The Beatles. What's the story there?

libelula

They were fairly brutal like. What's the appeal?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Wings, the band the Beatles could have been or something something ect.

Lithium93_

Educate yourself sucker...
https://rycehat.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/ten-reasons-why-the-beatles-are-the-greatest-band-in-the-history-of-ever/

C.K Dexter Haven

Nowhere, man!

Notavirus.exe

The Wolfe Tones were always better.

Insect Overlord

libelula wrote: »

They were fairly brutal like. What's the appeal?

Same as 1-Direction, *NSync, The Backstreet Boys and whoever else in the last few decades, in many ways. Looks got them attention, simple songs about love did the rest.

At least they could write and play their own music, though.

AllGunsBlazing

They wrote catchy songs at a time when pop/rock was still in it's relative infancy. I'd imagine that you probably had to be there to appreciate their cultural impact. Personally, i'd rate The Stones and The Who more highly. Also, Brian Wilson of fhe Beach Boys was a far more gifted song writer than Lennon and McCartney combined.

Custardpi

While the later Beatles albums like Revolver & Let It Be displayed a talent for songwriting that has rarely been equaled since their earlier work was merely decent quality pop music as opposed to world class. Their looks, including the classic fringe haircuts & a great marketing team helped make them the legends they became. There were plenty of other bands at the time producing great pop music & it's hard to argue in retrospect that the pre 65/66 Beatles were better than say The Shadows, Herman's Hermits or Georgie Fame & The Famous Flames, etc who are now either forgotten or are far less obsessed over than the "Fab Four".

At the time their music was considered of far less importance than their looks. Check out footage from the legendary Shea Stadium performance in New York. The screams of female fans practically drown out the music, no different really from a One Direction concert. Personally I love the Beatles music, even a lot of the early cheesy pop stuff but the tendency to regard them as being musical (as opposed to promotional) geniuses from start to finish of the band's careers is misguided.

Rothko

1/10 try better

Mother Brain

I've never been a fan but my brother has forced to watch enough bloody documentaries about them to concede that they did have very complex, innovative harmonies etc. At least in the later albums. They are 'technically' really good. I'm still not very keen on them though. No sexual edge to any of their music.

And I always end telling my brother that if that's all there was to music being great we'd all be listening to classical music!

karma_

The Beatles brutal?

You just can't buy taste I guess.

Duggy747

Pfffft, The Beatles couldn't even dream of making something as majestic and powerful as this

The Dogs Bollix

Lucy off in the sky with diamonds
Hey jude
Let it be
Yellow submarine
Strawberry field forever
Penny lane

Are just a few of their songs?

Are you okay in the head OP? The beatles were great. What a decade to live in.

TheLastMohican

Suas11 wrote: »

1/10 try better

You mean UB40?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvcaxumeiKc

RWCNT

Properly weirded out by people who think the Beatles got by on their looks. Not my cuppa tea I suppose.

endacl

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

The Wolfe Tones were always better bitter.

Better.

NachoBusiness

Anyone remember Egg, in This Life, played by that chap that went on to do The Walking Dead?

Well, he said the Beatles were shite in one episode and there was murder.

There ya are now.

Mother Brain

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Anyone remember Egg, in This Life, played by that chap that went on to do The Walking Dead?

Well, he said the Beatles were shite in one episode and there was murder.

There ya are now.

Loved that show!

Rothko

Mother Brain wrote: »

I've never been a fan but my brother has forced to watch enough bloody documentaries about them to concede that they did have very complex, innovative harmonies etc. At least in the later albums. They are 'technically' really good. I'm still not very keen on them though. No sexual edge to any of their music.

And I always end telling my brother that if that's all there was to music being great we'd all be listening to classical music!

What's wrong with classical music?

TheLastMohican wrote: »

You mean UB40?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvcaxumeiKc

Love a bit of UB40

Mother Brain

Suas11 wrote: »

What's wrong with classical music?

Oh nothing at all! I like to listen to classical music sometimes while im sculpting or just relaxing.

My brother maintains that the beatles are objectively good because of the complex musicality, harmonies etc. and I just feel that if your only criteria for deciding whether you like a piece of music is whether it's sort of 'critically considered' to be good then you should be listening to classical music all the time as it doesn't get much more musically accomplished than that!

Rothko

Mother Brain wrote: »

Oh nothing at all! I like to listen to classical music sometimes while im sculpting or just relaxing.

My brother maintains that the beatles are objectively good because of the complex musicality, harmonies etc. and I just feel that if your only criteria for deciding whether you like a piece of music is whether it's sort of 'critically considered' to be good then you should be listening to classical music all the time as it doesn't get much more musically accomplished than that!

But a lot of the Beatles' music is simple, especially the early stuff.

LordSutch

Eight years of red hot creativity, the like of which popular music had never seen before (or since).
Lennon & McCartney + Harrison really did push the boundaries of popular music, (with a little help from a certain Mr George Martin in the control room).

