A Beatles Thread: 25 years of listening to music....

Oddly, I've heard people geniunely argue that the Beatles created rap. And Punk.

Well yes, of course. I can't imagine anyone actually hating their music, I hate what they stand for moreso than anything else.

It's odd that this topic came up, because i've been working on an essay entitled I Hate The Beatles for a few weeks now.

Right, but the person who started this thread is talking about listening to them, and coming back and listening again after having heard much else.

I think they were very, very great, but that's not to say I like everything they recorded.

I have nothing new to say about them though.

(NB in the last year or two I've really got into the Beatles.)

I've heard the latter ("Helter Skelter" also --- evidently -- invented metal to some folks' minds). But how could anyone suggest they created rap?

but anyway...

a band with an almost godly knowledge of, simply, what sounds GOOD, and how to play and produce it to sound that way. Just listen to the progression of early "Strawberry Fields Forever" demos on one of the Anthologies

one thing about the beatles, whether you love, like, hate 'em or just don't care, is that they had a remarkable understanding of their own strengths and weaknesses. virtually every outtake, alternate take and working version from the anthology series is WORSE than the officially released version, making it pretty damn clear how deliberately they worked toward something with every damn song. in just about every case, the released version is the RIGHT version, which is quite an achievement in itself. smart young lads they were.

You really need things spelled out for you, don't you:

Not to be rude, but is anyone else fucking sick of Alex in NYC and his Killing Joke fixation?

Entirely OTM. One of my closest co-worker listens exclusively to the Beatles, goes to Beatles conventions, wears Beatles t-shirts, drops Beatles-related allusions into casual conversations. It's maddening. I mean, hey, it makes her happy -- and who am I to decry that? But, y'know.....I mean, get one life, as they say.

Are you Allan Sherman?

My daughter needs a new phonograph.
She wore out all the needles.
Besides, I broke the old one in half.
I hate the Beatles.
She says they have a Liverpool beat.
She says they used to play there.
Four nice kids from offa the street.
Why didn't they stay there?
What is all the screaming about?
Fainting and swooning.
Sounds to me like their guitars
Could use a little tuning.
The boys are from the British Empire.
The British think they're keen.
If that is what the British desire,
God Save The Queen.
No daughter of mine can push me around.
In my home I'm the master.
But when the British come into town,
Gad, what a disaster.
Little girls in sneakers and jeans.
Destroyed the territory.
'Twas like some of the gorier scenes
From West Side Story.
Of course my daughter had to go there.
The tickets are cheap, she hollers.
I was able to pick up a pair
For forty-seven dollars.
When the Beatles come on the stage,
They scream and shriek and cheer them.
Now I know why they're such a rage,
It's impossible to hear them.
Ringo is the one with the drum,
The others all play with him.
It shows you what a boy can become
Without a sense of rhythm.
There's Beatle books and T-shirts and rings,
And one thing and another.
To buy my daughter all of these things,
I had to sell her brother.
Back in 1776
We fought the British then, folks.
Parents of America,
It's time to do it again, folks.
When they come back, here's how we'll begin,
We'll throw 'em in Boston harbor.
But please, before we toss 'em all in,
Let's take 'em to a barber.

On the other hand, I don't see the point of this thread, when there are already so many Beatles threads here already, and it's not hard to find out where different people stand regarding the band.

Fact!

Also, I admit it, this thread was not necessary. I guess I'm just curious to see if some of the older people (who've been exposed to many many more bands than I have) have resigned themselves to the fact that the Beatles are the best they're likely to hear. Pointless thread? Maybe.

I don't give a rat's ass about the beatles.

Sooooo you don't like the Beatles, I gather?

Regardless of whatever one's inidivudal tastes may be, I can't really fathom anyone having a negative reaction to the Beatles. I just can't imagine it. I can completely understand being put off by the deification the Beatles have enjoyed over the ensuing decades, but the music itself? Who could argue with it?

"Hey Bulldog", "I Am the Walrus", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Taxman", "Dr.Robert", "Helter Skelter", and many more......I will never get tired of.

let us never speak of this again.

