Imagine a band turning up in 2012 and by 2019 achieving what the Beatles did.
Their productivity and innovation in such a short space of time is mind blowing.
tjagain
Member
I am going to be a dissenter here. Ok a few songs with a little social observation in them and a few acid inspired bits but taken as a whole – derivative trite pop music mainly copied from others – and often direct copies.
All music is derivative, TJ! 😆 without lineage and influence, there is no music all the way back to the middle ages.. The beatles took their influences, which were many, and ran with them to make something awesome.
I think you can basically say everything up to the Help album was them largely learning their trade, from an including Help, they took things to a whole knew level, imo.
She's leaving home literally makes me cry. It really ruins that album for me I cant listen to it, breaks my heart as the father of a daughter.
For No-One with that immortal line 'you won't forget her' is brilliant and timeless
Maxwells silver hammer?
Maxwells silver hammer?
Ooof. That was a low blow.
Wasn’t Frank Zappa doing experimental studio stuff before the Beatles? They were just more popular so a wider audience were exposed to it. I like a lot of the Beatles stuff, but there were other bands around too. Just seems like they get all the credit to the detriment of others. Only my opinion of course.
I like within you without you, I find I very calming.
I love pretty much everything they ever recorded in varying degrees but a lot of my friends say they are vastly overrated. I like that, taste is individual.
Not particularly a fan though my word they had a few good songs. Just posting to say that their early stuff was just as good as their later stuff. Thomas Mann, the Times' music critic famously said they were the best wongwriters since Schubert at the end of '63. And a bunch of stuff about Aeolian cadencies:
https://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/12/27/the-times-what-songs-the-beatles-sang-by-william-mann/ Just saying that there was a fair degree of sophistication at this point, and more than meets the ear.
And mainly, again as a non-fan, it's worth saying what incredible singers and players they were as a a band. Tight as you like but really swung too (again on the earlier stuff), and blimey they could sing. Not many bands like that. Apart from the Bootleg Beatles, obviously. And the arctic monkeys. In fact this thread's gone a long way with no one mentioning Oasish.
tjagain
Member
Maxwells silver hammer?
great tune
Went to watch a man play with his big organ at the Kelvingrove last Saturday.
Hey Jude went down very well,he pulled out all most of the stops.Some of us even sang along .
but taken as a whole – derivative trite pop music mainly copied from others – and often direct copies.
I find the arguments about the Beatles quite interesting. Whether you "like" the music is just taste, that's really neither here nor there. But to call the music trite is overly critical I think. I don't think I know any musician (and any one with any knowledge or appreciation of composition really) who thinks the music is trite. Lennon and McCartney's song writing skills are up there with the very best. Yes there are better lyricists; someone posted a link to a Bob Dylan track earlier and clearly the man's an absolute genius poet, but his music is pretty basic 4 beat rock and roll/blues and has been from the get go, and remains pretty much unchanged. Look at any Beatles track though, and you can find really complex composition at work; Dom5th chord progressions, even secondary dominants, they have songs with minor and major 7th progressions, you name it, they try it. They don't do this by accident. Whether its' simple stuff like Day Tripper or more complex orchestral stuff they did later on, their song writing skills are bloody incredible. I know it all sounds simple and straighforwards, and you can look at their early stuff and say "It's just 12 bar blues" but it's the progressions they make, the chords they choose that make the Beatles stuff stand out. It sounds so normal to us now, because every one looks at how Paul and John and George did it and pretty much just copies it. They took "pop" music and ran with it, they weren't just streets ahead, they were whole towns ahead of what anyone else was doing at the time. Someone earlier called all music derivative, and largely that's true, in western music at least. But to take a Bach Bourree Lute piece that most of us learned as a showy off piece for grades and turn that into Blackbird, and then record it with just an acoustic guitar and a foot tapping...That's not "trite"
^^^^ I do like it when someone can write something with a clear and deep understanding of a subject to counter simplistic comment by others 🙂
Other groups had already done or were doing all that, Nick. The difference was that the Beatles could add excellent vocal harmonies and had a gift for the perfect commercial pop song. Let's face it, Dylan's songs usually sound better covered by someone else.
When you talk about fancy chords, to a guitarist they aren't particularly fancy. The Hard Day's Night sound comes form leaving a finger on third fret high e for most of the song. The major 7th stuff is really easy to play (I assume we're talking about "I saw her standing there") as you are moving pretty much the same postion around the fret board. And they were the chords and sounds of the time - Guitar Boogie by Chuck is another song in major 7th but takes months or years rather than days to learn to play.
Which brings me to another point. The orignal Jonhny B Goode is 170bpm, Jailhouse Rock is stupid fast. Rock and Roll had been fast frantic and a bit anti-social; the Beatles slowed it down, rounded the corners and made it easier on the ears to broaden the appeal.
And they had the press, radio and TV on their side. At four I was allowed to stay up late to watch the Beatles. There was so much hype that even my musically indifferent parents were dragged into it. The music was good enough, the look right, the voices great and marketing perfect.
Wasn’t Frank Zappa doing experimental studio stuff before the Beatles?
both released in august 63
as a songwriter who’s in the different league again ? Btw I’m not a fan of either
The Beatles worshipped Dylan. Dylan famously introduced them to weed for allegedly the first time. Lennon even resorted to wearing his black cap for a year or two afterwards.
I love them both.
Alright then: punk! Helter Skelter. What a piece of utter genius.
Love it. I think the story behind that was that the buzz at the time was that The Who had recorded a tune with a massive amount of feedback and they were all desperate to hear it.
