Somebody explain The Beatles to me

[Glenn]

Ok so I don't hate their music. I don't listen to it on purpose, but I don't think it's terrible. I don't think it is something to be applauded, however. I don't understand why they are so praised. I have had this discussion with a number of people and no one has given me a decent explanation. This came up again when VH1 released a list of the top 100 rock albums and The Beatles had 5 of the top 11. One of my friends summed it up best with the comment:

"Maybe I'm listening to some other band that I'm mistakenly referring to as the Beatles, and the real Beatles are actually this great band that deserves to be praised. Or, maybe 99% of the general public wouldn't know their a** from the extra hole in their head. I'm sure if there was an album called "Ringo Takes a Sh**, and We Recorded It" it would have cleared the top 15."

Basically our arguement is that the Beatles were not immesely talented in any way. Paul an John were decent singers. The music is not bad, but it is simple. They didn't not invent rock as some people claim. Basically, the only think they did is invent the "boy band"...and should we be thanking them for that?

I usually get stuff like this. I understand Elvis' fame, I understand why "The Bicycle Theif" made the top 100 movies, etc... I understand why the band Rush is regarded highly even though I dislike their music. The members are very talented. I am not closed-minded about music. I listen to every genre. But someone please tell me why the Beatles are so praised!?!?!


PS--Since this is about music, let me throw in a plug for a band that some friends of mine are in. You can check out their songs here:

A day at the fair (http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/396/a_day_at_the_fair.html)

I think the songs "Jersey California Life" and "Broken" are the two best they have up there.

Some of the members used to be in a punk band but now they play more of a Dashboard/Goo Goo Dolls with a hint of punk kind of music.

[IrishHand]

John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote phenomenal, moving songs. They were both excellent musicians and singers. No, they didn't "invent" rock and roll - but they are without a doubt one of the most influential groups ever in music.

The music is simple only in retrospect. We can listen to Beatles' songs now and they don't sound all that impressive, but this is 40+ years after the fact. At the time, it was revolutionary.

For the record, I think the Beatles are a great band. I enjoy the vast majority of their music. Since you referenced Rush as well, I'll also note that I think they're a great band. Sadly, I don't know enough about music to be able to comment more intelligently than that. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Noo Yawk]

I'm not sure where to begin, but as a musician, I can tell you that The Beatles were an extremely talented band. You need to understand that at the time, rock was dying out. The boring I-IV-V chord progressions were overdone. The Beatles changed all that. They were the first to write and perform their own songs, the first to wear long hair, the first to use different chord progressions and harmonies, and the first group to stay on top of the charts for 3 years. Then when you thought they were done, they come out with Sgt Pepper. Another completely innovative album for the time. I think you need to understand that all the Rock music you listen to today is an extension of what the Beatles started.

[HDPM]

A lot of it is political. The Beatles have been portrayed as deep thinking leftists and boomers get 20/20 rose tinted hindsight thinking they were so great. They were OK as a basic pop band with drug addled musicians. Attaching any more significance to them is a mistake.

[IrishHand]

Yeah! What he said!

(He made a lot more sense than me, which isn't tough.)

Our music was a sign of changing times. Not only in Great Britain but in America as well. Many teens went through difficult times listening to our music and could relate to our message. Yes much of our music was simple but what better way to to relay an important message with simple, clear lyrics and rhyrthmic melodies. You may want to discern the messages from the Sgt. Peppers albumn before you write off all our music as simplistic performed by untalented musicians.

Perhaps if you had lived through the turmoil of Vietnam, free love and powerful mind altering drugs it would make more sense. Alas H.G. Wells and his time machine are but fiction however The Beatles shall remain eternal and a portion of the very fabric of todays society.

Ringo

ps: Musical talent means little without a message and an audience thirsty to learn more.

[adios]

Besides what noo yawk wrote you really had to be there and live through it to understand the phenomona totally.

[John Cole]

Glenn,

When I'm driving along, and I hear "She Loves You" on the radio, I smile. I'll never be that young again-or that innocent--but, for a brief moment, I am.

John

[Noo Yawk]

The only thing I ever wondered was how a guy unloads a gun at John Lennon when he has an easy shot at Yoko.

