The Beatles. What's the story there?

garrixfan · 27-09-2015 12:47PM

During the Teenagers' Turn showcase in Manchester, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison walked on stage to applause, but when Best walked on, the girls screamed.[82] Afterwards, attentive females surrounded Best at the stage door, while the other members were ignored after signing a few autographs. McCartney's father, Jim McCartney, was present at the time and admonished Best: "Why did you have to attract all the attention? Why didn't you call the other lads back? I think that was very selfish of you".

strelok · 27-09-2015 12:50PM

are you pete best?

Whitewinged · 27-09-2015 12:50PM

garrixfan wrote: »

They just looked like every British young person ever, nothing great. I was never a fan of them tbh

Garrixfan now i know your messing!

But now that you say it, i always thought that george harrison was good looking.

garrixfan · 27-09-2015 12:55PM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Garrixfan now i know your messing!

But now that you say it, i always thought that george harrison was good looking.

TBH their hairstyles were goofy, and unless you have androgynous pretty boy facial features like Bieber did it will just look cringey, George benefited from a change in hairstyle, that's for sure. Maybe a 7/10 imo

rubadub · 27-09-2015 12:56PM

An File wrote: »

Same as 1-Direction, *NSync, The Backstreet Boys.

I was watching the film "across the universe" recently, really hit home how many good songs the Beatles had.

In 50 years time I can't wait to see the similar treatment of *NSync's classics, its going to be amazing, all the critically acclaimed bands in 50 years time will no doubt be citing them as a major influence. There will be 50 year anniversary box sets of all the classic 1-Direction albums. Music Professors will be giving lectures on the Backstreet Boys. National Symphony Orchestra still doing special *NSync nights.

An File wrote: »

Looks got them attention,

Yeah, I bet many a straight lad was questioning their sexuality, made Brad Pitt look like an ogre
http://daytrippersband.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/up-1ringo.jpg

Arthur Daley wrote: »

I always thought they were a bit over rated.

I find the opposite if anything, frequently hearing & reading people saying how shite or mediocre they think they were. I figure many saying it are just contrarians/cuntraians though.

Whitewinged · 27-09-2015 01:04PM

rubadub wrote: »

I was watching the film "across the universe" recently, really hit home how many good songs the Beatles had.

In 50 years time I can't wait to see the similar treatment of *NSync's classics, its going to be amazing, all the critically acclaimed bands in 50 years time will no doubt be citing them as a major influence. There will be 50 year anniversary box sets of all the classic 1-Direction albums. Music Professors will be giving lectures on the Backstreet Boys. National Symphony Orchestra still doing special *NSync nights.

Yeah, I bet many a straight lad was questioning their sexuality, made Brad Pitt look like an ogre
http://daytrippersband.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/up-1ringo.jpg

I dont see what nsync or the backstreet boys or any of them have really done for music. They have catchy songs but not alot of depth.

i just dont see any comparison of the beatles to any of these bands.

Is it that people are comparing only their very early stuff?

27-09-2015 01:25PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no. The "band" as we think of it today wasn't really around when they were forming. It was much more a case of a frontman/lead singer and a backing band. Solo artists were the thing really. one of their big influences was Buddy Holly and his band the Crickets. Hence they liverpool lads went for another type on insect, adding the "A" to reflect the music side. A band like the Shadows were popular, but were Cliff Richards backing band and otherwise were a novelty act. The band were in the background in the public eye. Few fans could name a bass player or drummer back then. To be able to name John, Paul, George and Ringo was very new. That three of them wrote songs was extremely novel. The Beatles influences were as much about show tunes, film scores, hymns(and later classical, eastern and avant garde) as they were blues and rock and roll.

The Kingsmen?
The Beachboys?
I Ribelli :P

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

Wibbs · 27-09-2015 01:27PM

Whitewinged wrote: »

Is it that people are comparing only their very early stuff?

