50 Years of The Beatles

Forums New posts
The__Proclaimer

The__Proclaimer

LEGEND!!
Private Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2003
*WARNING THIS A PARTICULARLY GEEKY POST*


You've probably seen documentaries and articles about the 50 year landmarks of the Fab Four the past 6 months (Love Me Do came out late 62 and Please, Please Me LP early 63). Let's hear the bounces opinion, both good and the innevitable bad, and some of your Beatles fave raves.

I'm a bit of a fantatic of the boys but not blinkered enough to dismiss their flaws as people and very occasional lapses of musical judgement. I don't think you can underestimate their creative genius tho. They were a boyband effectively at first but within months they went went from 'Yeah, Yeah, Yeah' to 'Turn Off Your Mind, Relax and Float Down Stream'. In terms of timescale and change of direction it was like One Direction's next single being 'Born Slippy' and putting techno in the charts for the very first time. Yet, the beauty of The Beatles meant on the same LP you could have sugar-sweet ballads, motown, kids nursery sing-alongs, poetic pop and traditional Indian. There was literally no-one like them before, you'd have to convince me there has been anyone since.

As for the John V Paul debate - its a false argument. There was the Lennon/McCartney credit on every single song for a reason.


Picking a favourite record of theirs is like picking a favourite kid, impossible. Couldn't narrow it to ten so here's a top 20 (list would change again tomorrow), roughly in chronological order of release.


I SAW HER STANDING THERE
Paul's definitive rocker. Fits easily beside the canon of his heroes Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry and Little Richard.First outing of the iconin 'woooooooooooo's'

ANNA (GO TO HIM)
Very simple tune, generic of the time and a cover version. Something about Harrison's hypnotic guitar loop and Lennon's voive gets me every time.

TWIST AND SHOUT
Another debut LP cover. They recorded the whole album in one 9hr session - this was the last take of the day, you can clearly hear Lennon's throat ripping apart at the final scream.

I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER
In the early records John's harmonica was a bit of a trademark, this is its best outing.

ANY TIME AT ALL
Love the backing vocals from Paul and rawness of Lennon's voice in this one.

SHE LOVES YOU
Puts paid to the ridiculous 'Ringo couldn't drum' myth from the very first second.

HELP
Three years into the band and Lennon's first cry out. Beautiful three way harmonies. Written by John & Paul overnight when they were told title of film and asked to come out with theme tune ASAP.

I'VE SEEN THAT FACE
Paul's first folk tune, Dylan and weed big influences at this time.

IN MY LIFE
Sheer beauty. The sound of someone in his early 20's being nostalgic. Gorgeous.

WE CAN WORK IT OUT
Paul & John in a nutshell. 'try to see it my way' vs 'life is very short...'. The optimism vs cynicsm that made The Beatles.

RAIN
McCartney's bass is fucking outrageous, sounds like the baggy bands of the late 80's. First use of backwards loops on a commercial record. Still sounds fresh. Signals the start of the post-mop top era. Liam Gallagher named his first band after this tune Fact Fans!

TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS
A sound so far ahead of the times that the Chemical Brothers were able to use the backing track in a electronic house tune 30 years later.

A DAY IN THE LIFE
If you haven't got the new stereo mixes you need to find a copy and get this played through a good pair of headphones. Haunting.

I AM THE WALRUS
Their finest piece of psychadelica.

STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER
They decided to write an LP looking back at Liverpool, which never in the end materialised, result was this and Penny Lane. There's an accoustic version kicking about that is even better.

JULIA
Therapy in song form. Beautiful tune.

CRY BABY CRY
Simple tune but just love it. Any records that sells tens of millions and mentions Kirkaldy is alright by me.

SOMETHING
Harrison's finest moment as a songwriter and Frank Sinatra's favourite ever Beatles song.

