"The Beatles!"

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='niceguyhomer' timestamp='1360569537' post='1972301']
They don't scream any more, they don't nick things out of his garden, they just stand there quietly taking photos of the house where someone famous lived half a century ago.

Doesn't that speak volumes?
[/quote]

Yep, that people have very little to do these days.
Really? Take reverential photos of a house?
Gracelands i can understand as it is a completely mental house, but not some nondescript terrace in Liverpool with a blue plaque on the wall.
Crazy....

[SteveK]

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360577392' post='1972434']
Yep, that people have very little to do these days.
Really? Take reverential photos of a house?
Gracelands i can understand as it is a completely mental house, [b]but not some nondescript terrace in Liverpool with a blue plaque on the wall.
Crazy....[/b]
[/quote]May be it's the 'non descript' nature of the house that is its attraction - from 'humble beginings' 'n all that.

Another couple of Fab factoids:
The Beatles have sold 177,000,000 albums in the USA alone.
The Beatles/Lennon & McCartney have won 8 Grammy awards and 15 Ivor Novellos (judged by their peers).

[uncle psychosis]

I like The Beatles, but I've never quite understood the fuss over the Abbey Road record. It has some genius moments but some absolutely stinking ones too---"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" demonstrates perfectly why the Beatles were doomed.

[niceguyhomer]

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360577392' post='1972434']
Yep, that people have very little to do these days.
Really? Take reverential photos of a house?
Gracelands i can understand as it is a completely mental house, but not some nondescript terrace in Liverpool with a blue plaque on the wall.
Crazy....
[/quote]

Soapy tit w***.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='niceguyhomer' timestamp='1360578954' post='1972465']
Soapy tit w***.
[/quote]
I think you may have the wrong website.

[Wil]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1360578383' post='1972457']
I like The Beatles, but I've never quite understood the fuss over the Abbey Road record. It has some genius moments but some absolutely stinking ones too---"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" demonstrates perfectly why the Beatles were doomed.
[/quote]

I think it's really good and flows really well, but my playlist has Oh Darlin, Maxwell's Silver Hammer and Octopuses Garden removed Now it's great!

Edited February 11, 2013 by Wil

[niceguyhomer]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1360579369' post='1972476']
I think you may have the wrong website.
[/quote]

Sorry ET - I thought we were being silly

[SteveK]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1360578383' post='1972457']
I like The Beatles, but I've never quite understood the fuss over the Abbey Road record. It has some genius moments but some absolutely stinking ones too---"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" demonstrates perfectly why the Beatles were doomed.
[/quote]
For me, Maxwell's Silver Hammer comes second to Octopus's Garden. IMO the mark of a 'great' album is the number of 'great' tracks, and Abbey Road does have quite a few 'great' tracks. Oddly, the White Album has a lesser percentage of 'great' tracks, yet it is probably my favourite.

[bremen]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360434428' post='1970454']
No not deliberately.

This has been a fun topic. It shows how passionate about music we all feel and we're never always going to agree.

The Mozart thing was just thrown in because he really was a genius. I don't think anyone can compare with his genius and the influence he had on music.
[/quote]

Mozart was a giant for sure, but there were giants before him upon whose shoulders he stood.

While we're here maybe JS Bach should get credit for 'most influential' as he invented the even-tempered scale upon which ALL* Western music is based.

* yeah, ok...

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='bremen' timestamp='1360581079' post='1972518']
... maybe JS Bach should get credit for 'most influential' ...
[/quote]
That can't be true because some people don't like him.

[peteb]

[quote name='niceguyhomer' timestamp='1360569537' post='1972301']


Good factoid SteveK. I'll never understand how anyone can use the word 'overrated' when talking about the Beatles or dismiss their huge influence on music. I've said this before in previous Beatles discussions so forgive my repeating this but you had to be there in the 60s to really appreciate the effect they had and not just on music - but on British culture, it was enormous. I lived right opposite Paul from 1959 on and grew up in a road that was bursting at the seams every single day with onlookers and screaming girls who made a lot of noise, caused havoc and nicked things out of his garden. That was 50 years ago - my Mum still lives there with my brother and still they're plagued every single day by coachloads of people who come from all over the world to stand outside and stare at the house where Paul used to live.

They don't scream any more, they don't nick things out of his garden, they just stand there quietly taking photos of the house where someone famous lived half a century ago.

Doesn't that speak volumes?
[/quote]
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. No one can argue that the Beatles were the biggest and most important band ever (in terms of social & cultural significance). There will never be another Beatles! No matter how big U2 were a few years ago and even if you thought that their music was the best ever recorded, they still will not be looked back in retrospect as being as important as the Fab 4.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to question if the MUSIC lives up to this hype? To use my example above, is Yesterday the greatest song to emerge from the rock and roll era, or is it merely a bog standard Tin Pan Alley type tune! Does the use of both major and minor tonality in A Day In The Life evidence of genius at work, or is it a reasonable imaginative 60s pop song? We're they really better songwriters than the Beach Boys?

All these questions are valid and should not answered by cries of 'but they were the Beatles, the biggest pop group of all time'!

Edited February 11, 2013 by peteb

[Dave Vader]

[quote name='niceguyhomer' timestamp='1360578954' post='1972465']
Soapy tit w***.
[/quote]

If you're offering....

[chris_b]

When the Beatles came along they switched the lights on. Before that we were in the dark.

Their influence was that significant, that monumental.

As Homer says, you can't really appreciate the impact of The Beatles unless you knew a world without them.

[SteveK]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360581515' post='1972533']
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here. No one can argue that the Beatles were the biggest and most important band ever (in terms of social & cultural significance). There will never be another Beatles! No matter how big U2 were a few years ago and even if you thought that their music was the best ever recorded, they still will not be looked back in retrospect as being as important as the Fab 4.