The Beatles influence on popular music was/is enormous, you only have to listen to other stuff being produced (at that time) you will see that the Beetles music was rather special, including the early 60s simple 'catchy' dance tracks.

Nuff said.

TheLastMohican

Suas11 wrote: »

But a lot of the Beatles' music is simple, especially the early stuff.

I'd go along with that. Drugs gave them the edge but also contributed to their demise. For me, Sgt Pepper's was their best. But then, I'm an old hippy bloke.

Mother Brain

Suas11 wrote: »

But a lot of the Beatles' music is simple, especially the early stuff.

Yeah I would agree! I mean i'm not really fan and used to dismiss them as a glorified boy band, but then my brother showed me a load of documentaries etc. and showed me that there was more to it than that.

At the end of the day they just don't really do it for me, just not my thing I guess, but I can unreservedly concede that they were hugely talented musicians and had a big effect on music and all that.

I just much prefer the stones, the doors, the who, zeppelin etc. All the other good 'drug' bands at the time!

Grayditch

They turned savage when they started eating all the drugs.

Like The Beach Boys.

GerB40

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

They wrote catchy songs at a time when pop/rock was still in it's relative infancy. I'd imagine that you probably had to be there to appreciate their cultural impact. Personally, i'd rate The Stones and The Who more highly. Also, Brian Wilson of fhe Beach Boys was a far more gifted song writer than Lennon and McCartney combined.

Can't forget the kinks. I'm a Dylan fanatic but the Lennon/McCarthy songs were without a doubt some of the greatest songs writters in recent history. Yesterday, Blackbird, A Day in the Life, The Long and Winding Road, Here Comes the Sun, Get Back, Eight days a Week, I am the Walrus (I know, utter bizarre but great nonetheless), Help, In my life (which I honestly think might be the best lyrics from all Beatles songs), While my guitar gently weeps.

The reason I said I was a Dylan fanatic is because he influenced their music after their safer "poppy" period. Songs like I want to hold your hand and eight days a week were revolutionary at the time but once the four Liverpludians started writing more introspective songs they reached another level of greatness that hasn't, nor ever will be beaten. They changed music forever (with a little help from Bob Dylan).

But of course different strokes for different folks..

booooring!

Great song!

JupiterKid

The Beatles were groundbreaking. You may not like their music but they were a force to be reckoned with in the 60s. You have to remember that the 1960s was a really important decade for pop music. It started out with crooners and Cliff Richards and in just 9 short years you had heavy rock like Led Zeppelin.

There's little doubt that the Beatles played a major role in the evolution of music in that decade and the huge influence they had.

GerB40

Suas11 wrote: »

What's wrong with classical music?



Love a bit of UB40

Despite my name I can't stand them. Just not my thang...

ceadaoin.

Seriously, listen to the Sgt. peppers album ffs. One of the best albums of all time. the Beatles paved the way for popular music, whether you like it or not, most of the acclaimed bands of the past three decades wouldn't exist if it weren't for them.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Anyone remember Egg, in This Life, played by that chap that went on to do The Walking Dead?

Well, he said the Beatles were shite in one episode and there was murder.

There ya are now.

Andrew Lincoln. I watch the walking dead but he'll always be egg to me. And your man out of teachers

Billy86

An File wrote: »

Same as 1-Direction, *NSync, The Backstreet Boys and whoever else in the last few decades, in many ways. Looks got them attention, simple songs about love did the rest.

At least they could write and play their own music, though.

You seem to be under the impression they broke up around 1965.

Badly Drunk Boy

Mother Brain wrote: »

Oh nothing at all! I like to listen to classical music sometimes while im sculpting or just relaxing.

My brother maintains that the beatles are objectively good because of the complex musicality, harmonies etc. and I just feel that if your only criteria for deciding whether you like a piece of music is whether it's sort of 'critically considered' to be good then you should be listening to classical music all the time as it doesn't get much more musically accomplished than that!

Yeah, like there's no such thing as bad classical music...

The Dogs Bollix

The Dogs Bollix wrote: »

Lucy off in the sky with diamonds
Hey jude
Let it be
Yellow submarine
Strawberry field forever
Penny lane

Are just a few of their songs?

Are you okay in the head OP? The beatles were great. What a decade to live in.

Was going through the list and thinking dirge, dirge, dirge, dirge...oh yeah. Because Lucy in the sky with diamonds, Hey jude, Let it be and Yellow submarine will just make me turn a radio off...but Strawberry fields forever is just amazing. Great cover by the Candy Flips too.

Menas

The early stuff is chewing gum pop crap. But their later stuff is fcking great. Get a copy of the White Album and give it a whirl. If that does not change your mind then nothing will!

Mantis Toboggan

Sucks that their stuff isn't on Spotify. Who holds the music rights? I thought it was wackojacko!