LET IT BE
Regularly murdered by X-Factor singers and karaoke wannabes but the original is a beautiful ode to Paul's mum. It was probably the bond of both losing mother's at a young age that actually drew Lennon/McCartney together in the first place. Shivers up the spine moment when he sings the first line.

TWO OF US
Quite sad tune knowing by this stage they hated each other but its reminicent of the early John & Paul songs with the back n forward singing to each other and the lyrics are like a letter to each other saying 'we've fallen out but I still love you brother'.


Well there you go. Sorry for the long post but going thru another one of those periods in my life where you rediscover The Beatles. Not clogged up thread with youtube links to save the data allowances of moby users plus I assume you've heard the majority of these tunes and the ones you haven't are easy enough to find. Let's hear your opinions Hibee Brothers.
 
Also my favourite band, will reply when time allows.

One thing about this thread, it's dragged up old Beatles threads below, one from long lost bouncer snoots...there's a boy who kent music.
 
For what ever reason they are not a band i got into - can't explain is to why. I only owned one of their albums, that was Hey Jude, released in 1970, which was a collection of non-album singles and b sides. Coincidentally just punted it on Ebay two weeks ago for 25.00.

However, i'll not have anyone telling me that The Beatles were rubbish blah blah blah, as has been said to me in the past.
 
My mum had Rubber Soul LP when I was kid so for that reason alone, it's my favourite Beatles record. However, I think on the whole; Revolver is their best.

But, I spent a long time only listening to Sgt Pepper so that'll be joint number one.

Help is a phenominal record and probably have my favourite Beatles song; Hey! You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. Even if only for the last two bars; simplistic beauty personified.

However, I was lucky enough to go to Canada when I was 12 and was in an insanly heavy Beatles phase, I was obsessed with Lennon and whilst I was over there I bought a double tape album that I'd never seen nor heard before. It was blue and kinda looked like the cover of Let it Be with their portraits on the cover. I loved it instantly, the diversity across the album was astounding and really became the best of their work to me and the soundtrack to a period of my life.

It turned out, it was an oddly packaged copy of the White Album.

Although listening to the tunes I make may not make you think so, I'd say along with The Pixies; the Beatles have probably influenced me the most. More subtly than say the Pixies or Orbital or Jazz in general or Hendrix but it's there.

What they have over The Stones is diversity. I just don't think The Stones had that at all. I think Status Quo had more variety i.e. two phases whereas the Stones had one. The Beatles had hunners, thoosands & mullions.

Don't give a fuck about Beatles vs. Stones debates because they can't be compared and I generally dig both anyway. They only things they have in common is they're both English bands and they share a timeline.
 
Brainwrong said:
My mum had Rubber Soul LP when I was kid so for that reason alone, it's my favourite Beatles record. However, I think on the whole; Revolver is their best.

But, I spent a long time only listening to Sgt Pepper so that'll be joint number one.

Help is a phenominal record and probably have my favourite Beatles song; Hey! You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. Even if only for the last two bars; simplistic beauty personified.

However, I was lucky enough to go to Canada when I was 12 and was in an insanly heavy Beatles phase, I was obsessed with Lennon and whilst I was over there I bought a double tape album that I'd never seen nor heard before. It was blue and kinda looked like the cover of Let it Be with their portraits on the cover. I loved it instantly, the diversity across the album was astounding and really became the best of their work to me and the soundtrack to a period of my life.

It turned out, it was an oddly packaged copy of the White Album.

Although listening to the tunes I make may not make you think so, I'd say along with The Pixies; the Beatles have probably influenced me the most. More subtly than say the Pixies or Orbital or Jazz in general or Hendrix but it's there.

What they have over The Stones is diversity. I just don't think The Stones had that at all. I think Status Quo had more variety i.e. two phases whereas the Stones had one. The Beatles had hunners, thoosands & mullions.

Don't give a fuck about Beatles vs. Stones debates because they can't be compared and I generally dig both anyway. They only things they have in common is they're both English bands and they share a timeline.
Click to expand...



