eightyfour Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 I'm always up for instigating a little chatroom mayhem. When can we be done with considering the Beatles to be the best at anything? Look, not an all out Beatle hater, but I'll admit some anti-bowl cut bias. But to consider them the best? Proof that most americans in this poll are licking far too many foodstamps and suffering brain damage. Seriously, a what, 6 or so year career together?n little to no live touring? A drummer that most manic 7 year olds could best. Ok, they wrote some great stuff, fine, but shouldn't staying power count, particularly with bands and artists clearing nearly 5 decades that are still working? Feel free to abuse me, this board has been a little too polite for too long now. Discuss!
Jorge Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 shouldn't staying power countIt does count, they have been the best since 1962.Some catchy tunes? Just four or five of those would have been impressive. But the amazing strike of genius touch after genius touch is unbelievable, and unmatched.OTOH, Ringo was often simple, but he grooves like nobody else.
RobB Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Hooboy, the can o' worms has been opened!Love the Beatles, but, beyond the "legend" thing, I think their contribution to music has to do with many "firsts" that set the pace for others to follow:They set the template for the modern, electric rock group. Took the Muddy Waters/Chicago-thing to a new level.Like their USA counterparts, The Beach Boys, they were one of the first pop groups to insist on writing/performing their own material. Took a few LPs to achieve that, but it was not the norm at the time.Like Frank Sinatra with Reprise Records, one of the few artists/groups to start their own label and music publishing company.A drummer that most manic 7 year olds could best.You're outta yer mind. Moon/Bohnam/Baker/Palmer prolly wouldn't have "passed the audition." Ringo was solid and showed up. What more could you want?little to no live touring? Pretty much toured constantly with a brutal schedule from '60-'66.Ok, they wrote some great stuff, fine, but shouldn't staying power count, particularly with bands and artists clearing nearly 5 decades that are still working?Agreed. They have the luxury of going out on top. Not quite fair to label them as "THE BEST" since they never had decades to refine their band. Their 70's solo records prove they still had a lot of good music left in them, IMO.
gtone Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Sorry eightyfour - hafta side with the great argument RobB made here.Just my two cents...
eightyfour Posted March 29, 2011 Author Posted March 29, 2011 Hooboy, the can o' worms has been opened!Love the Beatles, but, beyond the "legend" thing, I think their contribution to music has to do with many "firsts" that set the pace for others to follow:They set the template for the modern, electric rock group. Too the Muddy Waters/Chicago-thing to a new level.Like their USA counterparts, The Beach Boys, they were one of the first pop groups to insist on writing/performing their own material. Took a few LPs to achieve that, but it was not the norm at the time.Like Frank Sinatra with Reprise Records, one of the few artists/groups to start their own label and music publishing company.First is good, but doesn't necessarily earn you "best of all time" by default.A drummer that most manic 7 year olds could best.You're outta yer mind. Moon/Bohnam/Baker/Palmer prolly wouldn't have "passed the audition." Ringo was solid and showed up. What more could you want?Yes I'm outta my mind but let's stay on poit. Just to test my theory I knocked over a large stack of Coors cans that fell in perfect meter with I am the Walrus.little to no live touring? Pretty much toured constantly with a brutal schedule from '60-'66.Yeah that's a lot I was wrong. Miley's up to about 6 years now right?Ok, they wrote some great stuff, fine, but shouldn't staying power count, particularly with bands and artists clearing nearly 5 decades that are still working?Agreed. They have the luxury of going out on top. Not quite fair to label them as "THE BEST" since they never had decades to refine their band. Their 70's solo records prove they still had a lot of good music left in them, IMO. Like Jet???
RobB Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 Like Jet??? Ouch, low blow! ElDuave, he'p me! I need some backup here!
atquinn Posted March 29, 2011 Posted March 29, 2011 I'm always up for instigating a little chatroom mayhem. When can we be done with considering the Beatles to be the best at anything? Look, not an all out Beatle hater, but I'll admit some anti-bowl cut bias. But to consider them the best? Proof that most americans in this poll are licking far too many foodstamps and suffering brain damage. Seriously, a what, 6 or so year career together?n little to no live touring? A drummer that most manic 7 year olds could best. Ok, they wrote some great stuff, fine, but shouldn't staying power count, particularly with bands and artists clearing nearly 5 decades that are still working? Feel free to abuse me, this board has been a little too polite for too long now. Discuss! Please, if that's the best you can do, don't quit your day job! - Austin
Toadroller Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 About fifteen years ago, when mp3 compression and files were first hitting the computer world (remember WinAmp? Blade encoder?) someone handed me a cd with pretty much the whole traditional Beatles catalog on it in mp3. Now I of course had pretty much all of that on record, tape and CD anyway, but to put it on my hard drive and listen to it end to end... the breadth of the creativity from album to album is astonishing.The Beatles. Absolutely the best.
cynic Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I'm kinda with ya eightyfour....I can appreciate the "road they paved" yada yada yada, but as a whole I couldn't care much less about the Beatles. To tie this in with the "covers that were better" thread, I'll add "every cover of any Beatles song I've ever heard" to the list.
