What makes the Beatles so great?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

An attitude that I have frequently encountered goes something like this: "Anybody who can't appreciate how great the Beatles are needs psychiatric help".

Well, I like the Beatles. But I fail to see what is so "great" about them or their music.

 

[Delphiki]

An attitude that I have frequently encountered goes something like this: "Anybody who can't appreciate how great the Beatles are needs psychiatric help".

Well, I like the Beatles. But I fail to see what is so "great" about them or their music.

So you're openly admitting you need psychiatric help?

(kidding)

I'm a big metal head and punk rocker for the most part. For me, the Beatles deserve tons of respect. In the 60's, Rock and Roll pretty much went two directions. You had the rock-a-billy-blues-swinging style of the Elvis kind, and the loud-rebellious-groovy style of the British Invasion.

While instrumentally speaking, the Beatles may not technically be any better than many musicians today (but still really good musicians, mind you), their original and catchy songs, subject matter, and experimentation pretty much set the standard and paved the way for rock as we know it. Lennon and McCartney, while frequently butting heads, were the perfect pair of writers to be working together. This is what gave the Beatles not just an endless song list, but an endless HIT song list.

I do listen to at least a little bit of every kind of music, but even with Metal and Punk being my most often preferred, I would still always be in the mood for the Beatles. As much as "The King" deserves his respect for being the King of Rock and Roll, I can't say the same thing for Elvis. I actually have to be in the mood for Elvis.

 

[Qyöt27]

In the 60's, Rock and Roll pretty much went two directions. You had the rock-a-billy-blues-swinging style of the Elvis kind, and the loud-rebellious-groovy style of the British Invasion.

IMO, this is pretty close. It's not really how good they were, it's what they did and when they did it that I think people use to defend the claim (although some may be legitimately blinded by it). I think they have been outpaced by the types of things they set the stage for - but there's some nostalgia involved because they were one of the first.

Because some of the things are now so common these days, it's easy to say 'what's so special about them'? It's like someone watching Seinfeld now and wondering 'why was this funny?' But you have to remember - in 1990 it was an entirely different environment for sitcoms, and Seinfeld was revolutionary. It's just that everything we know now has built on that template or taken heavily from it, often surpassing the ones that came before it, so they look less impressive when viewed 20, 25, 40 years later.

A much much better presentation of the concept is here (and where I took the Seinfeld example; it has an entire section for music examples, with The Beatles included):
Seinfeld Is Unfunny - Television Tropes & Idioms

 

[Octorock]

I would say that the Beatles are extraordinary even by today's standards. There are many sides to the Beatles, so if one is mostly familiar with their pop hits from the earlier 60's, they may not understand exactly what the Beatles eventually came to be. If you haven't yet, would recommend listening to either the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band or Abbey Road albums. Don't just have it on as background music, really listen to it. Lay down with headphones, or maybe go for a night drive while listening to the albums. Make sure you listen to them all the way through, with the proper track order. The Beatles' later albums are meant to be listened to that way.

 

[silence_dogood]

An attitude that I have frequently encountered goes something like this: "Anybody who can't appreciate how great the Beatles are needs psychiatric help".

Well, I like the Beatles. But I fail to see what is so "great" about them or their music.

The Beatles were very, very good, but they're also way overblown and way overrated. Even Lennon said many times that there were many bands who were far better than they are.

Primarily, what made the Beatles so great was their studio production and the way Lennon and McCartney wrote songs.

As far as the studio production end of it, they really weren't doing anything that Brian Wilson, Les Paul, and Phil Spector weren't already doing.

But there were many bands of that time that were far better. The Hollies, for example.

The Beach Boys (or, at least Brian Wilson and the session musicians who stood in for the Beach Boys) were far superior.

Bill Deal and the Rhondells (who, ironically, opened for the Beatles and were one of the bands that inspired the movie "That Thing You Do" although, unlike the star crossed Wonders, BD&R actually had two songs crack the Hot 100) were another. Their cover of the Beatles' "Hey Bulldog" is far superior to the Beatles' version.

The Left Banke was better than the Beatles. Go ahead and listen to "She May Call You Up Tonight" and try to get it out of your head.

Although The Band came along at the Tail End of the Beatles' best years, they're far and away better than the Beatles.

Also, check out a little known band from that era called The Shadows of Knight. Very good.

It isn't that the Beatles were bad. They weren't. They were very, very good. But sometimes being the first to do something makes you seem a lot better than you really were.

 

[JakeAM]

The Beatles are most important for the influence they had on other artists and for their ability to take from other artists, thereby exposing people who wouldn't normally listen to anything other than what was on the radio at that time, to new genres and styles.

I don't listen to the Beatles regularly, I think most of their albums are overrated, and as a phenomenon I don't really get it, but yeah they had some catchy tunes.

 

[WandererOfTheWastes]

They invented some good production techniques, but they were hardly the most innovative band at the time. I don't really rate them at all tbh.. far better bands existed at the same time.