The tune was 'I can See for Miles' and when McCartney finally heard it he said something along the lines of 'that's not a lot of feedback' and so he decided to do something that really had a lot of feedback
‘I can See for Miles’
Which, iirc, was strongly influenced by The Kinks.
Just listened to Rubber Soul - Pet Sounds - Revolver. Lovely progression.
The Jam went from Art School to Ghosts in 5 years.
Innovation?
Eddie Cochran was doing overdubs before the beatles I believe. Beach boys were using complex harmonies before the beatles, Bob Marley and Lee scratch perry were bringing sophistication and innovative studio effects to Reggae in the early 60s
The beatles IMO where much more synthesis that innovators - pulling the best bits out of the music they heard and putting it all together in a nice easily accessible non threatening package.
Tj talking shit, who'd a thunk it. ;D
I’m with Tj here, essentially The Beatles were Coldplay of the 60’s.
Er, no. They were never that depressing.
Dylan’s songs usually sound better covered by someone else.
Burn him!
That Zappa video was great, thanks.
Not a fan... I've tried but I bounce off really hard, I think maybe more so because I know I "ought to" like it...
But most of my favourite bands will quote them as a reference and inspiration and so for that I'm massively grateful. You don't need to like a band for them to be important to you, I reckon. I saw Frank Iero, the guitarist from My Chemical Romance, cover Helter Skelter to an audience of mostly teenagers and they all lost their shit, that's pretty awesome, it came out more than a decade before he was born, and it was blowing away an audience that were in nappies when his previous band got massive, that's your grandad's punk rock kids. So here's to the Beatles
(same also goes for the Replacements and Husker Du and half the other bands in 29 x The Pain), the Pixies, Sabbath...)
Edit: Off to play it now followed by Forever Changes and the Notorious Byrds Brothers.
Three of my absolute favourites.
Favourite Beatles tracks right now.
- Blackbird
- Getting Better
- What Goes On
- Hey Bulldog
- Rain
- Tomorrow Never Knows
- Taxman
- Norwegian Wood
- We Can Work It Out
- Money (Cover)
- You Really Got A Hold On Me (Cover)
Dylan was a genius at making a lucrative business out of protest songs.
TJ, The Beatles did absorb a lot of influences for sure but their influence around harmonies were different from and not tally dependant on The Beach Boys. Both were influenced by each other - but that was comparatively later on...
The Beatles were also fantastic at using influences that very few if any other R&B/Rock & Roll bands did e.g. modal music.
Howard Goodall did a few great programmes about The Beatles. Well worth watching and incredibly informative.
I quite agree with you. Its others above that tried to say they were innovative. they simply were not.
What they were great at was taking others innovations and melding them into something sounding good.
The harmonies was simply an example. someone above stated they were innovative in using them. I pointed out its a straight steal from the california surf music which predates the beatles
The first stadium gig.
The first concept album.
The first music 'video'.
The first to print lyrics on the sleeve.
The first to stop touring and concentrate on recording.
Saying you don't like the Beatles is an affectation.
Everyone likes the Beatles, you've just not accepted it yet. 🙂
The first to print lyrics on the sleeve.
Nope, hundreds before them.
The first stadium gig.
Nope, Elvis did them years before.
The first music ‘video’.
I don't know how you define videao but again hundreds before the Beatles on any reasonable criteria.
The first concept album.
Define a concept album and using those criteria I suggest you'll find they were around years before the Beatles
The first to stop touring and concentrate on recording.
Firstly they never did stop touring as individually they toured for years and two of them still do, secondly "the first" no way.
You're right about Elvis, and possibly you could say The Wee Small Hours is a concept album, but they stopped touring as The Beatles. 🙂
And I'm right about the lyrics though......
My grandmother had 78s with lyrics.
Is it an album? 🙂
My mum told me a story about when my dad came home with tickets to the Beatles before they were mega famous. She said 'I'm not seeing a band named after an insect!' and they didn't go - she still has a bit of regret many years later.
I can assure you that albums of Christmas song's came with lyrics in my childhood (hence my Google search that got that image). There was no reason not to, the songs were in the public domain. Anyhow Google it.
In response to OP, And Your Bird Can Sing is a favourite. Also favourites: Hey Bulldog, Get Back, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, Sgt Pepper's Reprise. Well, probably any Beatles song is one of my favourites.
It's interesting reading this thread since the idea of not liking the Beatles has always seemed to me to be akin to not enjoying fun, or disliking nice things. It doesn't really compute.
This said, Help! was the first song I ever really heard at the age of six or so and it was like being slapped, it was a visceral thing. So the Beatles were a gateway to the world of music for me, and it's impossible to be objective about them as a result 🙂
I do quite like the beatles - and I accept their influence is huge. I merely question the assertions that they were innovators.
Do some reading of stuff from people who know a **** of a lot more than you then? eg. the
https://medium.com/cuepoint/how-the-beatles-revolver-gave-brian-wilson-a-nervous-breakdown-4b3939c4e0e5
I honestly don’t give a flying one what you think, but christ you’ve made this thread tedious.
I am not the only one who understands the difference between innovation and synthesis on this thread and every person who has asserted the beatles did something first have been shown that others did instead - and perhaps you could read the link I posted that explains this exactly.
Jesus.
Make.
It.
Stop.
OK rusty - its just so tedious watching people make assertions that are easily refuted then getting angry when you refute them
I'm not angry.
And I was right about the lyrics😉
I'm a little disappointed in myself for getting drawn in and responding to Edukator and yourself - I really should know better by now.
Have you noticed how many of the threads you post on end up being about you?
I wonder why that is.
Some great little known B sides too. E.g. Old Brown Shoe.