The Beatles

[Bettsj2]

As an influence, you cannot deny their place in music history but that IMO is not down to how great their songs are, more to the fact that they were one of the first to buck the trend of using songwriters and achieved commercial success writing their own material.

Most of their songs are pretty simple in structure (not always a bad thing) and the bands that have spawned from them like Oasis for example, write very simple songs (again, not a bad thing) so musically I dont think they are geniuses.

Where they are streets ahead of bands of their time and most bands since is the vocals.

No band can touch those 3 part harmonies. Paperback Writer is one of the best examples.

[Guest WarehamFox]

No expert, but been playing guitar for 20 years and The Beatles tunes are not as simple as you may think! Some very clever stuff in those 7 years of recording. I don't think any band has or will record so many songs (that they have wrote themselves) in such a short time The Beatles were recording. 

[Bettsj2]

No expert, but been playing guitar for 20 years and The Beatles tunes are not as simple as you may think! Some very clever stuff in those 7 years of recording. I don't think any band has or will record so many songs (that they have wrote themselves) in such a short time The Beatles were recording.

Dont agree at all (obv).

I've played guitar for about the same amount of time and I can learn any of their tunes in about 15 minutes.

[Fox92]

Earlier stuffs simple, later stuff not so much. They stopped touring which led to more complex songs. They wouldn't be able to perform certain songs live. Never seen songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" live.

Edited 9 April 2015 by Fox92

[Bettsj2]

Earlier stuffs simple, later stuff not so much. They stopped touring which led to more complex songs. They wouldn't be able to perform certain songs live. Never seen songs such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" live.

That is a good track.

Was that not just logistics of the age? They probably could have done it but because of the manipulation and added instrumentation on the record it wouldnt have sounded the same.

If they were around now for instance it wouldnt be an issue performing a track like that. Samplers, loops etc would make it pretty simple.

Although i'm not convinced its Ringo drumming!

[separator]

That is a good track.

Was that not just logistics of the age? They probably could have done it but because of the manipulation and added instrumentation on the record it wouldnt have sounded the same.

If they were around now for instance it wouldnt be an issue performing a track like that. Samplers, loops etc would make it pretty simple.

Although i'm not convinced its Ringo drumming!

maybe an urban myth but wasn't Lennon asked in an interview if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he replied that he wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles

[Guest WarehamFox]

Dont agree at all (obv).

I've played guitar for about the same amount of time and I can learn any of their tunes in about 15 minutes.

Well I've been playing that long but obv not as good as you, I still seem to learn other artists songs a lot easier though. But you can't argue about the volume of writing and recording they did in only 7 years. Not sure about Ringo's drumming but the Chemical Brothers didn't mind copying his "Tomorrow Never Knows" drumming on "Let forever be" or is that just me?

[Bettsj2]

obv not as good as you

Hell yeah!

[Fox92]

maybe an urban myth but wasn't Lennon asked in an interview if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he replied that he wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles

 

I've heard that before.

 

Lennon and McCartney played drums on certain songs because Ringo was the first to leave (before he came back).

[Staffs Fox]

The Beatles influence on music and their collective genius cannot be exaggerated in my opinion,  

 

Yes early on Epstein manufactured them into something more marketable but they needed the songs first and foremost and they had them in abundance.

 

From 65 onwards they became something else entirely and Rubber Soul started a run which is unsurpassed by any artist. In 64 they were singing about 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' 4 years later they arguably wrote the heaviest song to date in Helter Skelter, had avant-garde experiments with Revolution 9 and had pretty much covered any genre you can think of. Songs such as A Day in the Life, Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields were like nothing heard before.

 

Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, The White Album and Abbey Road are 5 albums amongst the greatest in history and were recorded in 4 years. On top of this they produced the MMT EP and countless classic stand alone singles.

 

The greatest ever

[Staffs Fox]

The Beatles influence on music and their collective genius cannot be exaggerated in my opinion,  

 

Yes early on Epstein manufactured them into something more marketable but they needed the songs first and foremost and they had them in abundance.

 

From 65 onwards they became something else entirely and Rubber Soul started a run which is unsurpassed by any artist. In 64 they were singing about 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' 4 years later they arguably wrote the heaviest song to date in Helter Skelter, had avant-garde experiments with Revolution 9 and had pretty much covered any genre you can think of. Songs such as A Day in the Life, Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields were like nothing heard before.

 

Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, The White Album and Abbey Road are 5 albums amongst the greatest in history and were recorded in 4 years. On top of this they produced the MMT EP and countless classic stand alone singles.

 

The greatest ever

[Fox92]

The Beatles influence on music and their collective genius cannot be exaggerated in my opinion,  

 

Yes early on Epstein manufactured them into something more marketable but they needed the songs first and foremost and they had them in abundance.