Mena

libelula wrote: »

They were fairly brutal like. What's the appeal?

This seems timely and apt. Apt!

Ignatius in bloom

The smiths were far better.

FrKurtFahrt

It's all to do with taste. I'm a Beatles man, and I'd insist that - behind all the hype/looks/wives/scandals/drugs - the bulk of the music created was utterly brilliant.

Whitewinged

Its funny when your listening to a beatles song and without knowing you can correctly guess which one of them wrote it.

id prefer the rolling stones music myself but i like the beatles too. I like "the white album".

i remember watching a doc about the stones though that kind of turned me off. It basically painted the picture of mick jagger as a very shrewd business man and that while the beatles were marketed as good boy band type, the stones dark bad boy image was also very deliberate.

Insect Overlord

Billy86 wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression they broke up around 1965.

I never said that was what *kept* them popular. :P

Sir Osis of Liver.

Love the Beatles,but given a choice would rather listen to the uglier,slightly less talented Stones.

One eyed Jack

libelula wrote: »

They were fairly brutal like. What's the appeal?

I'm with you OP, the Beatles themselves were brutal, but they were a product of their time, the same way as One Direction themselves are brutal, the head on Harry Styles in all fairness, similar to the effect that walnut-head McCartney, I simply don't get the appeal... but, there's no denying their musical accomplishments, and while the Beatles catalogue is infinitely more diverse than One Direction, they still manage the odd tune that catches my attention, like this one -

I'm not a fan of them, or their music, generally speaking, but I wouldn't outright dismiss it on the basis that the vast majority of their output is utter shìte IMO, same as I feel about the Beatles and their output.

DavidLyons_

From that era, The Rolling Stones, The Who and The Kinks were all much more deserving of the sort of adulation heaped upon The Beatles.
The one whose popularity always baffled me was Sinatra. Absolute crap.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Suas11 wrote: »

But a lot of the Beatles' music is simple, especially the early stuff.

What's wrong with it being simple.

Surely that's the genius part of it that it was simple but yet brilliant.

Jaws is an extremely simple film yet at the same time it is brilliant.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Yoko was the real talent.

Arthur Daley

I always thought they were a bit over rated. Like untouchable rock and roll royalty.

But getting into their 65/66onwards stuff I can see (or hear) what the fuss was about. A day in the life is just so powerful when you listen to it loud and concentrate on all those sounds. On the white album and abbey road the layers of sound were innovative and on a different planet from the sort of music people listened to in the rest of the 60s. They innovated with things like the moog synth. I like to think if the beatles ever reformed or displaced into the late 70s or 80s they would have been called new romanticsor dance/rave acts. Only they would have been the damned finest that all the others peered up to.

The beatles rattled out an album a year of masterpieces every single year. Shows up all the artists in their wake who have to explain away at interviews that they have spent 8 years contemplating for the latest album they are pushing. But to be fair who could match that period of creativity (especially 66-70) ever again?

GuessWhoEh

RWCNT wrote: »

Properly weirded out by people who think the Beatles got by on their looks. Not my cuppa tea I suppose.

Id love a cup of tea now actually

Whitewinged

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm with you OP, the Beatles themselves were brutal, but they were a product of their time, the same way as One Direction themselves are brutal, the head on Harry Styles in all fairness, similar to the effect that walnut-head McCartney, I simply don't get the appeal... but, there's no denying their musical accomplishments, and while the Beatles catalogue is infinitely more diverse than One Direction, they still manage the odd tune that catches my attention, like this one -

I'm not a fan of them, or their music, generally speaking, but I wouldn't outright dismiss it on the basis that the vast majority of their output is utter shìte IMO, same as I feel about the Beatles and their output.

The reason i dont like the comparison to 1d is because they probably dont write their own songs and even if they do, they have a large input from people behind the scenes. They also dont play any instruments.

The rolling stones were from upper middle class and were trained musicians that went to music college (someone correct me if im wrong)

But the beatles were just a couple of lads in a working class area who got together and learned as they went on.

not saying there is anything right or wrong about class but just that is the reason why the beatles earlier stuff sounds simple but in fact was not that simple because they did it on their own.

GerB40

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

From that era, The Rolling Stones, The Who and The Kinks were all much more deserving of the sort of adulation heaped upon The Beatles.
The one whose popularity always baffled me was Sinatra. Absolute crap.

I agree with absolutely everything you said. Especially about Sinatra. Deano was a better singer, Sammy was a better entertainer. Plus there were people like Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Janis Joplin doing the rounds at that time.

The Beatles were outstanding but their PR people deserve a Nobel prize of some sort...

Nodin

libelula wrote: »

They were fairly brutal like. What's the appeal?

Beyond me, tbh. You probably had to be around at the time.

eviltwin

Not a fan of any of their stuff, don't really get what all the hype is tbh. I'm more of a Stones fan myself.