Both bands also shared a love of late 50's - early 60's black American R&B/Soul.
 
Brainwrong said:
My mum had Rubber Soul LP when I was kid so for that reason alone, it's my favourite Beatles record. However, I think on the whole; Revolver is their best.

But, I spent a long time only listening to Sgt Pepper so that'll be joint number one.

Help is a phenominal record and probably have my favourite Beatles song; Hey! You've Got to Hide Your Love Away. Even if only for the last two bars; simplistic beauty personified.

However, I was lucky enough to go to Canada when I was 12 and was in an insanly heavy Beatles phase, I was obsessed with Lennon and whilst I was over there I bought a double tape album that I'd never seen nor heard before. It was blue and kinda looked like the cover of Let it Be with their portraits on the cover. I loved it instantly, the diversity across the album was astounding and really became the best of their work to me and the soundtrack to a period of my life.

It turned out, it was an oddly packaged copy of the White Album.

Although listening to the tunes I make may not make you think so, I'd say along with The Pixies; the Beatles have probably influenced me the most. More subtly than say the Pixies or Orbital or Jazz in general or Hendrix but it's there.

What they have over The Stones is diversity. I just don't think The Stones had that at all. I think Status Quo had more variety i.e. two phases whereas the Stones had one. The Beatles had hunners, thoosands & mullions.

Don't give a fuck about Beatles vs. Stones debates because they can't be compared and I generally dig both anyway. They only things they have in common is they're both English bands and they share a timeline.
Click to expand...

One outstanding single album, if you removed the crap that made it a double album, imo.
 
Sunshine on Leith said:
[/B]

Both bands also shared a love of late 50's - early 60's black American R&B/Soul.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But all their contemporaries also shared that love and defined that as their musical roots. It's also fundamental to blues based tunes. I think the Stones stuck with it, honed it perhaps, whereas the Beatles tried new things, different things. Not a critisim of the Stones although if forced to chose I'd chose the Beatles music easily. The Stones were far better at being complete jakes though and that simply must be acknowledged. ;)
 
southfieldhibby said:
One outstanding single album, if you removed the crap that made it a double album, imo.
Click to expand...

At such a young age I didn't see there being any filler or crap on that album and maybe because of it defining a time in my life I still don't find any tracks I don't like.

Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?

Perhaps I should listen to it again. It's been a while...
 
Brainwrong said:
Agreed. But all their contemporaries also shared that love and defined that as their musical roots. It's also fundamental to blues based tunes. I think the Stones stuck with it, honed it perhaps, whereas the Beatles tried new things, different things. Not a critisim of the Stones although if forced to chose I'd chose the Beatles music easily. The Stones were far better at being complete jakes though and that simply must be acknowledged. ;)
Click to expand...

Spot on post! suppose the reason i preferred the early Stones compared with the early Beatles, is while the latter were doing Isley Brothers covers as in one of Proccies faves - Twist and Shout, i preffered the Stones blusier covers for example Howlin' Wolf's Little Red Rooster and Bo Diddley's Can't Judge A Book ... etc
 
Cards on the table, despite growing up with three brothers who were fanatical about The Beatles and as a result knowing the band's music inside out I just never really took to old Fab Four. Found them/find them a bit flat, bit too clever and composed, too knowing rather than earthy and spontaneous as I like my pop music to be. Of their 60s contemporaries I always preferred The Who and then the likes of The Kinks, The Small Faces, Fleetwood Mac, Cream, and then widening the gender soul and Motown, Bob Dylan, blah, blah.

So, to answer the question, what Beatles tracks do I like? Well, I don't own a single piece of music by the Beatles in any format, but if I hear any of the following on the radio I don't turn it off:

Blackbird
Across the Universe
Norwegian Wood
Lady Madonna
Listen, Do You Want to Know a Secret
Drive My Car

To describe them as crap is just nonsense. Whatever your tastes their influence both musically and socially is considerable and felt to this day.
 