 

From 65 onwards they became something else entirely and Rubber Soul started a run which is unsurpassed by any artist. In 64 they were singing about 'I Want to Hold Your Hand' 4 years later they arguably wrote the heaviest song to date in Helter Skelter, had avant-garde experiments with Revolution 9 and had pretty much covered any genre you can think of. Songs such as A Day in the Life, Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields were like nothing heard before.

 

Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's, The White Album and Abbey Road are 5 albums amongst the greatest in history and were recorded in 4 years. On top of this they produced the MMT EP and countless classic stand alone singles.

 

The greatest ever

 

It's unbelievable to think they achieved all this in less than ten years.

 

They were a "pop" band when they first came out, but after '66 when Revolver came out it all changed and they progressed musically and as songwriters. They wrote better songs, songs with meaning too. Even Harrison progressed into a great songwriter and it's only the fact he was in a band with John Lennon and Paul McCartney (arguably the two greatest British songwriters ever) that this isn't recognised more. I mean, songs like "While my guitar gently weeps", "Taxman", "Here comes the sun" and "Something" (which is his best imo) stand out among the Beatles catalogue.

 

Some of the greatest Beatles songs weren't even singles anyway and that's something, when you consider songs like "A day in the life", "I've just seen a face", "In my life" and "I am the Walrus" were only album tracks. Unbelievable. 

[Fox92]

'The nations favourite Beatles number one' is on tomorrow at 8pm. ITV. 

 

 

Can't wait.

 

My vote would be 'Ticket to Ride' which is an absolutely brilliant track and a milestone in the evolution of the Beatles. The drums, the bass, the rhythm (and of course Lennon's vocal as excellent as always) of that song is unbelievable. Lennon always said it was one of his favourites out of the songs he wrote.

[Webbo]

The Long and Winding Road or Let it Be for me.

[DEMANN]

She Loves You always gets my nerves tingling. I've got all their stuff across various formats, but the 45 of that, played on a cheap record player, moves me.

[separator]

Not a big fan of there early stuff, prefer the material recorded when they discovered LSD. This show on ITV now is decent though.

[DEMANN]

Did they actually have that much influence though? Robert Johnson had come and invented blues rock, which paved the way for the yardbirds, through led zeppelin and into metal. Elvis and chuck berry had turned rock and roll into something huge. At best their influence on music styles is that of the boy band - their contributions to the musical landscape was to create a platform for the likes of backstreet boys and boyzone - they did little more than establish that music could be a marketing tool.

I realise that this was written months ago, but consider The Byrds, Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Jam/Paul Weller, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, U2, Nirvana.

Boy bands?

Edited 12 November 2015 by DEMANN

[Webbo]

It's impossible for anyone who didn't experience music before the Beatles to understand how they changed music.

[Fox92]

Not a big fan of there early stuff, prefer the material recorded when they discovered LSD. This show on ITV now is decent though.

 

Same for me. The early stuff is pop stuff I like it when they were challenging music. 'Revolver' onwards, although I absolutely love 'Help' and 'Beatles for Sale'.

[The Doctor]

I realise that this was written months ago, but consider The Byrds, Pink Floyd, The Smiths, The Jam/Paul Weller, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, U2, Nirvana.

Boy bands?

 

You also didn't bother to read it given I fielded rock and roll in that (as said, Berry and Elvis had already set the ball rolling). What the beatles were was the archetypal boy band, a bunch of pretty young things shined up by a well oiled PR machine. They were a product more than they were a band. 

[Webbo]

You also didn't bother to read it given I fielded rock and roll in that (as said, Berry and Elvis had already set the ball rolling). What the beatles were was the archetypal boy band, a bunch of pretty young things shined up by a well oiled PR machine. They were a product more than they were a band. 

Boy bands don't tend to write their own songs. bit of a silly comparison.

[ScouseFox]

Boy bands don't tend to write their own songs. bit of a silly comparison.

 

or play their own instruments. or play instruments at all. or sing quite well. basically what he's trying to say is they were quite pretty and girls liked them. there music and musical ability is nothing like a normal boyband. 

[Samilktray]

Dunno Boys 2 Men can sing pretty well

[ScouseFox]

they aint a normal boyband 

[DEMANN]

You also didn't bother to read it given I fielded rock and roll in that (as said, Berry and Elvis had already set the ball rolling). What the beatles were was the archetypal boy band, a bunch of pretty young things shined up by a well oiled PR machine. They were a product more than they were a band.

I did read it. Those bands I mentioned, all cite The Beatles as an influence. Have you listened in depth to The Beatles output? They were the real thing! You're trying to re-write history. Edited 12 November 2015 by DEMANN