[Closed] Bored of the Beatles

"Tinker's cuss" - my old (now departed) Maths teacher at school used to use that phrase, the only time apart from now I've heard/seen it used 🙂

Yes, never a fan myself, but would never deny how great they were. Think it's something to do with a fortieth anniversary or something isn't it?

I bet though Flash, if they brought out an equivalent hair-metal game, you'd be down the precinct in a, well, flash! 😆

Better than the French hiphop tosh you played me in the car a few years back CFH.

I find the Beatles tunes rather depressing - a forerunner to Radiohead in fact!!

Darcy, hair metal comes with its own in-built air guitar, all part of the genre! 🙂

Dark Side, YGM....! 8)

A forerunner to Radiohead?? Now, that's a bit of a leap. Having said that, they were a forerunner to a lot of what is great about British rock music. Like I said, I was never a big fan, but enough singers and bands I have loved have cited them as a major influence so I'd never say they were shit.

Oh, and that French hiphop, if it's the one I hear a lot of, is great!

I like 'em, was watching them on TV Saturday night !

I ordered the "Blue Album" from Amazon t'other day. Hopefully it should be here today or tomorrow. 8)

I was forced to listen to it by my parents growing up and now cannot stand it.

CaptainFlashheart totally agree with you.i've never been a fan of the beatles either,but love playing air guitar to hair metal/any metal/rock to be honest!!!now where is my air tuner. 🙂

Anyone who's studied musical history would recognise the massive importance of the Beatles.
Anyone who's studied cultural history would recognise the massive importance of the Beatles.
Some of the music I love, some I can't stand and the personas of Lennon and McCartney make my p1ss boil but, as far as I'm concerned, the Beatles stand alone.

Similar story. I recognise their importance but I'm not a fan although I really do like The White Album.

I'd much rather listen to Mick and Keef

coyote - your "blue album" may as well be carvings on a stone tablet depicting the music of the beatles through the eyes of a caveman

if your not listening to one of the new remastered box sets your not really listening to the beatles

😉

(says the easily led fool who has spent 200 quid pre-ordering the mono box set - containing many, many songs he already has on CD) 😳

there was a prog about the beatles in russia on last night that was very interesting. Apparently they really were bigger than Jesus over there.

have just got hold of the remastered stereo boxset - the remasters are really quite amazing. anyone who is a fan of the beatles music, and in all truth it should be everyone, would be well advised to get hold of them - it's hard to put a finger on the difference, but it sounds like brand new music that you already know. top stuff.

[img] [/img]

BURN THE HERATIC

😆 i realised it was a risky business to make that claim, but it had to be said!

(out of interest, just so i know, are you upset with the stereo over mono choice, or just the whole remastered situation? 🙂 )

I'm a fan so biased, love the music, it has all sorts of really good and not so good memories for me, from holiday car journeys when I was younger, the whole family singing along to Yellow submarine, and the family in-jokes, to a hazy summer spent listening to the White, Abbey Road, and Revolver with my brother whilst my parents divorced noisily...

I'm enjoying working through the mono set. I have also got Abbey Road in Stereo. The difference in the bass is the biggest noticable change compared to the "old" CDs, also sounds much crisper and clearer.

certain tracks like "Ticket to Ride" just sound massive

the mono versions come in perfect miniature reproductions of the original vinyl sleeves, dust covers etc- evan including the free gifts from Sgt Peppar, the postcards from the White Album and the comic strip in the middle of Magical Mystery Tour.

Overpriced - probably
Geeky - very
Satisfying - oh yes

Sick of the buggers. If they were from Stoke or Ipswich or anywhere other than Liverpool would people bang on about them quite so much?

Harry - I can understand why bands that come after the Beatles might have got extra attention because they were from Liverpool, but why on earth would the Beatles? Your comment makes 0 sense

why have they released mono and stereo remastered versions? apart from the obvious, what is the difference?

g tim, i've only had abbey road on so far, and every track sounds much richer and with more distinction between the parts on the tracks. i hadn't expected the difference to be so pronounced. you're right - the bass is much more audible and clear. great stuff.

mongoridebike

during the 60s mono was the default format for an LP. Stereo was for Hi Fi geeks and was still regarded as a bit of a gimmik at the time.