Tomorrow Never knows is a fantastic tune. I dj playing mostly House music but manage to find a place for this in some of my sets.
 
Sir Albert said:
Tomorrow Never knows is a fantastic tune. I dj playing mostly House music but manage to find a place for this in some of my sets.
Click to expand...


Only yesterday I was reading about 'Mad Men' the tv series (thinking about getting into it) and this song was mentioned in one of the pages.

$250,000 paid so that they could use it in one of the episodes.. Highest fee ever paid.

Thought it was an interesting piece of information I would share.
 
I wonder how much the Chemical Brothers paid when they completely ripped it off?

But they were almost as prone to rip offs as Will I Am.

Sorry, took that too far.
 
Didn't Jacko own all the rights then? He would have no idea who the chemicals were so they may have got lucky.

Most music is ripping off or taking influence from others to an extent anyway. Sample away I say : )
 
I grew to listen to The Beatles more as i got older. I wouldn`t say there were among my top favourite bands but a great band nontheless. Has there been a four-piece as influential? I doubt it.

Some of my favourite Beatles songs ( in no particular order )...
Goodbye,
I`m a Loser,
Nowhere Man,
You`ve Got To Hide Your Love Away,
Baby`s In Black,
Yellow Submarine,
A Day In The Life,
Rain,
Dont Let Me Down.
....and the best song George wrote, IMO, Long Long Long.
 
Hammi said:
Only yesterday I was reading about 'Mad Men' the tv series (thinking about getting into it) and this song was mentioned in one of the pages.

$250,000 paid so that they could use it in one of the episodes.. Highest fee ever paid.

Thought it was an interesting piece of information I would share.
Click to expand...

Top tune but don't think anything would be worth that for one play.
 
Sir Albert said:
Top tune but don't think anything would be worth that for one play.
Click to expand...

Millions of plays really, depending on how many people watch it. It's apparently a good episode and the song adds to it, I don't know.. Never watched it but if it helps them push up ratings and keeps a hold of the audience then it probably could have been worth every cent.

They averaged around $100,000 per song they used, The Beatles never really let their music be used, it would have been a big big deal for them to have nailed down a Beatles track, probably worth it in the producers eyes.
 
Hammi said:
Millions of plays really, depending on how many people watch it. It's apparently a good episode and the song adds to it, I don't know.. Never watched it but if it helps them push up ratings and keeps a hold of the audience then it probably could have been worth every cent.

They averaged around $100,000 per song they used, The Beatles never really let their music be used, it would have been a big big deal for them to have nailed down a Beatles track, probably worth it in the producers eyes.
Click to expand...

Aye a fair point. I was more meaning for just being played once in the series. Seems a lot, although I don't know how much the average song would cost to use.
 
Another Detroit cover from one of my all time favourite R&B singers... This song was recorded in 1964 for the Beatles For Sale album, but for what ever reason it was rejected. A more gritty all rounder from guitar to vocals compared to most of their poppy stuff from the same period. Possibly why it never made it on to the album.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCF1ktVoAs
 
Sir Albert said:
Didn't Jacko own all the rights then? He would have no idea who the chemicals were so they may have got lucky.

Most music is ripping off or taking influence from others to an extent anyway. Sample away I say : )
Click to expand...

Yeah, was most likely Jackfords possession by then.

Don't completely agree re ripping off. I love sampling, and influences cannot be avoided but blatant ripping off and passing it off as your own just ain't cricket, imo.
 
Brainwrong said:
At such a young age I didn't see there being any filler or crap on that album and maybe because of it defining a time in my life I still don't find any tracks I don't like.

Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?
Number 9?

Perhaps I should listen to it again. It's been a while...
Click to expand...

Revolution 9 wot's not to like ? !
 
