The Beatles

[nadroj1985]

What do you guys think of the Beatles? They're called the greatest band ever all the time, and I apparently just don't get it. I've never heard that kind of genius in their music. Those of you who think the Beatles were really great, why do you think so?

 

[miamiatw051]

i dont think the beatles are good at all...i wanna see some feedback on why they are so awesome..

and they were stoned on half the albums they made

 

[twosteppin]

i dont think the beatles are good at all...i wanna see some feedback on why they are so awesome..

and they were stoned on half the albums they made

my thoughts exactly......

 

[Oblio]

I've never heard that kind of genius in their music.

and

i dont think the beatles are good at all

Is Outrage !

kids these days

 

[nadroj1985]

and




Is Outrage !

kids these days

Oh come one Oblio!! Don't give us that!! Explain yourself. I'd like to know why you like them, not just some statement like "kids these days don't know music."

 

[Axver]

Yes, I too would like to know why the Beatles are so great. I've read "if you don't like the Beatles, you don't like music", but I think that's terribly wrong. I really dislike them - poor musicians making poor music that capitalised on a fad. Sheesh, they couldn't even stay together for a decade! How can they possibly be a great band? The one title they do deserve is Most Over-rated Band Of All Time.

 

[nadroj1985]

Yes, I too would like to know why the Beatles are so great. I've read "if you don't like the Beatles, you don't like music", but I think that's terribly wrong. I really dislike them - poor musicians making poor music that capitalised on a fad. Sheesh, they couldn't even stay together for a decade! How can they possibly be a great band? The one title they do deserve is Most Over-rated Band Of All Time.

Agreed. Except why do you keep bringing up how long a band has been together? It has no bearing on how good the music is, does it? A lot of my faves burned out after a few albums.

 

[ps139]

Yeah theyre overrated but I still think theyre awesome. I am more into early Beatles than late Beatles - when I want to hear drug-influenced music I'd rather take Pink Floyd or the Grateful Dead. But the early Beatles genius was in their simplicity. Simple, easy 4-chord songs.....why isnt everyone getting famous off them? Because the Beatles had something that most bands dont. They were very unique in their sound, very unique vocals, which I think is integral to making a good band. Think of the great bands - all of their lead singers had real distinct voices - Robert Plant, Jerry Garcia, Jimi Hendrix, Dave Matthews, Jim Morrison, Trey Anastasio, Bono, Neil Young, Bob Dylan....they may not have been the best voices but they were really unique. Thats one reason why nobody's been able to replicate the Beatles, and why most cookie-cutter pop is forgotten in 2 years - it all sounds the same.

 

[Axver]

Agreed. Except why do you keep bringing up how long a band has been together? It has no bearing on how good the music is, does it? A lot of my faves burned out after a few albums.

You're right, it doesn't have a bearing on the quality of the music, but you'd expect a truly brilliant band with a passion for what they're doing to last and keep on making quality stuff.

 

[nadroj1985]

You're right, it doesn't have a bearing on the quality of the music, but you'd expect a truly brilliant band with a passion for what they're doing to last and keep on making quality stuff.

Not necessarily.

 

[nadroj1985]

Yeah theyre overrated but I still think theyre awesome. I am more into early Beatles than late Beatles - when I want to hear drug-influenced music I'd rather take Pink Floyd or the Grateful Dead. But the early Beatles genius was in their simplicity. Simple, easy 4-chord songs.....why isnt everyone getting famous off them? Because the Beatles had something that most bands dont. They were very unique in their sound, very unique vocals, which I think is integral to making a good band. Think of the great bands - all of their lead singers had real distinct voices - Robert Plant, Jerry Garcia, Jimi Hendrix, Dave Matthews, Jim Morrison, Trey Anastasio, Bono, Neil Young, Bob Dylan....they may not have been the best voices but they were really unique. Thats one reason why nobody's been able to replicate the Beatles, and why most cookie-cutter pop is forgotten in 2 years - it all sounds the same.

I didn't notice their unique vocals. I just thought it was typical pop vocals with a British accent. What's so unique about that? If you ask me, most all of the Beatles music sounds the same--i really can't point out something that makes them stand out. They were fairly mediocre musicians, they wrote quite average songs most of the time (I'll grant you that they wrote some good ones, but who couldn't with as many as they wrote?), and they were so famous because they took rock n' roll and made it sound safe. Those other bands you mentioned (minus Bono, Phish, and Dave Matthews, good musicians all but don't fit into the time period) tested the boundaries of rock music and made it sound as challenging and "unsafe" as it was. Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison did it with their lyrics, Plant and Zeppelin did it with their attitude and Hendrix and Garcia did it with pure love of instrumentation. Meanwhile, the Beatles wrote pretty pop music and got all the praise.

 

[brettnolan]

aerosmith (songs are like mad libs - insert double entendre here, squeal there) and the rolling stones come to mind.

 

[brettnolan]

It might take me a while to get into this thread, but I'll bite.

Innovation and pushing the boundaries seem to be requirements for you all to say that a band is great, and while that IS a big factor, I think a band can be great without doing either. The Eagles are a great band.
Beyond that, there are many people more musically savvy than myself that would argue that the Beatles were "relentlessly imaginative and experimental" musically. You also have to remember the context of their music. In recent musical history, MTV Unplugged was considered extremely "creative." We're used to hard-driving guitars and guys playing 14 drum kits at once. The electric guitar itself was still a limited phenomenon when the Beatles arrived. Their look, their music, everything was new in 1964...they were as out of the box as you could get at that time.