Even their early stuff is musically streets ahead of your average "boy band" output.

garrixfan wrote:

unless you have androgynous pretty boy facial features like Bieber did it will just look cringey

McCartney was the ladies fave at the time. Hell he bedded his babysitter when he was 15. It came out he bedded Yoko before Lennon too. Harrison was the swordsman out of them though. Since he died all sorts of stuff has come out about the ladies and him including an alleged romp with Madonna in the 80's when he was producing a film of hers she was making with her then husband Sean Penn.

Rothko · 27-09-2015 01:32PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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.

Nothing at all. Actually a lot of my favourite music is fairly simple and not complex at all. Good thing too since I'm not a great guitarist.

bodhrandude · 27-09-2015 01:34PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

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.

I agree, just a simple observation at Electric Picnic this year, Blur doing Beetlebum, I just thought that screamed the Beatles, brilliant though it is.

Whitewinged · 27-09-2015 01:49PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Even their early stuff is musically streets ahead of your average "boy band" output.

McCartney was the ladies fave at the time. Hell he bedded his babysitter when he was 15. It came out he bedded Yoko before Lennon too. Harrison was the swordsman out of them though. Since he died all sorts of stuff has come out about the ladies and him including an alleged romp with Madonna in the 80's when he was producing a film of hers she was making with her then husband Sean Penn.

I know but when you hear their earlier stuff, its assumed that it is simple because the sound is so clean.

I heard somewhere that george harrison knew about patti boyd and eric clapton but he just let her go because he was getting more into his spirituality and hare krisna and he just didnt give a crap.

i cant believe that about yoko. I didnt like her before but at least i respected her haha only joking. I vaguely remember watching something about her and it seemed that she was on a serious mission to get with john lennon.

Dr. Bre · 27-09-2015 01:51PM

Don't mention billy shears

4zn76tysfajdxp · 27-09-2015 02:34PM

A huge chunk of their songs are just unreal.

Whitewinged · 27-09-2015 03:02PM

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Don't mention billy shears

Had never heard that before. Just googled it there. So funny

Earthhorse · 27-09-2015 04:09PM

If you're actually interested in knowing why they're important and well regarded, Howard Goodall's documentaries are both passionate and erudite. I love How Music Works and The Beatles feature in it a bit but he has a whole one on them specifically:

But it's unlikely that'll change your own opinion of them as that's a matter of taste.

murpho999 · 27-09-2015 04:23PM

Don't get how people can criticise The Beatles, they were the first of their kind and if you go through their catalogue you can hear how they progressed as musicians.

People should take a listen to Abbey Road, they last album they recorded (Despite being released before Let it Be), it really is a masterpiece that still holds up almost 50 years later.

rubadub · 27-09-2015 04:49PM

murpho999 wrote: »

Don't get how people can criticise The Beatles

I do, nothing new, people love to give OTT negative comments about stuff others like. Look at any threads.

Heineken, Heinz ketchup -"uhhh, fcuking rotten dunno how anyone could drink/eat it, tastes like the Devils jizz" yet at a friends BBQ they would probably happily take either if there was no other option.

McDonalds, Burgerking, ipods, U2, very common to see people making tits out of themselves with their fake fairly obvious overstated hatred.

castletownman · 27-09-2015 06:13PM

The thing that annoys me is people using the whole "Beatlemania" craze that swept through this country as definitive proof that they were definitely the best.

My father is old enough to remember the first car and colour tv arrive in the community he grew up in, and the fanfare and amazement that greeted them. It was simpler times back then, and anything "new" or totally different (or rebellious) from the culture in the god-fearing country it was at the time brought with it massive interest (particular from the youth)

So I guess what I'm trying to say is, just because they were massively popular at the time doesn't automatically make them the greatest, and it certainly shouldn't result in people been sneered at if they think something different.