I went tae Bellevue in the mid to late 60s. One teacher, Mr Broon (teacher of English) asked us circa 1968, who we thought was the best group around. 'Cream' came the unanimous answer. Anyway, he told us he had a pal up in the Elgin/Fraserburgh area who used to run a dance hall up there. Around 1961 he had a band from Liverpool playing, and they asked the bloke if he'd like to manage them. He declined cos he thought they were crap. It wisnae the Searchers or Gerry and the Pacemakers if you're wondering....
 
My top tracks are;

Strawberry fields forever
While my guitar gently weeps (the intro just grabs me)
I am the walrus
By with a little help from my friends (only because if it didn't get written Joe cocker would never have been able to work his magic on it)
8 days a week (first song I learnt on the guitar)
Come together

YouTube is fantastic for just watching loads of random beatles stuff and I do so at least once a week.


Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
 
It's difficult to give a proper assessment of the true greatness of the Beatles, but I do think it is important to realise just what had came before them to fully understand the impact they must have had on the world back in 1962. Prior to this time teenagers were spoon-fed a diet of american crooners like Perry Como, Sinatra, Frankie Lane etc...and only Elvis had really captured the imagination of teenagers with his rebellious image. Along came these four rather ordinary guys from Liverpool, and the impact they must have had must have been incredible. For many people the Beatles were the 1960's...and I know several men and women in their 60's who still go misty eyed from their memories of that time and what it was like queuing up to buy the latest Beatles single when it came out. I would love to go back in time to that time and see what it was like being a teenager when this band were at their peak of popularity.

Here we had something that had never been seen or done before...a guitar playing pop group who actually could play and who actually wrote their own songs. The reality of course is that the Beatles did not just arrive in 1962, they had essentially been playing together as a band for four years prior to that, honing their sound and live act in the likes of the Cavern Club in Liverpool, and of course Hamburg. Brian Epstein's influence and power was vital for them in getting them seen and heard and IMO their demise started when he died in 1966...not creatively though I might add, because IMO they done their best work after that (very much helped by George Martin), but as a working band they started to fall apart after that.

Personally I have always been a big fan of their music, and have always felt that the quality and range of their songs...the enduring melodies and, (post 1966), their memorable and heart warming lyrics put them in a league of their own as a band. Lennon and McCartney were incredibly prolific, and George Harrison (my favourite out of the Beatles) was also an excellent songwriter and a fantastic guitarist. Ringo...well, let's just leave it there. Ironically I have to be honest and say that I don't like much of their individual solo post Beatles stuff, and to be honest I don't have much time for them as people either (John Lennon was an obnoxious prick as far as I am concerned), but together they changed the music world forever and IMO fully deserve their status in popular music.

My five favourite Beatles songs :

1/ Here, there and Everywhere : Paul described this as the most complete song he ever wrote, and I would go along with that. A quite stunning melody and lyrics which just melt the heart.

2/ In my Life: Lennon's finest song with the Beatles in my opinion...as has been said a young man looking back on his life up till then and so evocative. Again, a melody to die for.

3/ I should have known better: That great Lennon harmonica and a great vocal performance from John...he really was a terrific rock and roll singer.

4/ Something: George Harrison's finest moment...even Sinatra thought it was one of the finest love songs ever written and sung in in concert many times.

5/ A Day in the Life: The jewel in the scrown of Sergeant Pepper...years ahead of it's time both in arrangement and lyrically
 
Tomsk09 said:
Cards on the table, despite growing up with three brothers who were fanatical about The Beatles and as a result knowing the band's music inside out I just never really took to old Fab Four. Found them/find them a bit flat, bit too clever and composed, too knowing rather than earthy and spontaneous as I like my pop music to be. Of their 60s contemporaries I always preferred The Who and then the likes of The Kinks, The Small Faces, Fleetwood Mac, Cream, and then widening the gender soul and Motown, Bob Dylan, blah, blah.