LordOfTheThighs Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The Beatles were GREAT. They were the Best at cranking out pop tunes, that really rawked.BTW, I happen to love Jet. I've been watching The Beatles Anthology the past few weeks. Some reallyinteresting stuff. They were road dogs from their inception. By stopping the touring, they were able to concentrateon creating music, instead of performing. Most of my hero bands cite The Beatles as one of their biggest inspirations. Good enough for me.
eightyfour Posted March 30, 2011 Author Posted March 30, 2011 Arrgh! You're all crazy! Look, I won't deny the Beatles their place as innovators, creative forces, iconic inspiration etc., but being the first at something shouldn't by default earn you the best of all time. I do apparently stand corrected about their touring. What's Miley up to now about six years?
seeker Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 As songwriters they reign supreme, especally given their short period. As recording artists, they were original and benefited from a good producer (Martin), a great contributor (Martin) and a superb recording engineer (Emerick).As live artists, well, they had no PA to speak of, and by the time they were playing great originals, an audience of screaming fans louder than they were.The Beatles are.
Hamer Time Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I don't think you realise if it wasn't for The Beatles most modern pop/rock music wouldn't exist, at least as we know it.They did tour quite often, they were touring before they got a record deal in fact. They did 4 years of non-stop touring.Ringo was a solid time keeper, it's all that was needed for their songs, I don't think they needed Neil Peart to play I want to hold your hand. They really weren't about amazing musicianship, they were about amazing songs.Proof of that is the solo years, none of them could come close to what they did together, those four had that magic. Individually none of them were great musicians imo, maybe Paul arguably (who was a better drummer than Ringo and better guitar player than John and George).But people forget they influenced modern music in so many ways. They were very unusual for the time, bands didn't come as complete packages. It was usually a singer, with a band often supplied by the record company, and songs were purchased from song writers, Tin Pan Ally and all that. Paul and John wanted to be song writers first, and they did write songs for other people, (Bad To Me, I Wanna Be Your Man (written for the Stones originally), Love of the Loved (Cilla Black), A World Without Love & Nobody I know (Peter and Gordon), From A Window (Billy J. Kramer) etc...With Sir George Martin, they created new techniques in recording.If you look at the big picture no one comes close to what they did for modern pop music. Almost anything can be traced back to the Beatles in some way.
elduave Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Like Jet??? Ouch, low blow! ElDuave, he'p me! I need some backup here! Just refer to him as "dude", and use the phrase "just sayin'" alot. He'll get all kinds of tweaked.
Turdus Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Love the Beatles, love the Stones.But given the choice of the Beatles catalog to the almost 50 year catalog of the Stones, I'll take the Beatles.
JohnnyB Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The Beatles were together for 13 years, not 6. John, Paul, and George started playing together in 1957. Ringo replaced Pete Best in 1962, but even he had played with them on occasion in Hamburg.As already mentioned, they toured incessantly until 1966. The deciding factor is when they declined a lunch invitation from Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos, and barely got out of Manila with their lives.None of the Beatles are famous for being chop-meisters, but they were always fabulous ensemble musicians. I was 10 when the Beatles hit #1 in the USA and I thought I was a better drummer than Ringo at the time. It took decades and some acquired humility to realize I may never become the timekeeper he is. Listen to any Beatles song; the way he sits in the mix and drives the music from the exact center of the beat is uncanny. Lennon set the bar high for rhythm guitar. Harrison's fills and leads never put a note wrong. And Paul catapulted the contribution of bass guitar from the beginning. Listen to the complex (for its time) driving bass line for "I Saw Her Standing There," the B-side of their first #1 hit in the USA. No one was doing that on bass then. The geniuses often make things look easy. How many guys think they can sing like Frank Sinatra until they try it themselves?Finally, we come to the songwriting. I have a long history of liking jazz and the Great American Songbook going back further than my appreciation for rock 'n' roll. As songwriters, Lennon & McCartney, and occasionally Harrison, are about as good as anybody ever was, and by that I mean George and Ira Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Hoagy Carmichael, Rogers & Hart. Hell, Leonard Bernstein rated "She's Leaving Home" as the equal to any of Schubert's songs (for which he is justifiably famous). In a world of 3-chord rock songs, the Beatles wrote songs that are complex, have structure, challenging harmonies, with lyrics that haunt you for years. The rate at which they grew as songwriters is astonishing. Only four years passed between "Love Me Do" and "She's Leaving Home.You want staying power? How about that we're having this discussion 54 years after they formed as a band, 49 years after their first recordings, and 41 years after they split up? Covers? There are a lot of great Beatles covers, but some highly regarded bands have really shit the bed trying to cover a Beatles song. Like I said, the geniuses make it look easy until you try it yourself.