I do think they are over-rated, but would still listen to even their worse work ahead of any of the most popular artists around today.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 27-09-2015 07:08PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Bands like the Stones were playing around with the 12 bar blues and doing so well, but their range was very limited by comparison. The Beachboys of all people were the closest in range and who the mop tops saw as their rivals, not the Stones. Oddly enough given their influences and fashion the Beatles only ever wrote one traditionally structured 12 bar blues song.

There's a funny bit in the recent documentary about Ginger Baker where he's recalling being on jam sessions that Jagger was at. Ginger really didn't like Jagger and used to f*ck with him by playing in tricky time signatures and Jagger was completely lost.

I quite like The Stones, very catchy, very sexy tunes, nice down n dirty rock n roll. But if anyone tries to claim that they like them better than the Beatles because they were more musically talented or creative...nah mate. Apart from being some of the most unpleasant men to ever grace the music business, they can't touch The Beatles (or The Beach Boys, or Cream, or The Who, or The Kinks) musically

Tarzana2 · 27-09-2015 07:26PM

RWCNT wrote: »

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

Me too, I never think of them as a good-looking band.

Simon2015 · 27-09-2015 07:30PM

The Beatles have got nothing on Queen.

Tarzana2 · 27-09-2015 07:35PM

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.

This post makes my face sad.

Tarzana2 · 27-09-2015 07:45PM

Whitewinged wrote: »

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.

The Beatles were a mix of working and middle class. If you were working class back then, you certainly didn't go to art college.

Tarzana2 · 27-09-2015 08:01PM

bodhrandude wrote: »

I agree, just a simple observation at Electric Picnic this year, Blur doing Beetlebum, I just thought that screamed the Beatles, brilliant though it is.

Blur are clearly influenced by the Beatles, in the best possible way. Bettlebum being a great example. I don't see why it being influenced by the Beatles would make it any less brilliant?

Much was made of Oasis being influenced by the Beatles but to be honest, they just tried to copy them. The influence of the Beatles is much more subtle in Blur.

Blur. A band I hope are remember fondly in 50 years time.

rubadub · 27-09-2015 08:11PM

castletownman wrote: »

The thing that annoys me is people using the whole "Beatlemania" craze that swept through this country as definitive proof that they were definitely the best.

I have not seen this argument much, if ever, its fairly well accepted that lots of bad shite sells well. It was comical to hear people comparing number 1's in the 90's or 00's to "prove" bands were "better" than the beatles

If anything the beatlemania craze is used as proof that they were not talented and should be dismissed as a boyband that only hormonal teenage girls liked for there alleged good looks.

Tarzana2 · 27-09-2015 08:23PM

rubadub wrote: »

If anything the beatlemania craze is used as proof that they were not talented and should be dismissed as a boyband that only hormonal teenage girls liked for there alleged good looks.

Yep, when all it tells me is that hormonal teenage girls had better taste in the 60s. :pac:

Gwynplaine · 27-09-2015 08:53PM

Most over rated band ever. Had a few catchy tunes. Nothing special.

Welsh Megaman · 27-09-2015 09:03PM

Don't forget, the major 'pop' acts of that time had their songs written for them by a team of back room songwriters, from Elvis to Roy Orbison.

The fact that you had not one, but TWO band members writing their own songs at the time was seen as revolutionary.

Hagar7 · 27-09-2015 09:13PM

Dennis Reynolds wrote: »

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

You might enjoy this website,scroll down for the Beatles.

http://tela.sugarmegs.org/alpha/b.html

Btw,it's not just them,there's U2,Thin Lizzy,Bob Dylan,Neil Young,Jimi Hendrix Exp,Led Zeppelin,Pink Floyd and countless other bands,it's probably the best music site I've ever came across.:)

nullzero · 27-09-2015 09:21PM

Gwynplaine wrote: »

Most over rated band ever. Had a few catchy tunes. Nothing special.

Who are the best band ever in your opinion?

The Beatles. What's the story there?

Comments