So, to answer the question, what Beatles tracks do I like? Well, I don't own a single piece of music by the Beatles in any format, but if I hear any of the following on the radio I don't turn it off:

Blackbird
Across the Universe
Norwegian Wood
Lady Madonna
Listen, Do You Want to Know a Secret
Drive My Car

To describe them as crap is just nonsense. Whatever your tastes their influence both musically and socially is considerable and felt to this day.
Click to expand...

That makes me weep with joy. Beautiful.

BIG G
 
It was a "Happening" Their whole ethic was based on fate......the rest we know.

Had that been different, there was no Jam, Roses, Oasis......etc. Too many to add. Truly.

They themselves changed "Ball-room swing" to "Club" as we know it overnight. In the direct face of adversity.

Love or hate, we listened to their legacy for many decades. Words can`t even start to tell what they changed, and how they did it. They could do ANYTHING they turned their hand to.

In 100 years from now, maybe right up to 2525, they will forever be known, and revered for a masterful music change that altered history itself.

That may sound overtly dramatic, but re-read, and you will maybe get it.

Such an unlikely twist of fate, that rocked the musical planet. Forever.

If it`s ever done again, don`t worry, you`ll be dead anyway.

Someone feel free to correct me, I believe their total input/production back to back is less than 14 hours of music altogether.

That is severely special.

I`m out of words.



I simply can`t get my head round it.
 
Terrific thread.

I wrote the following after the last time we talked about this subject:

http://stuartfrew.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/i-still-dig-the-beatles/



I STILL Dig The Beatles

I was reading an interesting debate entitled The Beatles are/were vastly overrated! on The Hibees Bounce forums just recently and couldn’t but help contribute a few thoughts. What brought me into the discussion was the mention of the great Beach Boys album, Pet Sounds in a very worthy comparison with The Beatles great work, Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Now Pet Sounds is probably in my ‘top one of a group of one’ albums (as a certain former football manager would have said!) For many years the album wasn’t considered as being a ‘better’ piece of work than Sgt Pepper though – if you can possibly order these things in any meaningful way – but I personally think it has stood up better over the decades than the Fab Four’s platter. It’s always been a slight surprise to me that opinion has changed over time regarding Sgt Pepper though as I always believe it was regarded as The Beatles ‘masterpiece’ for many years.

The debate itself asks the question if The Beatles were overrated. I wouldn’t attempt to change anyone’s mind over what they think about The Beatles but it’s interesting to see some of the reaction to their work these days – one that questions their superiority over other bands. Naturally, this is how it should be and it’s always healthy for things to be questioned. There are two reasons for this I believe – the first one being the natural generational one where people’s tastes move on and observes heroes of their own time. This is seen in all sort of spheres as we know and football is a prime example. Secondly, and more interesting for me is the curiously ‘British’ (and I use that term advisedly!) attitude to the people it initially places on a pedestal. I’d question how people in the US would regard The Beatles if they had been of their own, in comparison to how they’re sometimes disregarded here.

I’ll lay my cards on the table, no problem. The Beatles were the best – no question in my mind and no shadow of a doubt. Their creativity, musicianship and song writing were without equal in any other band. I can go year on year playing music of my own tastes, Northern Soul, Otis Redding and Stax/Atlantic soul generally and bands such as Led Zeppelin, the Who, The Jam, The Clash, Joy Division et al without playing any Beatles tracks at all but I know who the masters were. A band without parallel. One who single-handedly developed and pushed forward popular music more than any other act in my humble opinion. Particularly in the way they wrote their own songs, as few did in their earlier days.

It’s been said before but I think it’s worth reiterating. The Beatles were great innovators of their time and they were ‘first’ in so many ways. These are the kind of creative people I admire in life generally. It’s important to also remember the context and era in which they were writing, recording and performing but I feel that this is often lost a little in debate.