Supposedly, the Kink's record company was really frugal with them, and prevented Davies from really producing their music the way they wanted to. It's interesting to think about what might have happened had the Beatles been stuck with some similar situation, or if Epstein had not been around.

I have to admit, I agree with this sentiment. I haven't been coming into contact with that attitude enough lately to be really pissed off by it, though. It's not like I read Rolling Stone (though I remember being put off by their all-time top 500 some years ago), Geir doesn't usually get a lot of support here on ilm, none of the sites or blogs I visit do any 60s cannon worshiping, etc.

Maybe some day I'll "get" what's so great about them, but it's not a high priority for me. I'm generally much more interested in more current music.

Hahaha

See, part of me is annoyed by that, but part of me wants to understand and enjoy it on that level! To me it's still just a mildly pleasant album that I never listen to.

On the other hand, you could probably substitute Kid A into that quote and I'd be OK with it. Not that I'd ever declare it in such absolute terms, but whatever.

i don't think the slice is so narrow! but i don't feel like arguing about it. cuz i'm hungry. maybe later.

I think you're completely right about needing to get away from them and come back. Not everybody does but some do. I did.

http://s37.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=10BCEXGIURN9N3TXALPQLM9OTV

x-post

or some sort of IDM?

Just because the Beatles almost always worked within song forms doesn't mean they didn't explore timbre (or what people confusingly describe as "texture") in an interesting way. Maybe I've misunderstood your point here.

And I'm not arguing that the Beatles did it all, but I don't think that by comparison to other artists (especially other rock bands), they were particularly narrow.

You might say best rock band of all time, or best pop band or best music hall band, but you can't say best music of all time.

I have no argument with you there.

That seems a little extreme, dunnit? What's wrong with thinking the Beatles were the best rock band ever? Lester Bangs once sort of grudgingly admitted that the Beatles might have been the best.

(Less flippant response: When I hear mid- to late-period Beatles, I can almost understand what people like about them, but the pre-Revolver teenybop output is overplayed and overrated at best, and mostly pretty boring to modern ears. Stones 4-ever.)

x-post haha I actually swear by Rubber Soul, its their Stonesiest!

http://s51.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1M6UB9BN88BFH1P5YFD3GU2DUA

I would even be reluctant to agree to this. For one thing, the Beatles don't even rock that hard. I would probably be willing to accept that the Beatles were the best Beatlesque pop band ever though.

I suppose there aren't a finite number of things that people can judge about the music of rock bands. There are, however, probably a given number of things that are fairly commonly judged. That being the case, it's understandable that people might have ideas about who they think were the best ever.

It's like you don't even listen to the music.

I'm of that opinion. Their greatness cannot be overstated.

That's insane. Have you listened to A Hard Day's Night (the entire album), lately? Maybe they weren't melting faces with distorted power chords, but to say that the Beatles didn't rock that hard is completely ridiculous.

Scott was completely OTM up above. If it doesn't do anything for you now, or you're too busy reading Pitchfork and wearing your Neighborhoodies and dancing to third-rate Gang Of Four rip-offs, come back to it at a later date when your musical tastes aren't dictated by fashion.

Scott was completely OTM up above. If it doesn't do anything for you now, or you're too busy reading Pitchfork and wearing your Neighborhoodies and dancing to third-rate Gang Of Four rip-offs, come back to it at a later date when your musical tastes aren't dictated by fashion.

People like you are why I "hate" them.

I like quite a bit of the Beatles' music. I "hate" The Beatles.

Seriously. The arguments people make, in the real world and in this thread, usually reek of contrariness or ignorance.

I can sort of understand that. I mean, Paul McCartney is a giant twat, and John Lennon was too. I still think they are two of the best songwriters ever to walk the planet.

*sigh* Again, with this. I've followed the Beatles since I first became obsessed with them as a child in the late seventies/early eighties. I have no idea why people continually make statements like this.

*Cowers in fear of being ripped apart like Ringo's pillowcase at the Plaza*

I agree that if you're a Pitchfork reader then yes, the Beatles are the kind of thing you might appreciate. And my life is a great deal better for liking them. But it's not 1970 anymore.

Same deal. I spent three years of my life immersed in full-blown Beatles obsession.

