Forum menu
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.