Beatles legend has it that for pretty much all the albums most care and attention was paide to the mono mixes (the beatles for example attended the mono mixing sessions for Sgt Peppar, Revolver etc, but didn't bother turning up for the stereo mixes)

in addition to modern ears some of the early stereo mixes sound a little odd - all the drums in one speaker in a lot of cases. Some stereo mixes seemed to be trying to make the most of the new technology - at the expense of the music

if you are a real geek some of the mono versions are slightly different to the stereo ones (different takes used, different speeds etc)

Let it Be and Abbey Road are the only 2 albums which are Stereo only

Or, the real answer - cashing in before the end of copyright restrictions.

all the beatles did was take the black mans blues/rock music and repackage it in a nice safe friendly long hair- but not too long, hippy-but not too counter culture, sexy- but no elvis pelvis gyrations, stylee so it was accebtable and accessible to the white emergent tv watching masses as the world was emerging from the post war depression and eager for something new

you make it sound so simple Kimbers!

they might have started out a bit like that (although their hair was regarded as pretty outrageously long at the time) - but the Beatles can in no way be accused of paying it safe.

They went from "She Loves You" to "Tommorrow Never Knows" and "A Day in the Life" in about 3 years - name any other band that developed like that in such a short space of time.

pantera went from this
[img] [/img]
to this
[img] [/img]

in a few years 😉

Pantera are not in the same ball park

They are not evan the same sport as the fab four

well they both had band members shot to death!

and afaic youre right pantera are waaaaaay better

Overated tosh IMO, but decent songwriters.

From bad to worse, Kimbers? Wouldn't call myself a massive fan, but I do have 5 of their albums ❓ Anyone who doubts their influence or ability to write great songs is [s]a fan of pointless metal[/s] wrong.

My parents hated them. That was good enough for me. At the time.

Like many I can appreciate the music and the ongoing effect they had on popular music but I am rather tired of hearing all about it again.

I quite like the fact that due to the ongoing Apple dispute that Itunes remains Beatles free!

This is all about money and appealing to some audiophiles who enjoy having several different copies of the same song. As I am tone deaf it makes bugger all differnce to me.

Hijack CFH guess you have bought latest copy of Bike with the Emily Batty interview?

What is so abundantly clear here isn't anything to do with liking the Beatles or their music, it's the total ignorance of musical history and the totally irrefutable fact that the Beatles were the most important contributors to world music. Before them, all popular music was written by writers on a production line basis, like the Brill Building, with Goffin and King, among many, and then the songs were presented to singers to perform. The Beatles were the first pop performers to write and perform their own material. The likes of Pet Clark, Dusty, Elvis, Pat Boone, et al, never sang their own songs. No-one did. The Beatles broke that wide open, allowing the likes of Radiohead and Pantera to exist. Plus, the Beatles were intimately involved in using the studio as an instrument, with tape effects, editing, multitracking, etc, that were also far ahead of their time. To say they are rubbish shows a remarkable level of ignorance, when there is such a broad range of styles in their music; compare Eleanor Rigby with Tomorrow Never Knows, which I love to bits, the drumming, played loud, is as good as anybody. I'll say now that I'm a fan, but as someone who is a fan of quality music of any genre, when I was at school, the cool kids were carrying around the White Album, but the first real rock album I ever heard was King Crimson, In The Court Of The Crimson King, and I loved Jethro Tull, and Simon and Garfuncle and ELP as well. One other thing, the Beatles broke the previous dominance of the Americans over pop music, which you should all be grateful for.

Like many I can appreciate the music and the ongoing effect they had on popular music but I am rather tired of hearing all about it again.

Spot on. Well put.

Hijack CFH guess you have bought latest copy of Bike with the Emily Batty interview?

Is that an "under the counter" magazine? 😉 Will go and have a look!

I love the irony that someone who regularly champions the zenith of bad taste that is mullet rock, starts a thread questioning The Beatles. Top work Flash 😆

🙂

Taste is a personal thing, my dear chap!

Actually, my original post was more about being bored of the endless hype about them that there has been recently. I'm no fan of their music, but as mentioned above, I can appreciate their place in the history books.

Their music still sucks, mind you. 😉

never did get the beatles

Bike the american mountain bike mag, can be found in places like Borders, has a whole womens feature this month.

Can probably find it online too!

The Beatles did more good for Liverpool, London, Britain, and all things British, and, had more influence on the sixties and the world in general, than many people can even being to imagine. And I don't think any hype which they might be receiving now, will ever do them justice.