There is also something to be said for being the first. The Beatles may not have been the absolute first to play similar music, but they WERE the first to bring it to America, where it exploded. Someone mentioned that they were just another British pop band. Well, obviously they were not. Otherwise, we might just as well be talking about Peter & Gordon or the Monkees. The British pop bands copied the Beatles, not the other way round.

Finally, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison WERE great artists. All three are poets of the highest caliber, McCartney's voice is smooth and soothing, and Harrison can play the guitar with anybody.

Personally, I can't sit and listen to an entire Beatles album in one go, but I can't deny their impact on modern rock and roll, nor their talents. Just because they are not my favorite band, doesn't mean they aren't the greatest of all time. For comparison, I'll throw a couple of other names out there, that none of you probably like, yet they are (were) great at what they do. Elvis, Wacko Jacko (either one), Prince, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson.

The Beatles started the British Invasion, which started the rock and roll revolution.

 

[Sleepy Jean]

The Beatles are cool, and deffinetly a great band, but not the best of all time. Fleetwood Mac, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers blow them away.

 

[mrslinky]

The Beatles while overrated indeed deserve respect. They got the ball rolling in the early 60's. People formed bands because of them. They woke up a repressed, socially conservative society. I dont care for their early music but it was still unique and set the tone for the future of rock 'n' roll. Their material from Revolver on was awesome, with Abbey Rd and the White Album probably the best albums in the history of rock and roll. There is no proof that they were stoned while making those albums. They may have been a few times but so what?

 

[nadroj1985]

Innovation and pushing the boundaries seem to be requirements for you all to say that a band is great, and while that IS a big factor, I think a band can be great without doing either. The Eagles are a great band.

I agree with you here. Music does not have to be innovative and push boundaries. The problem I have is that the Beatles didn't do these things and everyone seems to think they did. Good point though

Beyond that, there are many people more musically savvy than myself that would argue that the Beatles were "relentlessly imaginative and experimental" musically. You also have to remember the context of their music. In recent musical history, MTV Unplugged was considered extremely "creative." We're used to hard-driving guitars and guys playing 14 drum kits at once. The electric guitar itself was still a limited phenomenon when the Beatles arrived. Their look, their music, everything was new in 1964...they were as out of the box as you could get at that time.

Here's where I start to disagree. Their music was not new; many artists had been doing rock n' roll music before the Beatles. Chuck Berry is a great example. If you want to talk about who did it all first, refer to Chuck. The Beatles took Chuck's and other people's work and made it accessible to the masses. Rather than give people rock, they gave them four good looking guys with bright smiles singing about holding girls' hands.

There is also something to be said for being the first. The Beatles may not have been the absolute first to play similar music, but they WERE the first to bring it to America, where it exploded. Someone mentioned that they were just another British pop band. Well, obviously they were not. Otherwise, we might just as well be talking about Peter & Gordon or the Monkees. The British pop bands copied the Beatles, not the other way round.

As I said before, the Beatles were the first to bring it to America because they did it in a way that would appeal to everyone. And their popularity influenced Peter & Gordon and the Monkees. They copied the Beatles because the formula worked.

Finally, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison WERE great artists. All three are poets of the highest caliber, McCartney's voice is smooth and soothing, and Harrison can play the guitar with anybody.

I'll agree with you that McCartney's voice was nice, but that certainly doesn't set the boys apart. And I have yet to find any of them as consistently good songwriters (esp. Harrison, and thank goodness you didn't mention Starr, "Yellow Submarine" is one of the worst songs ever ). Also, none of them were good instrumentalists. Harrison could not possibly compare to great guitarists of the day.

The Beatles started the British Invasion, which started the rock and roll revolution.

The Beatles did start the British invasion, and started the revolution of copying off of other, more experimental artists and promoting it in a sugar-coated fashion.


--NOTE: I have no problem with people liking the Beatles. That is cool with me. I like them sometimes. I just can't stand this promotion of them as inarguably the greatest band ever. There are a lot of misconceptions about these guys IMHO.

 

[mrslinky]

I saw the band Aerosmith mentioned. Listing them as a great band or implying they are better than the Beatles is asinine! Aerosmith certifiably stinks! There are no arguments, or debates on this. For, it is a fact not an opinion!

 

[blackwasp]

I'll agree with you that McCartney's voice was nice, but that certainly doesn't set the boys apart. And I have yet to find any of them as consistently good songwriters (esp. Harrison, and thank goodness you didn't mention Starr, "Yellow Submarine" is one of the worst songs ever ). Also, none of them were good instrumentalists. Harrison could not possibly compare to great guitarists of the day.

Wow, how wrong can a person be? Harrison was one of the greatest guitarists of all time. His contribution to music is immeasurable. McCartney is a great bassist, and Lennon was certainly competent at guitar, bass, and piano. Ringo wasn't exceptional, but a drummer certainly isn't pivotal in a band's qualifications.

 

[blackwasp]

Christianforums seems to have the Beatles and U2 reversed -- praising the mediocre and disrespecting the great.

 

[indigo tree]

My question is: why do people keep started threads saying "How come so and so is so great?" ect. For the most part, I've always respected the Beatles, for having such a big influence on many bands, especially U2. But lately I've been looking into thier music, and have found that I like what am hearing. I'd like to get one of thier albums sometimes.