I have a hard time respecting McCartney post-Wings. His output has been dreck since Tug Of War, save the odd song here and there. He whines about the order of names in the Beatles' songwriting credits. And that Live 8 thing? Yuck.

Darin, do you know the full situation between McCartney and Denny Laine and you are able to evaluate it?

Driving Rain is one of McCartney's best albums ever.

*ducks under copy of Press To Play*

And are you including the two rock and roll covers albums, the classical albums (Liverpool Oratorio and Standing Stone), and the two Fireman albums in this?

I want music to evolve. I'm excited to hear what kids raised on electronic and hip hop music are going to create.

I just can't fathom how an individual can wholly dismiss The Beatles. I know it's not 1970 anymore. But the argument some people made earlier in this thread rings true - while on the surface, they were very much of their time, a lot of their music transcends time. They made some fucking timeless, amazing music.

x-post

I think Denny Laine was upset about not getting a songwriting credit for "Mull of Kintyre." Don't know as that he thinks McCartney is a twat in general, however.

Haven't heard the classical albums. Heard both Fireman records, Choba B CCCP and Run Devil Run. The cover records were OK, but I'd rather hear the originals. Those Fireman records weren't very good.

Shit. I was born in December 1971, and I've never liked the Beatles' music. I've never actively disliked most of it, either. It exists the way Alfred Hitchcock's filmography exists: something beloved of prior generations that has fuck-all to do with my life. (It took me awhile to separate this opinion, which is purely music-based, from my loathing of the Beatles as cultural touchstone/baby-boomer sledgehammer with which to smash all music released post-1970.)

See, I listen to Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard all the time.

scott OTM about musicians, including those outside of rock and pop, and including those outside of English-speaking cultures, going on about the Beatles.

THANKS FOR GIVING THE WORLD POWER POP. MORANS.

Brainwasher OTM about this but not zealous enough - there's so much great music out there that when liking the Beatles would put you even near the same ballpark as people who'd make generalizations like this, how can one not hate the Beatles? As far as I'm concerned, if you love the Beatles but don't have an intimate & scholarly understanding of the baroque period, you're a total poseur. Plain and simple.

Disagree. Even though I think I've been guilty of disliking the Beatles for the same reasons....scott s. is pretty OTM above....

Too many people talk about The Beatles like they were the first band ever to make pop music with more than three chords.

See that's sort of what I was getting at with the thread..........I've heard many well-known musicians (Corgan, Jack White, Bowie, various jazz musicians, etc) and just your regular musician off the street say that The Beatles are "the best band of all time." And these are people that you'd figure probably know a thing or two about rock music, if not other forms and genres. I was just trying to see what the ILMers who I've gathered have been exposed to a lot of music (Ned Raggett, Alex in NYC, SCott Seward) had any sort of similar reaction.

Well, here's where I feel sorry for you. In the US, it wasn't "with the beatles" or "please please me," etc. What Capitol released was radically different than what was coming out on Parlophone/EMI and people can complain as much as they want about the spoilage of art -- but the Capitol recordingssold millions for the Beatles and that's what people fell in love with or became fond of.

I bought monaural recordings of the Beatles as they came out and played them on crappy early stereos that were more fine woods and finish than record players. Te Parlophone editions were non-entities, only available as imports by the mid-70's and not easy to find.

And the age of CD obliterated the actual US record of the Beatles. The CDs basically sucked compared to what you could get on vinyl, if that is what you heard first. The mastering jobs were poor, the art wasn't what you thought it should be and the sequences disappeared. Entire albums that were good sellers and much appreciated ceased to exist.

The "early" Beatles were by no means underrated. But the actual record of them as delivered in the US no longer really exists. You can get the Capitol masters but that's only a partial attempt to recreate what actually transpired.

It's easy to understand why anyone after that period might not get it. History was erased. I can't think of any other major band in that odd a situation.

Oh, man.

I sense that people slightly more astute than you would like to have access to the annual royalty checks generated by the Beatles catalog, for -- say -- like the next decade.

Last week there was no shortage of Beatles/John Lennon specials on cable.

from the late 70's to the late 80's they were just filed away as records your mum and dad listened to.