Personally, I thought the Stones were better, much better.

Personally, I thought the Stones were better, much better.

Again, we agree on something. We must stop. People will talk!

😉

My only gripe about the Beatles is that apparently they allowed Pantylina to exist.

we agree on something

Ah yes, but are sure your preference for the Stones isn't because they were posh toffs from London as opposed to Irish-Scousers ?

😉

jeez - the stones clearly weren't in the same league as the beatles - creatively, i think only brian wilson was with them. everyone should listen to tomorrow never knows from the anthology - one of most incredible pieces of music ever recorded - makes you think 'ah, that's the chemical brothers ideas right there'

Fine re the importance of the Beatles but going back to the OP, the release of old rehashed stuff and a computer game is JUST NOT NEWS, SO STOP GOING ON ABOUT IT ON THE BBC NEWS!

NB this doesn't apply just to the Beatles but 1/2 the news seems to be trails of other programs or events covered by the BBC, drives me mad so it does. Not a good way to start your morning ranting at the telly before 8am.

The Beatles - just a band

I wouldn't dispute that pjbarton. And the Beatles influence wasn't just musical - it was also in art, films, fashion, and even humour. But I much preferred the early Stones with their strong bluesie music, than the yeah, yeah, yeah, hair-shaking [i]ouuuuu[/i] stuff.

[i]Before them, all popular music was written by writers on a production line basis, like the Brill Building, with Goffin and King, among many, and then the songs were presented to singers to perform. The Beatles were the first pop performers to write and perform their own material. The likes of Pet Clark, Dusty, Elvis, Pat Boone, et al, never sang their own songs.[/i]
erm so chuck berry or muddy waters didnt write, record and perform their own music, they just simply didnt exist i guess

erm so chuck berry or muddy waters didnt write, record and perform their own music, they just simply didnt exist i guess

As fantastic a sound as it was, it's worth remembering that the blues was/is highly formulaic and the likes of J L Hooker, Muddy Waters etc, were merely playing that same 12 bar formula in their own style. In terms of invention and originality the Beatles were light years ahead of those guys.The fact that for years, the Stones were happy to follow the blues formula puts the Beatles way ahead of them too in that regard.

Before them, all popular music was written by writers on a production line basis, like the Brill Building, with Goffin and King, among many, and then the songs were presented to singers to perform. The Beatles were the first pop performers to write and perform their own material. The likes of Pet Clark, Dusty, Elvis, Pat Boone, et al, never sang their own songs. No-one did. The Beatles broke that wide open, allowing the likes of Radiohead and Pantera to exist. Plus, the Beatles were intimately involved in using the studio as an instrument, with tape effects, editing, multitracking, etc, that were also far ahead of their time.

Like pjbarton has pointed out, the Beach Boys would probably have something to say about the above paragraph.

Still, I partially agree with CFH: hearing about the Beatles all the time is getting very dull.

(Only partially: I was listening to Sgt. Peppers last night and it's excellent...)

mogrim

the beach boys were in close competition with the Beatles no doubt - but the Beatles led the way. The Beach Boys only had one musical genius, the Beatles had 2 so he was outgunned

The story goes that Brian Wilson heard "Rubber Soul" and was blown away by what the Beatles had achieved - the fact that the Album contained no filler and the studio techniques they were starting to experiment with. Inspired he then produced "Pet Sounds" - only to then here "Revolver" and be blown away again.

The Beatles took "pet Sounds" as inspiration for Sgt Peppar - Wilson's "answer" was "Smile". However he never finished it (not for another 30 years anyway) - and according to Rock Legend went insane trying to "beat" Sgt Pepper

the beach boys were in close competition with the Beatles no doubt - but the Beatles led the way.

And only the Beatles had the nerve and the humour to release a song taking the piss out of the Beach Boys 8)

Who is beatlesband?

they invented music dontya know?!

where to hear this beatlesband music ?

[i]The Beatles - just a band[/i]

Led Zeppelin. Just a band.

Pantera. Sh1t.

Surely that's the whole point, The Beatles weren't just a band.