It’s almost a back-handed compliment to see the way some of their songs from all of forty-odd years ago are picked up as a point of debate. It kind of says it all really, one might say…

Regarding Sgt Pepper specifically, from the public’s general conception rather than my own necessarily, it was a wonderful piece of imagination of the day and almost seemed like an axis for the major change in popular music that occurred at that time. Whatever people think about the songs on it now, and there were some absolute classics – She’s Leaving Home, A Day in the Life etc. – it remains at least as important as any other album in the course of popular music in history in my own humble opinion.

It’s a question I’ll never be able to answer, Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road, The White Album, Revolver – which was the best album? I don’t think there actually IS an answer to that. They were all wonderful.
 
Greenmachine said:
It's difficult to give a proper assessment of the true greatness of the Beatles, but I do think it is important to realise just what had came before them to fully understand the impact they must have had on the world back in 1962. Prior to this time teenagers were spoon-fed a diet of american crooners like Perry Como, Sinatra, Frankie Lane etc...and only Elvis had really captured the imagination of teenagers with his rebellious image.
Click to expand...

I think it's important too. Which is why I have to ask what about Buddy Holly (whose influence is as discernible on the Beatles' early music as the Beatles' music is discernible on Oasis), and Eddie Cochran, and Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis?

What about Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters without whose influence the Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Small Faces and Cream would have been completely different.

The Beatles didn't function in some kind of vacuum. And neither did their contemporaries.

The Beatles' early chart stuff is very derivative. It wasn't a massive departure from what people could hear commonly.

I don't doubt the Beatles had talent in spades but they also owe a great deal to cultural conditions, PR and marketing, production techniques, manufacturing and the people who went before them.
 
Tomsk09 said:
I think it's important too. Which is why I have to ask what about Buddy Holly (whose influence is as discernible on the Beatles' early music as the Beatles' music is discernible on Oasis), and Eddie Cochran, and Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis?

What about Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters without whose influence the Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Small Faces and Cream would have been completely different.

The Beatles didn't function in some kind of vacuum. And neither did their contemporaries.

The Beatles' early chart stuff is very derivative. It wasn't a massive departure from what people could hear commonly.

I don't doubt the Beatles had talent in spades but they also owe a great deal to cultural conditions, PR and marketing, production techniques, manufacturing and the people who went before them.
Click to expand...

Everyone has a period where they stumble around and try to find their sound. The Beatles started off playing purely 12 barre blues and general American knock offs & cover versions. VERY unoriginal. I don't think anyone would dispute their beginnings. But it's when they achieved their own sound that they really came into their own and they did that, in spades.
 
Brainwrong said:
Everyone has a period where they stumble around and try to find their sound. The Beatles started off playing purely 12 barre blues and general American knock offs & cover versions. VERY unoriginal. I don't think anyone would dispute their beginnings. But it's when they achieved their own sound that they really came into their own and they did that, in spades.
Click to expand...


Don't take me to task. Direct your comments at GreenMachine who seems to think there was Frank Sinatra, Elvis, nothing, then the Beatles just suddenly appeared.
 
Tomsk09 said:
Don't take me to task. Direct your comments at GreenMachine who seems to think there was Frank Sinatra, Elvis, nothing, then the Beatles just suddenly appeared.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll try not to engage you in conversation again, grumpy breeks.

;)
 
Tomsk09 said:
I think it's important too. Which is why I have to ask what about Buddy Holly (whose influence is as discernible on the Beatles' early music as the Beatles' music is discernible on Oasis), and Eddie Cochran, and Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Bill Haley, Fats Domino, Gene Vincent, Jerry Lee Lewis?

What about Bo Diddley and Muddy Waters without whose influence the Stones, The Who, The Yardbirds, The Small Faces and Cream would have been completely different.

The Beatles didn't function in some kind of vacuum. And neither did their contemporaries.

The Beatles' early chart stuff is very derivative. It wasn't a massive departure from what people could hear commonly.