You're funny. From the late 70's to the late 80's, my mum was listening to wretched Robert Goulet, Ferrante & Teicher and Ray Coniff Singers records. My dad died in the mid Eighties without having listened to the Beatles except as second hand smoke from my stereo.

but by and large they were ignored by 'serious music fans' during punk & post-punk years.

Ha-ha. We must live in different dimensional iterations of the same base universe.

The above quote is so fantastic and wonderful I felt it had to be requoted.

From current NEWS.GOOGLE.COM, search "Beatles"

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,550 for Beatles. (0.14 seconds)

FemaleFirst.co.uk Beatles Mates Reportedly At Odds Over 'Live 8'
Launch Yahoo - 17 hours ago
Ringo Starr is reportedly mad at his Beatles bandmate Paul McCartney over last weekend's Live 8 performance in London. According ...
Jackson urged to donate Beatles' songs profits Ireland Online
Jackson encouraged to donate royalties Digital Spy
Ringo Starr Slams Macca For Not Inviting Him To Live 8 FemaleFirst.co.uk
Contactmusic.com - Contactmusic.com - all 17 related »
Firm sues Michael Jackson over Beatles library refinancing
KESQ, CA - 6 hours ago
... has sued Michael Jackson, saying it is owed 48 (m) million dollars in fees for rescuing the singer's stake in the publishing rights to songs by the Beatles. ...
Financial Firm Sues Michael Jackson Los Angeles Times
Financing company sues Michael Jackson for US$48m Malaysia Star
Jackson sued for $64m Sydney Morning Herald (subscription)
Winston-Salem Journal - all 139 related »
The Beatles remade America
Orlando Sentinel, FL - 12 hours ago
... It was 40 years ago today -- give or take a few weeks -- that the Beatles traveled from England to New York to give a concert at Shea Stadium before almost ...

This is Cambridge calling...
BBC News, UK - 20 hours ago
... audience through internet. Even the man behind the Beatles senses a shake up in how new bands will break through. For Michael Rundle ...

McCartney all set for `Chaos and Creation`
Sify, India - 22 hours ago
London : Beatles legend Paul McCartney is all set to release a new album called Chaos And Creation In The Back Yard, on September 12. ...

American Chronicle And you thought you had it bad
American Chronicle, CA - 13 hours ago
... Of course, she has that one trait that instantly put me in her corner . . . she loves the Beatles! In my humble opinion, any twenty ...
Sending woman 'home' to Mexico truly un-American Arizona Republic
all 3 related »
Beatles tourism trail could bring a £12m fab fortune
ic Liverpool, UK - 23 hours ago
THE Beatles brand will be the centre of a massive world-wide marketing campaign which is expected to bring £12m into Liverpool every year. ...

Amazon.com announces top music sellers
Washington Times, DC - 16 hours ago
The Beatles, U2, Nora Jones, Diana Krall and Eva Cassidy top Seattle's Amazon.com's list of the Top 25 bestselling musicians over the past decade. ...
Amazon.com announces top music sellers Monsters and Critics.com
all 4 related »

BBC News Yellow Submarine has surfaced in a new home
ic Liverpool, UK - 23 hours ago
... After much speculation about its future, the 25 tonne model inspired by the Beatles hit has been given a new home outside Liverpool John Lennon Airport. ...
Yellow Submarine moves to airport BBC News
all 2 related »
Geldof was moved to tears by McCartney-Bono Live 8 duet
NewKerala.com, India - 17 hours ago
According to Femalefirst, Geldof was overwhelmed by the opening rendition of THE BEATLES’ classic ‘Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band’, because it ...
Humdinger at Hyde Park Newindpress on Sunday
all 2 related »

New! Get the latest news on Beatles with Google Alerts.

Result Page:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next

I didn't express myself well. Obv they will sell truckloads for evermore, but I feel that we're entering a period where they mean less and less to both new artists and younger music consumers than they did even 5 yrs ago.

**but by and large they were ignored by 'serious music fans' during punk & post-punk years.

Ha-ha. We must live in different dimensional iterations of the same base universe **

I stand by that. From say,78-83, people were looking forward not back - I hardly listened to The Beatles in those years & neither did anyone I knew. They were off the menu in the music press too.

