really did change the world how? Beyond opening up the British musical scene I mean.
Well,Ringo made it to film and did the Majic Christian with Peter Sellers,that had to be a global event in itself.
In the 60s, music was the main popular culture. Prior to them, popular music was defined as individual songs and individual artists. Also, the main popular culture was US-based (rock&roll).
Beatles redefined almost everything :
- albums were more important than songs (and were not made of filler-like pieces),
- the collective group work became more important than the individual work
- the concerts started becoming huge and were delivered in outdoor stadiums (1965, North American Tour).
- the recording process (in Abbey Road studios) as they were not charged for the time spent in studio
- experimented intensively with recording by putting classical instruments in modern popular songs, close miking of acoustic instruments, feedback, direct input, sampling and other new recording techniques
- shifted US dominance of popular music to UK
It's extremely hard to make a complete list. But their influence to the other popular music performers is enormous. It's even hard to find one who was not influenced in a major way.
You shape the young (15-30y) popular music -> you shape the world.
And I will not talk about clothes or fashion. ;)
aquapiranha
04-07-2010, 07:39
I grew up near Liverpool so I think I may have been exposed to them even more than some! I can honestly say that I do not really like their music. I did try, after it was talked about before, maybe not on here, I bought two albums - abbey Road and another that escapes me. I simply couldn't get on with them though. I am not sure why and I am certainly not attempting to reduce their reputation. I do believe however that they were in the right place at the right time, and that the younger people about when they appeared were desperate for an escape from the dreary 'rock and roll' type music of the 50's and the Beatles gave them this escape. I think there were other bands around at the time who were just as, if not more talented, the Kinks and Procul Harem and Floyd for example.
There are three different issues here.
1) Whether you like The Beatles' music (some or all of it, because their output was incredibly varied)
2) Whether The Beatles were a major influence on Western popular culture
3) Whether this influence will last.
IMO, 1) is entirely a matter of taste, which as we know cannot be accounted for*, 2) is beyond dispute and 3) is entirely unknowable.
*It's interesting to note that Tolstoy had no time for Shakespeare; he thought his plays were vulgar and that the endings of some of them, particularly 'King Lear' were inartistic and illogical.
Watch this TV doc it touches on some of the issues raised here around lasting influnces
http://beta.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sxjls/Forever_Young_How_Rock_n_Roll_Grew_Up/
The Grand Wazoo
04-07-2010, 11:59
From a review of Steven D. Stark's book, Meet The Beatles:
http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/interviews/stark.htm
Yet looking mostly at their music—as most analysts do—provides an inadequate means to assess their impact. Their music was wonderful, but so was Beethoven’s and even Irving Berlin’s, and no one is going to annual Irving Berlin conventions or publishing biographies of him by the bucketfuls year after year. The Beatles became historical forces for reasons that transcended their songs.
Derek Taylor, their clever confidant and press officer, understood this well. “The Beatles are not a pop group,” he once said. “They are an abstraction—a repository for many things.” To understand this group, one has to grasp the larger cultural forces they triggered and came to represent that enabled them to make their mark.
If one had set out to predict the history of the second half of the twentieth century, one would never have surmised that four musicians—from Liverpool, England, of all places—would end up becoming the cynosure of the world’s eyes and one of the century’s major symbols of cultural transformation. What’s more, it’s never been clearly explained why their popularity and renown show few signs of diminishing in the first decade of a new century. More than forty years after they first hit the U.S. charts with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “She Loves You,” anything connected to the Beatles continues to attract huge and adoring audiences—from compilations of their old hits, to auctions of their relics, to reminiscences by their friends and acquaintances. They are, said Taylor, “The longest-running saga since World War II.”
Here's a podcast from CBC Radio:
http://castroller.com/podcasts/CbcRadioRewind/1187442
one would never have surmised that four musicians—from Liverpool, England, of all places-
What's the insinuation there? That Liverpool is somehow less likely than anywhere else to produce something special? I'm not sure I like his tone...:steam:
sluggish
04-07-2010, 14:43
Chris, #60 was what I was looking for. I may never fully "get" the Beatles, but you've helped me grasp the essence if their mystique.
And MArtin, I don't see anything remarkable about Liverpool producing great things. Springfield, IL gave the US its best president and helped form its current one, and its a total shit hole. Umm, not that Liverpool is a total shit hole I mean...you get the point.
The Grand Wazoo
04-07-2010, 15:05
Chris, #60 was what I was looking for. I may never fully "get" the Beatles, but you've helped me grasp the essence if their mystique.
Great!!
Similarly, I never much went for the Sex Pistols (preferring some of their rivals at the time) but I do understand that their influence went way beyond music. And that in their own way, they also changed the world.
quadsugdenman
04-07-2010, 15:53
From a review of Steven D. Stark's book, Meet The Beatles:
http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/interviews/stark.htm
Yet looking mostly at their music—as most analysts do—provides an inadequate means to assess their impact. Their music was wonderful, but so was Beethoven’s and even Irving Berlin’s, and no one is going to annual Irving Berlin conventions or publishing biographies of him by the bucketfuls year after year. The Beatles became historical forces for reasons that transcended their songs.
Derek Taylor, their clever confidant and press officer, understood this well. “The Beatles are not a pop group,” he once said. “They are an abstraction—a repository for many things.” To understand this group, one has to grasp the larger cultural forces they triggered and came to represent that enabled them to make their mark.