[Glenn]

I think what I am not seeing is why they are set above the others. Like I said I don't think their music is bad, and I don't disagree they are an important band. Certainly I would never questioned the taste of a Beatles fan. However they were not the sole reason for the rock revolution. By the time the Beatles went on Ed Sullivan (1964), Bob Dylan already had two albums out. So writing political/meaningful rock songs isn't theirs alone. The Rolling Stones came out with their first album that year as well. In 1967 Jimi Hendrix released "Are You Experienced" and "Axis: Bold as Love". In 1968 he came out with "Electric Ladyland". This was concurrent with the release of "Sgt. Pepper..." (1967) and "The White Album" (1968). IMHO, the Hendrix albums were so much further down the evolutionary chain of rock it is beyond compare. The point is many important rock artists released revolutionary material at the same time. The only difference is that the Beatles hit the mainstream faster because they were more suitable for television. I think they have been given undue credit because of this.

Anyhow, Irish and others, could you please give me a list of 5 Beatles songs to listen to? I'm sure I have heard them but I will pay attention this time /forums/images/icons/grin.gif .

Thanks for the quick responses.

-g-

[Noo Yawk]

Dylan was important to folk music and Jimi was important to a new style of the electric guitar. However, and I'm A huge Hendrix fan, Jimi was influenced in his guitar by Eric Clapton, who was influenced by the Blues Artists of the 40's and 50's. Both of them were influenced as songwriters by the Beatles. As a matter of fact, Paul Mccartney was the one to get Jimi his first big gig in London. Dylan decided to go electric as a result of the Beatles popularity, and he was great friends with George Harrison. As for the Stones, they were a flop doing mostly cover tunes. Their first big hit was a Lennon-Mccartney tune-I wanna be your man. They convinced Mick and Keith to start writing their own tunes. The Beatles had a much larger influence than you think.
5 songs:
1) Strawberry Fields-Completely new for the time
2)Nowhere man- Listen to the Harmonies
3) A day in the Life-Beautiful song composition
4) Elanor Rigby-A full string arrangement in a rock song
5)I wanna hold your Hand-Listen to the hook where the Minor 7th chord comes in.
Most of these song writing and production qualitys were never done in rock prior to this.

[Michael Davis]

John,

I am not sure how this feeling is any different from my hearing "Blame it on the Rain."

Mike

[John Cole]

Michael,

It probably isn't, which is a good thing, no?

John

[Michael Davis]

You could not possibly say that if you knew what I thought everytime I heard Milli Vanilli...

Take care.


Mike

[Glenn]

The Stones were a bad example. I should have known better than to use them. I know nothing about the Stones, it was just the first band I thought of from that era.

You make good points regarding the influence of the Beatles, but I would argue the the influence was mutual. The Beatles did what is considered their best stuff in the late 60s after they had heard Dylan, Hendrix, Clapton, etc... Hendrix's stuff in my opinon was the most ahead of its time. Of course Clapton was a big part of this. You can trace it all back to soul and blues but I argue that just because someone came first doesn't necessarily mean they provided the most advacement. I mean Newton made up calculus but you have to really like what Einstein did with it.

Do you at least agree that listing 5 Beatles albums in the top 11 rock albums of all time is excessive?

[HDPM]

That is certainly a fair question.

[Bill Murphy]

Good replies here; Mick Jagger himself has pretty much said, "Ya had to be there; difficult to comprehend; they were first", etc. The Beatles put out some crap that would've been ridiculed if it weren't them, such as "I Am The Walrus", "Bungalow Bill", etc., but they also did some truly magnificent songs that still don't sound dated at all, 35+ years later.

"JJ Flash" & "Get Off Of My Cloud", great as they are, got 60's stamped all over them. Gotta give a lot of credit to George Martin.

Two quickie polls: Beatles peak=Rubber Soul/Revolver/Pepper/non-silly bits of Magical Mystery Tour & White Album + Hey Jude & P-Back Writer singles versus Stones Peak=Beggars Banquet/Let It Bleed/Sticky Fingers/Exile + JJ Flash & Honky Tonk Women singles.

Beatles overall, beginning to end catalog; songwriting; playing; recording/arranging/studio production; versus the same for LZ. Interesting, as both bands were around for approx the same time.

Off the bat, gotta give LZ a huge edge in playing ability, although who knows what The B's woulda been like had they kept[or been able to keep] playing live. The rooftop thing sounded a lot better than I thought when I finally heard it. But, can ya 'magine the complete anarchy a Beatles US tour in 1968 would've unleashed? /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Anyway, some of the B v LZ categories might not be as clearcut each way as would first be thought. Fun ta think about. FWIW it's hard to imagine the other two bands writing "Baby, You're A Rich Man", "Brown Sugar", or "Trampled Underfoot"! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

Puh-lease.

Ringo Starr a deep thinker?

Many of their songs are classics, simple yes, but classic in the same sense that Irving Berlin's songs are simple classics. Simple structure, simple lyrics. There isn't much difference between Berlin's, "What'll I do when you are far away and I am blue, What'll I do?" and "She was just seventeen, you know what I mean?" or "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?"

What goes around comes around. My daughter recently asked me who Zelda and Scott Fitzgerald were and I told her they were the John and Yoko of their generation. A lot of drugs/alcohol and PR went into both Fitzgerald and Lennon, but what makes them memorable was their talent.

I can play you 20 pieces by Chopin that are every bit as sophomoric as "Imagine." I'm not saying Sir Paul is another Chopin, but his best is as good as any popular music this century, and I was not a fan when they were playing.

[andyfox]

A lot of their music sounds very tame now and dated. It sounded nothing like that when we first heard it. You've got to remember that Dean Martin's Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime was a #1 song when the Beatles hit it big. (In fact, Martin sent a telegram to Elvis saying, "If you can't handle 'em, I will." Funny man.)

You see pictures of them now and their hair looks, well, like anyone's hair. It was shocking then. Their music was completely different from anything we had heard in this country up to that time. They became cultural icons.

Now this doesn't really answer your question about whether they were talented or not. I think McCartney is one of the great songwriters of the century. Like anyone who has written hundreds of songs, he has his share of clinkers. But songs like "Yesterday" and "In My Life" are true classics. Simple ain't necessarily bad.

Now, Elvis, that's another story. Talk about no talent. . .
And I'm not talking Costelllo here.

[Glenn]

"Now, Elvis, that's another story. Talk about no talent. . .
And I'm not talking Costelllo here. "

Most of his hit music doesn't show it, but Elvis was a very good blues guitarist. A hint of this can be seen in the 68 comeback special. He could play, he could sing, and he had one hell of an image. Plus he brought "black" music to the mainstream. One of the most interesting things I have ever seen was the governerer (i think, some politician anyways) of Alabama or some other equally silly southern state calling Elvis the N-word on TV. I'm sure he would have liked to play more pure blues but there is no way anyone would have listened at the time. He opened the door though.

And Elvis Costello is pretty good too /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

[andyfox]

I think he had a good voice, I'm not so sure he could sing though. (McCartney doesn't sing much either, now that I think about it; every rendering sounds the same, same inflection, same intensity, ballad or "rock and roll".)

I don't know enough about his guitar playing to render a judgment. And of course I was playing to the crowd by calling him talentless. But I think maybe a case could be made that he was overrated, as a musician, more than for the Beatles.

I once heard Mickey Mantle say that he thought he became an icon because of his name. It is indeed a great name. Elvis Presley may be the greatest name ever.

[John Cole]

Andy,

I'd thought you'd vote for "Mickey Mantle" as the greatest name ever. It may be.

John

[Dynasty]

Basically, the only think they did is invent the "boy band"...and should we be thanking them for that?

I don't think it's fair to blame the Beatles for the evolution of boy bands. That black mark belongs to the Monkees and those who manufactured them.

[BruceZ]

Ok now I can make 3 points:

1. You mean physics. Einstein had nothing to do with calculus. He was actually rather inept as a mathemetician, and got by with alot of help from his friends.

2. As for the Beatles, I've asked myself a similar question, but it's hard to beat Ringo Starr's explanation below. Also, the volume of their work speaks volumes (ok I've had a few beers tonight).

3. If you want a band of geniuses from a similar period, IMHO, I submit Fleetwood Mac. I "discovered" them extremely late, but I'm awestruck.

[snakehead]

dear glenn,

congratulations! you have made many of us feel very old today.

I can't blame you, though. I certainly wasn't impressed with the musicians my parents liked, either.

if you think the beatles weren't good musicians, you should listen to their early albums, and keep in mind that you aren't listening to multiple tracks and re-mixes. most of that stuff was done in a single take in the studio.

as for their songwriting, they have written a lot of songs that a lot of people like to listen to. that should count for something. you don't catch people humming hendrix tunes.

and while most bands' albums contain a couple of good songs and the rest stinkers, the beatles albums were full of great songs.

all of the above, along with the fact that the beatles were on the leading edge of cultural change is why they are special to so many of us.

but you are one up on me in one respect: I never did figure out the elvis thing...

[snakehead]

yep, just three feet to the left and chapman would have been a national hero.

[snakehead]

don't listen to hdpm. he's still bitter because his dad wouldn't let him grow his hair long in high school.

[snakehead]

Ringo Starr a deep thinker?

I think we can all agree that ringo was technically a beatle, but that's about as far as it goes.

[snakehead]

one of the best beatle songs is, while my guitar gently sleeps. clapton plays the lead, but it's still great.

[2005]

I disagree HDPM. Yes, they were a pop band at first, but this changed after they stopped playing live shows. Their later albums were masterpieces of complex and radical music. Their lyrics were thought provoking and they all played their instruments extremely well. Songs like Eleanor Rigby, Come Together, A Day in the Life, and Strawberry Fields Forever are some of the greatest rock n roll songs of all time and are about as far from British boy band pop as it gets.

Gavin

[HDPM]

While My guitar Gently SLEEPS? Whose dad didn't let them look like a hippie? /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif I confess to listening to a Beatles song or two, but I wont be an apologist! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Munga30]

I'll tell you what was "simple" -- your drum playing. Sheesh, a trained monkey could do better while improving the overall looks of the group.

Otherwise, I really like the music.

[snakehead]

give me a break. it was in the wee hours of the morning when I wrote that.

[HDPM]

I know, I'm not busting on you for typos like RGP. But some typos are funny, like when someone referred to RGP as RPG. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[andyfox]

Yesterday
All my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh I believe in yesterday

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
Oh yesterday, came suddenly

Why she had to go
I don't know she wouldn't say
I said something wrong
Now I long for yesterday

Yesterday
Love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh I believe in yesterday.


-OK, not exactly great literature, but simply beautiful.

[Glenn]

I understand that Einstein was not a mathematician and he did have others do the hardcore tensor analysis for his General Relativity work. To call him inept may be going a bit far since the math involved is quite nontrivial and my understanding was there were only a few people in the world at the time who could do it. However, the point was that without calculus, some of his theories aren't proved. It was just an illustrative analogy...sheesh. Of course my understanding of fourth-rank tensors is marginal at best so I will stop talking now .

[Glenn]

Hey snakehead,

You wrote:

"I can't blame you, though. I certainly wasn't impressed with the musicians my parents liked, either."

Actually, my parents don't get The Beatles either /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. My father is a big Hendrix fan. My mother likes Joni Mitchell. I really like the music they listen to for the most part...

"you don't catch people humming hendrix tunes."

Ok so the people I hang out with are freaks. But I knew that. Seriously though, most every important guitarist has covered Little Wing. And everyone who wants to play rock guitar wants to play that song.

[BruceZ]

He actually flunked alegebra, and his general relativity work was hindered for a time due to a division by zero. Not to berate the man, he's one of my heroes.

[Glenn]

I didn't realize it was that bad. Interesting. Thanks.

Hmm... Well... I have a copy of a guitar magazine where one editorial said:

"The Beatles were four overated pretty boys who made a lot of money selling records to little girls and wasted the money on drugs. Then they wrote songs about thier trips."

Guess he must've been a Stones fan! (Laugh).

I was never Beatles "fan". They were prolific, etc. and wrote some good songs. But I think, even so they were a bit "bubble gum".

I tend more toward The Who, Led Zep, and the Stones from that era and never really could understand what all the fuss about the Beatles was.

Apparently they touched a lot of people. That's about all you can say. But so did Ozzy, and these days Eminem. So who can say what's musically spectactular... or will sell?

Heck Britanny Spears sold 40 million albums at last count.

I do believe audiences these day are more led by what's put in front of them. I mean the rock greats from the "Classic Rock" era are out there and yet today's stuff sells.

I suspect it's an artifact of the age you are when you get old enough to buy records.

Consider that everyone who is an "old foggie" in music today go thier start when they were young. No one ever broke in "old" after the first round when guys like Bill Haley where around.

I figure you break in when you are young and match the age of your record buyers. Then if they like you, they stick with you over the years.

Sincerely,
Frank

[John Cole]

Glenn,

If you can find it, look for Richard Poirier's essay "Learning from the Beatles" in his book The Performing Self. I reread it today, and even though it's a bit overblown in spots, he makes some good comments on particular songs, especially "All You Need Is Love," tracing the various allusions in the song.

My favorite: "Penny Lane" I like the warmth and nostalgia, I suppose.

John

[Bill Murphy]

True, he was comic relief, an ordinary drummer, and a running joke thru out the 70's & 80's. However, if John had written "Octupus's Garden" and Paul "Don't Pass me By", every music 'journalist' would still be raving over them. And he did do a nice job on "With A Little Help From My Friends", although not as good as Joe Cocker.

Bottom line, he fit in, and it prolly wouldn't have lasted as long as it did without him. A group where all the members are of roughly equal talent and contribution are very rare; Zep & Queen are about it, although The Who is sort of a unique case.

[Bill Murphy]

Hey Jude, I Feel Fine, She's Leaving Home, Paperback Writer, Across The Universe. Eleanor Rigby & Day In The Life were excellent recomm's as well.

If you want it all in one place, borrow the White Album and program: Back In The USSR, Dear Prudence, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Don't Pass Me By, Everybody's Got Something To Hide, Mother Nature's Son, & Long Long Long.

Five of the top 11 is ridiculous, Sgt. Pepper belongs, as prolly does Revolver[enormously influential on other bands' writing & recording], but that's it. If you took all the crap off the White Album that'd be another. You can make a much stronger case for the Stones or Zep or even Pink Floyd having at least 4 in the top 11.

[John Cole]

You'll remember, of course, the famous line: "The girl with colitis goes by."

[snakehead]

/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

where's the raspberry graemlin when you need it?

[John Cole]

[The_Baron]

One of the things that the Beatles did was to popularize the concept of, "unsafe", music. They were, "damned long hair hippies", and they unabashedly took thematic and technical concepts from, "damned Missisip' delta niggras." They deliberately absorbed music for it's own ability to appeal to them and effect their own writing and play. They didn't pull the stunts of Herman and the Hermits and play safe, comfy easily consumable rock.
Even with that, I truly suspect that Dylan and Hendrix would have eventually been able to drag the "Delta" into the mainstream. Fortunately, the Beatles gave a certain acceptability to electric guitars and dumping the holy trinity of chord progressions. If you got parental complaints about listening to Hendrix, you could always say, "well gee mom, I think he's just trying to be one of those funny looking British guys."
Possibly the most important thing they contributed though, was abandoning the stage in favor of the studio. They managed to develop a groundswell of popularity that allowed them the freedom to not have to tour. They could take the, "artistic, uppity high road", and go to the studio where they could produce the music they wanted rather than just what was allowed by the accoustics of their playing venue. In one giant swoop, it suddenly became okay for a band to concentrate on musical production rather than on public concert appearance.
Even today, concert albums are "interesting", but if you want the "real sound" of a band, you go to their top end studio productions. Rush is the first that comes to mind when I think of the dichotomy between studio productions and road music. Yes, Rush has some spectacular concert music. And, yes, I think there's a chance for the passion and artistry to sneak out in a concert venue. But when I look at it historically, for every good song recorded from a concert, there are probably fifty studio pieces. The impassioned, artistic soul of the music probably comes out best in the concert environment. The musician has the audience to play against, the exhaustion of the tour to fight against, the personal conflicts with the band and crew to color his work. But it's all too often that those things don't drive passionate and deeply interpretive music but just create a bad attitude and a mechanical performance. At least in the studio, the producer can look at the musician and say, "great, now go home, smoke a bowl, get ten hours of sleep and we'll just go over our deadline... because that last bit sucked."
This isn't to say that I prefer studio production to live music... I'm split 50:50 either way. And when it goes bad in the studio and is allowed onto the album... it's very, very bad. (Phil Specter, are you listening? Drop about 500 of the guitars and YOU DON'T NEED A [censored] MANDOLIN IN EVERY SONG!)
Sorry... had to get that out.

As always, YMMV.

The Baron