However, it is perfectly reasonable to question if the MUSIC lives up to this hype? To use my example above,[b] is Yesterday the greatest song to emerge from the rock and roll era[/b], or is it merely a bog standard Tin Pan Alley type tune! Does the use of both major and minor tonality in A Day In The Life evidence of genius at work, or is it a reasonable imaginative 60s pop song? We're they really better songwriters than the Beach Boys?

All these questions are valid and should not answered by cries of 'but they were the Beatles, the biggest pop group of all time'!
[/quote]
No! and whoever said that is clearly an idiot.
Beach Boys were great too... just not [i]quite[/i] as great .

[xilddx]

The Beatles, great vocals, many great songs, extremely competent players, inventive in the way a highly practised and rehearsed passionate band should be, challenging but accessible, broad range of musical styles, good to look at, very wide appeal.

But I've never liked them and they always generate little or no emotional reaction from me when I hear them.

[niceguyhomer]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360581515' post='1972533']

However, it is perfectly reasonable to question if the MUSIC lives up to this hype? To use my example above, is Yesterday the greatest song to emerge from the rock and roll era, or is it merely a bog standard Tin Pan Alley type tune! Does the use of both major and minor tonality in A Day In The Life evidence of genius at work, or is it a reasonable imaginative 60s pop song? We're they really better songwriters than the Beach Boys?

All these questions are valid and should not answered by cries of 'but they were the Beatles, the biggest pop group of all time'!
[/quote]

It is perfectectly reasonable to ask the question Pete but I think it has to be in the context of what was going on and around at the time and also before they came on the scene. What chrisb says is bang on, you can't really appreciate the impact of their music unless you've lived in a world without them.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

[KevB]

I'm with Rick Rubin (apart from the God nonsense which I'm sure he was being tongue in cheek about). The thing that staggers me is the rate in development and the work output in those 7 years from 63 to 69. Sure lots of bands were working hard in those years but they weren't writing as high a percentage of their own material as The Beatles. Undoubtedly they were picking up ideas from other artists, be it musical artists or others, but always fashioning it to work for themselves and not lose their identity. They embraced new recording methods (and the importance of George Martin can't be overlooked) that left most other bands floundering in their wake. And they still turned out excellent songs to work with.

[gsgbass]

I'm really glad The Beatles showed up when they did. I couldn't have handled listening to The Beach Boys any longer!

[Wil]

[quote name='gsgbass' timestamp='1360586425' post='1972660']
I'm really glad The Beatles showed up when they did. I couldn't have handled listening to The Beach Boys any longer!
[/quote]

Although, without the Beach Boys, the Beatles later output might not have turned out quite the same. And visa versa...

PS I love the Beach Boys very patchy back catalogue though.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Wil

[BetaFunk]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1360575837' post='1972389']
You're labouring the point now I feel, I appreciate you've gotten roundly slapped here by a number of people that you've been unable to counter but contrary to what you feel this isn't a site fanatical about any given subject, most people are just too laid back. Let it go.
[/quote]
Well that's told me hasn't it?

You can't beat the good old 'i'm right, you're wrong' attitude when someone dares to disagree can you?

[gsgbass]

[quote name='Wil' timestamp='1360586525' post='1972667']
Although, without the Beach Boys, the Beatles later output might not have turned out quite the same. And visa versa...

PS I love the Beach Boys very patchy back catalogue though.
[/quote]

I agree totally, The Beach Boys were very talented. I just grew tired of Surf Music. And true, it's not unusual for other's music to rub off on other player's styles.

[BobVbass]

I think they were just a band that made it very very big. That's all[font="arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#333333"] [/color][/size][/font]

A good indication of their songs and talent I think comes from the diversity of style - most people, I think, would be able to find a Beatles song that they think is a good song whether it's Something. Helter Skelter or Love me do; I think that's probably rare with any artist.

[gsgbass]

[quote name='bob_pickard' timestamp='1360587497' post='1972714']
I think they were just a band that made it very very big. That's all[font=arial, sans-serif][size=2][color=#333333] [/color][/size][/font]

A good indication of their songs and talent I think comes from the diversity of style - most people, I think, would be able to find a Beatles song that they think is a good song whether it's Something. Helter Skelter or Love me do; I think that's probably rare with any artist.
[/quote]

That kinda' sums it up. That's a great point I think.
[IMG]http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u426/roadrex/A%20Day%20In%20The%20Life/big.gif[/IMG]

[Jazzneck]

How many of todays bands could record a first album of the quality like they did - 585 minutes!

Be interesting to see how this turns out bearing in mind the experience of the performers, session musicians, studio crew in there today compared withe The Beatles of yesteryear.

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21408897"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21408897[/url]

[BigRedX]

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1360586154' post='1972649']
I'm with Rick Rubin (apart from the God nonsense which I'm sure he was being tongue in cheek about). The thing that staggers me is the rate in development and the work output in those 7 years from 63 to 69. Sure lots of bands were working hard in those years but they weren't writing as high a percentage of their own material as The Beatles. Undoubtedly they were picking up ideas from other artists, be it musical artists or others, but always fashioning it to work for themselves and not lose their identity. They embraced new recording methods (and the importance of George Martin can't be overlooked) that left most other bands floundering in their wake. And they still turned out excellent songs to work with.
[/quote]

But give me and 3 of my musically inclined friends virtually unlimited studio time in a state of the art facility. Give us a sympathetic producer and a team of engineers ready to pander to our every sonic whim. Feed us a diet of previously unheard music and the occasional mind-altering drugs, and then outside of the studio surround us with the cream of innovative artists spanning the whole spectrum of creative endeavour, and I'm sure that we could come up with a series of albums every bit as varied and interesting as anything the Beatles did.