If one had set out to predict the history of the second half of the twentieth century, one would never have surmised that four musicians—from Liverpool, England, of all places—would end up becoming the cynosure of the world’s eyes and one of the century’s major symbols of cultural transformation. What’s more, it’s never been clearly explained why their popularity and renown show few signs of diminishing in the first decade of a new century. More than forty years after they first hit the U.S. charts with “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “She Loves You,” anything connected to the Beatles continues to attract huge and adoring audiences—from compilations of their old hits, to auctions of their relics, to reminiscences by their friends and acquaintances. They are, said Taylor, “The longest-running saga since World War II.”
A brilliant synopsis Chris. So eloquently put. :).
I wonder what people will be saying about the Beatles in fourty or more years, or even longer. I cannot see their place in modern music diminishing any. They helped change the world, maybe not in an earth shattering way by todays standards, but their music still subtley influences others even today.
:lolsign:
I was born in '71 so by the time I was old enough to understand things, whatever The Beatles were responsible for was already said and done and it was part of the world I was born in.
We had some Beatles records and all (I was the youngest child) and I did like it, but I think I always felt like it was pop music. I never gave one thought to the cultural aspects. For whatever reason it turned out that The Who, Hendrix, Black Sabbath and Pink Floyd were the bands of my childhood that were taken seriously and had an influence.
A few months ago I picked up The Past Masters remaster CD and heard The Inner Light for the first time. What the hell, why had I never heard it before? Is it because I was living under a rock, or was it really just not popular? I think it's an excellent song.
dantheman91
06-07-2010, 16:24
The Beatles is timeless music which ever way you put it they will always have a place in music history many years to come im a student and i have all there albums on cd and vinyls also you just cant ignore them
chris@panteg
10-07-2010, 10:30
I love the Beatles music ! always have from about the age of 4 (1967) when i heard them on my dad's radio , but i think its entirely ok not to like or get them .
in the same way its ok not to like Elvis presley which i don't , i just can't stand him .
Some folks don't like mozart ' i do ! its a funny old world.
Rare Bird
10-07-2010, 11:42
I love the Beatles music ! always have from about the age of 4 (1967) when i heard them on my dad's radio , but i think its entirely ok not to like or get them .
Yeh, my mother used to be in the beatles fan club in mid 60's, i've always had them in my ear.
I don't subscribe to the idea that you "have to" like/love any band or any music. You don't have to like The Beatles but many people do. Here's my take on why.
The Beatles catalogue is very varied: There are teenybop songs (eg Thank You Girl, All my Loving), Music Hall (Yellow Submarine, All Together Now), Pop-rock (I Feel Fine, Any Time At All), Psychedelia (Lucy In The Sky with Diamonds, I am the Walrus), Rock (I Want You, Helter Skelter), Romantic (Here There and Everywhere, Something), Political (Revolution, Taxman), Avant-garde (Tomorrow Never Knows, Revolution 9), Stories (Eleanor Rigby, She's Leaving Home), Easy listening (When I'm 64, Across the Universe), Ballads (The Long and Winding Road, Yesterday), Comedy (You Know my Name (Look Up the Number), Drive my Car) and so on. This has obviously given them a lot of appeal to many people who may like some but not all of their songs. For instance, my mother likes their early teenybopper stuff up to around the Help album (1965). Some of my friends like only the later stuff from Revolver onwards (1966 onwards). However, they'll all tell people that they like The Beatles.
In the early 1960s, the UK was still recovering from the austerity after the second world war. The #Beatles arrived on the scene at a time when younger people were getting more money to spend on themselves, and the Beatles were seen as new and exciting at the time: they looked young and fun, they had a good sense of humour, didn't appear to take themselves particularly seriously (which is usually seen as a good thing in the UK) and were gently taking the mickey out of many establishment figures which also endeared them to a lot of people. This sort of thing hadn't been seen very much before and so earned them a good fan base at the time, and set off Beatlemania.
They were the first pop band to write the A sides of their own singles. Artists and groups before them had used professional songwriters. They were also signed to Parlophone, which at the time was a small subsidiary of EMI that had mainly been turning out novelty and comedy records. George Martin, head of Parlophone at the time and the man who signed them, worked very hard and used his musical ability to give them the sounds they desired, but always says that he wasn't the 5th Beatle and certainly not the creative force behind the band. He facilitated them getting what they wanted, and they were given a great deal of freedom, perhaps more than they would have been by many other major record labels. They were able to be creative and put together coherent albums as opposed to disparate collections of songs, which was another innovation at the time.
They might not have the gravitas of Led Zeppelin, or the virtuosity of Hendrix, but you don't tend to hear junior schoolchildren singing music by bands like Zeppelin, the Who or Floyd: you do hear them singing Yellow Submarine! The Beatles do appeal to a wide range of people for a huge number of reasons.
I remember hearing some twerp on the radio bemoaning the fact that Anthology 1 had come out and saying it was going to ruin the Beatles legacy because there were unfinished, substandard songs on it. The Beatles catalogue is littered with stuff that I think could have been done better (The Let it Be album for example), and I certainly don't love everything they did. However, they did make some fantastic tracks, scored very many imitators, and got the world to look afresh at contemporary British music.
They brought avant-garde music into the homes of the general public, on albums containing accessible songs such as "Yellow Submarine" and "Back in the USSR."
So they were innovators, certainly. They changed the way a lot of people thought about pop music and helped pave the way to people becoming more inclined towards rock. I'll never forget the first time I heard the introduction to I Feel Fine - the feedback making me think that an alien spaceship had landed in the back garden!
So, that's my four pennorth, for what it's worth!
Wow Grez!
What an excellent post. I think you may well have 'closed the book' on this discussion.
Regards
Wow Grez!
What an excellent post. I think you may well have 'closed the book' on this discussion.
Regards
Thanks :$
I didn't want to end the discussion, though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.