DezB, apart from "A Vulgar Display of Power", obviously. 🙂

Agree with Dan Le Sac and the other bloke completely. The Beatles had some great tunes, some f--king awful ones too (can anyone sit through "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" without wanting to stab themselves through the eardrums with a cocktail stick?), and I do find it a bit annoying the way they are constantly held up as "the best band of the 20th Century" by professional bumlickers like Paul Gambaccini. It's music, it's subjective, there is no "best".

everyone should listen to tomorrow never knows from the anthology - one of most incredible pieces of music ever recorded - makes you think 'ah, that's the chemical brothers ideas right there'

word - got it on now, as it happens. end of an amazing album 🙂

and you're right, it could be the chems even when you know it's not.

agree that the Beatles made some rubbish - Maxwell's Silver Hammer is one of the most awful tunes ever recorded

I think this is excusable though when you consider their work rate (1st single 1962, last album 1969) and their creativity. These days it takes all the bands of close to comparable popularity (coldplay, U2 etc) 3,4,5 years to produce one album that sounds pretty much exactly the same as the last one.

Scientists have proved that the Beatles are best - they used rats and bunson burners and everything

oh and i can't stand Paul Gambaccini 👿

See, As I see it there's a problem with The Beatles. They were't that great in the grand scheme of things - They weren't the best musicians, their songs were OK, no more, they didn't have the best voices, they weren't that original.... BUT ..... Put all those average bits together, with stuff like the production and the image, and the sum of the parts is SOOOOOO much more than that..... THAT'S why they got to where they are.

and the coincidence of global superstardom, musical progression and development and their songwriting skills - right time for them to have the impact they did.

Ringo was the best Beatle, though. I think the scientists all agree. 🙂

Another good thing about the Beatles: even if you hate them, they a cultural touchstone, and thus a good target for subversion. 🙂

[img] [/img]

>>Pantera are not in the same ball park

>>They are not evan the same sport as the fab four

>well they both had band members shot to death!

More than that - on the same day! December the 8th.

Peterpoddy - "wearn't that original"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1st feedback on record
1st backwards tape on record
1st band to experiment with recording things at different speeds
1st band to use Indian influences on pop records

Just listen to Stawberry Fields/ Penny Lane (a double a sided single). OK now it has lost its impact perhaps because you know what came afterwards - but at the time this stuff was way way way ahead of what anyone else was doing.

I just love the story of the Beatles

all the pieces fell into place - right people, right place, right time, right attitude

if they had all been born a few years earlier they would have had to do National Service instead of going to Hamburg and learning how to play rock n roll to drunk sailors and strippers.

I wouldn't dispute that pjbarton. And the Beatles influence wasn't just musical - it was also in art, films, fashion, and even humour. But I much preferred the early Stones with their strong bluesie music, than the yeah, yeah, yeah, hair-shaking ouuuuu stuff.

a few good tracks early on, but rubber soul onwards for me. i think it's melodically where they stand out. as a (pretty average) song writer I can say creating original, memorable melodies is pretty tough - the hardest, most satisfying thing about song writing... and the beatles work is packed with it - that's what blows me away. that and a 7/8 signature

can anyone sit through "Ob La Di, Ob La Da"

Are you joking? Thats one of my favourites from the white album. Great little story, guaranteed to put a smile on my face.

RichPenny, rather you than me, my friend. Rather you than me.

Grievoustim, that list you posted is typical of the sort of "the Beatles invented everything" mentality that annoys me. R&B artists like Johnny Guitar Watson were using feedback in the 1950s. Tape effects and techniques have been used by avant garde composers like Edgard Varese and John Cage since the 1940s. There were loads of jazz and kitschy easy listening records by Western artists that used sitars before "Norwegian Wood".

Of course none of these fall within a narrow definition of "pop" music so they don't count. 🙄

Tape effects and techniques have been used by avant garde composers like Edgard Varese and John Cage since the 1940s. ...
Of course none of these fall within a narrow definition of "pop" music so they don't count.

Surely the fact that The Beatles were using ideas from John Cage in pop music is entirely the point about them being the most influential band in pop music.

[img] [/img]they invented lego too

I didn't mean they invented those things - just that they were open to all these influences and were the first to put them on universally popular records, yes "Pop" records.

they could have just carried on playing to screaming girls and going "Yeah Yeah Yeah" but they didn't

Very true, but the idea that that makes them somehow more "important" than the groups that carried on going "yeah yeah yeah", or the people whose innovations they borrowed, is clearly a bit ludicrous.