velorush Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 They appeared on Ed Sullivan six months before I was born. By the time I was aware of anything musical, I'd missed them (this, helped along by my Elvis-obsessed parents) and grew up never really having an appreciation. Over the years I've been in groups that have covered some of their catalog and I have to say every time I've worked one of their songs up, my appreciation has grown by leaps and bounds. I find the overt simplicity to be the mark of underlying genius - nothing complicated, but the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. I really have no bone to pick here, but I will add that mine was the same opinion until I actually started working through the songs. That they were coming from the same American blues rehash that most of the English groups were doing at the time and in only 13 years ended up at "Let It Be" should tell us something. I don't think they needed Neil Peart to play I want to hold your hand. And this is the funniest thing I've read so far today I Want to Hold Your Hand: 5/4 for two measures, then 7/8 for a measure, lather, rinse, repeat...
cynic Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 They appeared on Ed Sullivan six months before I was born. By the time I was aware of anything musical, I'd missed them 2.5 years in my case, so this is more than likely the reason I've missed the boat on them musically. None of the bands I was in as a younger me spent much time covering them and their music has never been anything to my ear that's made me want to "play that song over again". There are songs of theirs I really like, but I enjoy them much more when performed by someone else. Give me the cheesy ass Sgt Pepper movie soundtrack over the original any day. I'm also not the type that pays much attention to the lyrics in a song. As long as the voice singing them is complimentary to everything else that's going on I'm good with it, so whatever story their song is telling it doesn't reach me. I realized many years ago that I'm in a very small minority, and if I understood the attraction to them it would have saved me many long discussions over the years with those trying to "convert" me. I guess it's similar to the people that couldn't see the genius behind Bobby Sherman?
BlueRedWhite Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 Guys: is never late to learn to appreciate a classic.I wasn't born when they started, and furthermore: they were forbidden in my country during those years (60's and 70's)
mathman Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The Beatles are just old dudes. Listen to something new, like Rebecca Black. edited to fix the graphic....
Disturber Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The Beatles released a song called Obladi oblada. They should be sent to prison.
Armitage Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 While I'm not saying they're perfect, duff songs are pretty few and far between on the Beatles albums. When they play in the car, I never seem to hit skip, and I'm more of a early metal guy... they were the masters of melody and hooks.I never understod the flack Ringo gets. While I am an expert at air drumming, I can't sit behind a real kit without hitting my sticks... I just don't get what people expected him to do?
MCChris Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 I never understod the flack Ringo gets. While I am an expert at air drumming, I can't sit behind a real kit without hitting my sticks... I just don't get what people expected him to do?My theory is that it's a by-product of his goofball image, combined with the lack of flash in his playing.
JohnnyB Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 The Beatles released a song called Obladi oblada. They should be sent to prison.By the time they recorded Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, they'd earned the right to write and record anything they wanted.As someone who was a teenager throughout the Beatles era and a big fan of the ambitious complexities of "Sgt. Peppers" and "Magical Mystery Tour," I found the simplicity and humor of Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da refreshing. Ditto for the Doors return to simple blues in "Morrison Hotel" and "L.A. Woman," their last two albums.BTW, it's hard to estimate the total effect of their first appearance on Ed Sullivan (Feb. 9, 1964). For one thing, the owner of "The Organ Center" converted his entire music store enterprise to "The Guitar Center." For another, Pat Metheny switched from French horn to guitar. I'm sure there are many other examples.
Armitage Posted March 30, 2011 Posted March 30, 2011 My theory is that it's a by-product of his goofball image, combined with the lack of flash in his playing. My thoughts about C.C. Deville... while he's no Steve Vai, (neither am I), he takes a lot of heat for it... I feel bad for him. Nothing wrong there (where you like it or not is another thing).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.