I also stand by the 'parents' music comment, not necessarily as a literal statement of *exactly what your own parents listened to*, but to point out that in 1978, 1968 seemed a lot further away than it does now.

Point taken.

Totally disagree. Most people in my age group, myself included, entered music fandom in those years by going through a Beatles phase. In the US, at least, they were still onmipresent. US radio was Beatles-besotted through the mid-80s; any album-rock station worth its megahertz played lots and lots of Fab Four. There were all the reissues: Rock & Roll, Love Songs, Rarities, etc.

It's true that the Clash proclaimed "no Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones in 1977." To me, that only underscores how ubiquitous all three still were.

see also S & the Bs "dear prudence" (a sort-of hit), Monsoon "Tomorrow Never Knows" (not a hit, but great)

Dr C is correct abt the bealtes being off the map in the late '70's-early '80's in the uk. There was this band who's single (IIRC called "101 damn-nations" - not carter usm, & google does not help here) got hyped to fuck back then, but didn't hit. They were total beatles fetishists, and their whole act at the time was just - weird.

...which led the way to all kinds of Beatles tribute shows in the late '70s. First concert I ever saw was the Mahoney Bros., a Central Jersey Beatles tribute band. (They also did originals, which were more like subpar Badfinger.)

In the US until Mark David Chapman, it was like the Beatles were only taking a long hiatus after Abbey Road. Surprising that the situation was completely different in the UK.

I saw the band *APPLE* at the first ever New England Beatles Convention! Musta been 1978 or so. I was just a kid. I was, by far, the youngest kid there. Apple played, and I got to see the Magical Mystery Tour movie. That was the highlight of my day.

Norman, I *think* that was Scarlet Party. They were hyped hugely for about 5 minutes in 82-ish. I remember seeing them live (they sent them out on the Univ tour) and they were wearing red Sgt Pepper jackets. You're right, it was just plain odd at the time. There was a sense of 'that's been *done*, why would anyone want to do THAT again?'

Or ZZ Top. Or ...

in 1980, i suffered from a terrible case of adamant-itis. i know, i know, they were pirates, but still...

Also, most/all of these bands were clinging desperately onto the jam's coattails.

also "love me do" was reissued on the 20th anniversary of its original release in 1982 and went top five. at the same time there was a minor rash of old-school beatle soundalikes, the most successful of which was "danger games" by the pinkees, played to death by radio 1 and hyped to number eight in the charts.

I had a quick flick thru Terry Rawling's 'Mod- A Very British Phenomenon' last night to see what the likes of The Chords and The Purple Hearts had to say. It's as I thought - these guys were pretty much soul boys who were energized by punk, then picked up on The Who (Quadrophenia!), Small Faces, The Creation etc. Pretty much the same as Weller. The Beatles don't figure. I don't think anyone realised how much of a Beatles fan Weller was until Taxman, but also you have to remember that Sound Affects was also sounding a bit like Wire, Joy Div etc, so people recognized the stealing of the Taxman riff, but thought it was a bit of a one-off.

do you like the beatles, marcello? i can't recall you ever saying.

The Jam - how I love them. I remember starting a C/D thread waaay back on ILM, and being taken aback by the loathing.

The reason why I played "Do I Love You (Indeed I Do)" by Frank Wilson at the top of my Clear Spot programme last year was because it was our wedding song.

I've always found that punk statement "no more beatles, stones, etc" silly.

We were big on Lincs so we probably did make it to the Cleethorpe WGs - will have to check the old diaries 'cos we did go to a lot of 'em.

In the NME's 1985 Top 50 Albums list, two of the Top 10 were recorded in the '60s - Velvets' VU, and Sam Cooke Live At The Harlem Square Club. In the same year the NME updated their All-Time Top 100 Albums list - soulboy nirvana.

There was a fair amount of media kerfuffle when the 20th anniversary of Sgt Pepper rolled around and the Beatles' back catalogue came out on CD.

Well, there wasn't really any need. Most was fresh in memory, detail was covered in books, and stuff that wasn't was known only to a select few that were keeping the info to themselves.

eh, still sad, Morrissey?