I don't doubt the Beatles had talent in spades but they also owe a great deal to cultural conditions, PR and marketing, production techniques, manufacturing and the people who went before them.
Click to expand...

Clearly I have not explained my reasoning very well......I am very well aware that the Beatles, the Stones etc were heavily influenced by all of the artists you have mentioned. Buddy Holly was a massive influence on Paul McCartney, and for me Holly would have become the greatest of them all had he lived beyond 22 years of age.

Every great recording artist/performer is influenced by certain other who went before them, even my musical idol Bruce Springsteen was massivly influenced by the likes of Dylan, Roy Orbison, James Brown, Phil Spector and the British musical invasion of the the mid 1960's. What I am trying to emphasis is the impact the Beatles had when they arrived on the scene for the fact that they were the first all guitar playing band who actually wrote and recorded their own material. Nobody had done that before. I was mainly talking about how the biggest artists of time prior to the Beatles were the likes of Sinatra and Cliff Richard who were seen as safe by parents in the late fifties to early 60's, then along came this guitar playing pop/rock band who (yes, influenced by the likes of Holly, Little Richard and Skiffle) innovated their own sound and created their own music.
 
Greenmachine said:
Clearly I have not explained my reasoning very well......I am very well aware that the Beatles, the Stones etc were heavily influenced by all of the artists you have mentioned. Buddy Holly was a massive influence on Paul McCartney, and for me Holly would have become the greatest of them all had he lived beyond 22 years of age.

Every great recording artist/performer is influenced by certain other who went before them, even my musical idol Bruce Springsteen was massivly influenced by the likes of Dylan, Roy Orbison, James Brown, Phil Spector and the British musical invasion of the the mid 1960's. What I am trying to emphasis is the impact the Beatles had when they arrived on the scene for the fact that they were the first all guitar playing band who actually wrote and recorded their own material. Nobody had done that before. I was mainly talking about how the biggest artists of time prior to the Beatles were the likes of Sinatra and Cliff Richard who were seen as safe by parents in the late fifties to early 60's, then along came this guitar playing pop/rock band who (yes, influenced by the likes of Holly, Little Richard and Skiffle) innovated their own sound and created their own music.
Click to expand...

You make it sound as though the Beatles were in total control. Didn't work that way. The Beatles were marketed as a four piece band because that's how the record label wanted it.

The Beatles' main impact was their sheer success. Right from the start of their recording period they lit a fire with the public and had hit after hit. The fact that they actually wrote their own material was interesting but neither here nor there in terms of impact. What the song writing gave them was security, sustainability and above all the scope to take their own musical directions. Oh, and the songs were good. If their songs had been pish, self-written or not, they would have bombed.

Interestingly, Gerry and the Pacemakers had even more initial success than the Beatles, had three number ones on the bounce with other people's songs and then started writing their own material and kind of flopped! (Although Ferry Across the Mersey is a good song and did well.)

Another aside: did you know the Beatles once auditioned to be Billy Fury's backing band?

Remember, four piece bands like the Beatles' model are pretty much unknown before the early 60s. Before the Beatles, pop musicians tended to be marketed as individuals and the bands they played with, if they played with a band at all, labelled as support acts -- Bill Haley and his Comets, Buddy Holly and the Crickets -- if they were mentioned at all. There were plenty of pop artists who wrote and performed their own material -- Bo Diddly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Chuck Berry and of course Buddy Holly. Musicians in the 50s and 60s were totally controlled by their record labels and the early 60s was a period ready for a guitar band in a way that the 50s wouldn't have been.

The Beatles through their success changed the face of pop music. But they were able to do so because what they did worked, it sold in vast quantities. And so the record label gave them freedom. However, the freedom they were afforded, because of their success, was also given to talented bands that came after. And for that, I for one, I'm grateful to them.

I still prefer The Who, and they only one song writer in Townsend, unlike the Beatles and the Stones who had two each. :077:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom