This site has the Beatles as #1 of all time? What are you joking?
The Beatles as the best group is like how tennis was played with wooden racquets - all you can do is compare to the artists of the time(several of whom were better also). But you can't compare them to artists of the 70s,80s and 90s. The possibilites for music became much greater,the music vocabulary became much greater. Suddenly,music was full of artists with more talent than the Beatles and their music became dated,plain and simple in comparison. Why albums like Rubber Soul and Sgt. Peppers so high? They are full of second-rate songs that speak to no-one about what is going on in the world.
The Beatles are probably more responsible for expanding this "music vocabulary" than anyone else. As for better artists coming out in later years, that's subjective--as is saying musicians in later decades were "more talent[ed]" than the Beatles. If by talented you mean technical virtuoso, than you're probably right...but I doubt that whatever most of those musicians did with their capabilities could even touch most the The Beatles music. And those albums are that high because they deserve to be that high. Some critics divide rock history into the pre-Rubber Soul and post-RS eras, if that's any indication as to how important that album is. As for Sgt. Pepper's, do yourself a favor and wiki it or something. If I were to construct a list of reasons as to why that album deserves a high ranking, I would be sitting here for hours. And trust me Andy, I'm not even one of those die hard Beatleholics, but I know great music when I hear it, and every time I play almost everything the Beatles recorded between RS and Abbey Road, my ears know something special is flowing through them.
When someone say their music is dated I have to laugh. Compare Revolver to the Rolling Stones Aftermath or Dylan Blonde on Blonde. Compare the Beatles Taxman or Tomorrow Never Knows technically years ahead of anything produced at that time to the Stones Stupid Girl or Think. Groups like Nirvana and the Pixies owe more to songs like Helter Skelter and Revolution than to The Who or the Stones. Don't get me started with Brit-Pop. Every one sounds dated in 1965 through 1969. You actually to be innovative back then you had no computers. My opinion there are some poeple on this forum who don't like the Beatles and will say anything against the Beatles. The reality is Beatles were the greatest in Rock Music at being overtly experimental and overtly pop-rock at the same time which is a style of music they innovated on songs like Strawberry Fields or Tomorrow Never Knows. Which in turn influenced many future genres in Rock Music
Revolver
Genre- Psychedelic Rock, Baroque Pop, World Music, Proto-Prog Rock, Electronic Rock Fusion
Experimental Rock and Psychedelic Pop
This LP introduces pop fans to things that were to come in rock music way before they became a staple. Case in point: The horn section that was later to be a constant in the Chicago Transit Authority's first and subsequent Lps ( in the tune Got To Get You Into My Life), the first Drum-n-bass recording (with no machines, in Tomorrow Never Knows, rock-meets-world music (Love To You with it's pre-Sgt. Pepper sitar/tabla workout), the heavily distored Indian style guitar solo by Paul on the Harrison penned, Taxman....the backwards guitar in I'm Only Sleeping.
Tomorrow Never Knows Psychedelic/ Electronic Rock fusion with the mellotron sound collage was the most radical departure from previous Beatles' recordings for its skeletal bass/drums propulsion enhanced only with tape loops (contributed by all four Beatles and added in the mix-down process), more backwards guitar, mellotron and an eerie John Lennon vocal. Experimental music based on Indian music with Tomorrow Never Knows (which also contains the opinions according to the first rhythm of techno music history).
Eleanor Rigby with it's chamber music. It is quite unlike anything previously recorded by The Beatles, or by any other main-stream guitar-rock artist,
Yeah but for young people nowadays who didn't grow up with the Beatles,what does it matter if these songs were pioneering or influential? They're 40 years old. Songs like 'Tomorrow Never Knows' just sound like garbage now...
Not really, actually. Tomorrow Never Knows still sounds great, and better than most of the crap that's being turned out today. I guess you're one of those people who automatically dismisses films from before 1960 as well because technology has progressed?
I would probably be considered as belonging to "young people", being 19, and I prefer music from the 60s over that of today. Each decade obviously has its share of great music, but the 60s and 70s are my favorites.
I'll back Stephen up and say that I'm 20 and although I love a great deal of what is being made today, compared to the 60s and 70s, I can't help but feel we are in a bit of a drought. And 'Tomorrow Never Knows' may sound like garbage to you, but that's only your opinion. I'd confidently cast my vote in opposition to that and say I could listen to that song one-hundred times straight before it started to sound as derivative as ninety percent of what they play on modern rock or rap stations today. Ultimately, though, none of us are going to be able to convince you to love The Beatles or agree with their #1 placing on the site. Just understand that whatever artists you love were probably heavily influenced by The Beatles or by other artists who were. Personally, I don't much care for James Brown, but, much like The Beatles, he is a tree trunk from which so many artists have branched off, and I'll always give him his due credit despite my favoritism.
I'm 27 and in a band. The Beatles might be the biggest influence still on Rock Groups. When it comes to the younger kids today they don't like the early Beatle stuff in general. They like "Helter Skelter" and songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows". The kids like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Pyshcedelic Era Beatles, The Doors and Pink Floyd from the Classic Rock Era. This might annoy some people here but that's my honest opinion from what I gathered in gauging people's thoughts.
My thing with the Beatles while I find them very original and extremely innovative compared to the Rolling Stones. I love albums like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. I wish they never recorded "Yellow Submarine" and "When I'm Sixty Four" on those albums they ruin otherwise perfect albums. It's like they tried to hard to say hey were the Beatles we could takle any kind of music.
Dylan and the early Beatles are not really liked and no one who the hell the Velvet Underground are and I like them. I don't know any musician who thinks "Tomorrow Never Knows" as junk it's viewed as pioneering.
No, The Beatles were not perfect.
Their early material did not have great production values. Compare, if you will, Buddy Holly's "That Will Be The Day" with first incarnation of The Beatles, or songs like The Shirelles' "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?".
And their later material was gimmicky. For example, strings in "Eleanory Rigby" were George Martin's idea derived from seeing "Psycho"; if you think that was innovative, try listening to "Walk Away Renee" by The Left Banke from the same year. As for "Tomorrow Never Knows", electronic dance music had been done before, even by George Martin himself in 1962. The 60's weren't all that backwater. Tape loops were ancient. And if you like George Harrison's sitar music, it only makes sense that you'd appreciate other sitar music, especially if it's obviously better; yet most people don't.
The reason? The Beatles were very charming. Take any of The Beatles' songs and imagine they were sung by someone else, so you can see how much worse they get.
That said, no, they weren't perfect. Yet no one has ever been as manic or as great as they were. Gimmicky or not, overrated or not, they created the most consistent pure and edible clever pop; they had more moments of pop brilliance and harmonious beauty (soft, tender, tongue-in-cheek, jarring, fascinating, artificial - lots of kinds of beauty) than anyone else ever. And they had ideal voices and ideal personalities to enclose their songs with.
Their work may fall apart somewhat under close scrutiny, but it ultimately defies it still. Listen to "Abbey Road" one more time if you need a faith-reaffirming tour, if you've loved them for too long.
And if you really don't get them, and think they were merely a stepping-stone, again - listen to "Abbey Road" until it sinks into you.
Greatness defies time. And though we love The Beatles more for that element of mystery that surrounds them, for that feeling that they could have done so much (and the feeling that always leads us to listen to outtakes, just to be disillusioned by the lack of beguilement and ask ourselves "is this it?"), and that figment of boundless potential, they were, no matter how you put it, no matter how many artificialities you start seeing in them, really good. And still are. And still will be, as long as music remains, though we may only hope that someone will surpass someday.
I think Mismaiome you need to read a book on the Beatles. George Harrison set sitar or Traditional Indian with the context to rock or pop music. Of course it is better done by someone like Ravi Shankar in the traditional sense. I think you are missing the point. Harrison helped expanded what rock and roll can do like others would do with jazz and rock later.
"Eleanor Rigby" the idea of the strings were McCartney's idea and he wanted as litte vibrato on strings as possible. The string arrangement was a partnership between him and Martin. The rhythm of the string arrangement was unheard of in rock music. There was no rock instrumentS just strings and vocals with.
Tape loops were rarely done in pop music let alone rock music. On "Tomorrow Never Knows" the tape loops influenced by avant garde with electronic mellotron samples creating a purely psychedelic soundscape set to a repetitive techno style hard drum beat. The tape loops were mixed live in the studio by the four Beatles. The tape loops were McCartney idea.
Their breakthroughs are not all they are said to be. George found a sitar and figured he would use it; as for "Eleanor Rigby" - on a Canadian speaking tour in 2007, Martin said his "Eleanor Rigby" score was influenced by Herrmann's score for the Alfred Hitchcock thriller, Psycho. As for "Tomorrow Never Knows" - awesome ideas, but not unheard of at the time.
Innovation and historical importance are often exaggerated; musicianship itself should at the forefront of appreciation.
"Eleanor Rigby" George Martin did not "compose" this song. He added the score for the backing string section (obviously influenced by Vivaldi)with McCartney input, but Paul wrote the melody, and he and John wrote the lyrics.
I found the Beatles as a good alternative in Rock Music and deserving of their reputation. Miles Davis and Coltrane both were influenced by Indian Music earlier. Electronic Dance Music was a late 70's music form which "Tomorrow Never Knows" is considered a important precursor to this type of music and Electronic Rock and it uses real Indian drone. Steve Marcus does a decent jazz tribute to this song. "Norwegian Wood" is a brilliant song and even "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" with its soft verse at 3/4 going to a loud chorus 4/4 throughout the whole song. These guys were innovative for Rock Music and they did this while keeping a strong melody. Shut up and move on to someone else.
Another one of you guys? How many are there?
Shut up and move on to someone else.
Why did you even post, then?
Stephan, I notice a lot of people on this forum are just the opposite when it comes to the Beatles. I was reading All Music Guide the book version and the Beatles had either a profound influence on many genres in Rock Music (Psychedelic Rock) or were dabbling in styles (Folk Rock)(Jangle Pop)before someone else established it. Not that it matters to some people here.
There is a section called Rock and Roll in Britain before the Beatles. That's how profound their influence was. Many people label 1954-1963 as the Pre-Beatles era not the Pre-Dylan era or Pre- Stones era.
If want to discuss who made better music than it's all debatable. If someone likes Dylan or The Stones better that's cool because I can see why they would. I like them also.
I've never denied the obvious influence of the Beatles, one would have to be blind and stupid to do so. I've stated time and again that the only thing I'm denying is these claims that they invented anything and/or are pretty much the sole influential force from the 60s. They copied styles from others, made them their own, combined them and popularized styles others created and they're maybe slightly more influential than other influential bands from the 60s due to their popularity with the general public. There's nothing wrong with that, and most of their music is pretty good if not great.
Stephan, no one invents genres music progresses from other ideas and bands create their own style which in turn could be original and influential. People were using drone, distortion and feedback before the Velvet Underground and they combined to make it sound new. It applies to everyone.
When it comes to the Beatles I will give you some prime examples. Roger McGuinn liked the Beatles because they were combining modal music with a solid rock beat. Good examples of this are "A Hard Day's Night" and the very Modal-Folk Rock of "I'm A Loser".
Another example is "Ticket To Ride" is both modal and droning while still retaining the obvious elements of a rock song. This effect would be popular in psychedelic rock.
How many people have copied the drum style of songs like "Rain" and "She Said She Said"
They had influences like everyone else but there were many bands who based their careers on what the Beatles were doing. I think the Beatles were highly innovative. To say it was their popularity only is missing the boat completely. Go listen to what the musicians are saying. What rock bands were the Beatles copying when they did "Strawberry Fields Forever", "I Want You (She So Heavy)" the very proto-punkish "Everybody Got Something to Hide" or "She Loves You"?
As far as I'm concerned, once they dumped Pete Best it was all downhill from there ...
When they were making "Strawberry Fields Forever", they were inspired by The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" and playing around with neat instruments, whereas the other two were inspired by the hard rock emerging at the time. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" would be a bad jam in the hands of someone like Cream, but isn't so far from it placed in its Beatlesy sensibility; as for "Everybody's Got Something To Hide", it sounds like The Who's "My Generation" filtered through Beatles sensibility again, just like they were trying to be hard and loud on "Helter Skelter" because of "I Can See For Miles".
And "She Loves You" was inspired by girl pop.
I tried not to get into this. How many times does a person have to say this the Beatles started as skiffle group and they combined it with a heavy backbeat. It's no great shakes to understand why the Byrds, Beu Breummels and others saw this and went electric. They copied the Beatles. Let's not forget the British Invasion and songwriting.
The Beatles did not invent psychedelic rock how they used it influenced everyone from Hendrix, Floyd to the Byrds themselves. Many of these techniques they put into psychedelic rock some of them used for the first time in rock general was later important on progressive rock. Examples backward vocals and guitars, vocals and instruments through leslie speakers, electronic sound collages, mellotron, Indian drone, Indian Instruments, avant style tape loops and a few others. "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Strawberrry Fields Forever" became the prototypical psychedelic pop and rock song.
Brian Wilson said when he first heard "Strawberry Fields Forever" the Beatles beat us to what I wanted accomplish in Music. Hence his follow up to Pet Sounds was doomed. "I Want You (She So Heavy)" is a hard rock with synth nothing like what Cream and the Who did. "Everybody Got Something to Hide" sounds nothing like the Who. "Helter Skelter" is just a response from a article he read about the Who. He never heard the actual song itself.
How we forget that the Who was influenced first by the Beatles melodic style and their vocal harmonies. How we forget that Brian Wilson was first influenced to make Pet Sound by listening to Rubber Soul. Why because he called it Rock first album without filler. Oh yeah he also liked the Beatles use of odd instrumentation like Yesterday string quartet. Rubber Soul use of the sitar, strange keyboard sounds. Pet Sounds influenced Sgt Pepper and while responding to Revolver, Wilson gave up after listening to "Strawberry Fields Forever". Lets not forget the The Stones made the underated Satanic Majesties Request after being influenced by the Beatles. Everyone was influencing each other. The Beatles were more influenced by non rock sources just as much as rock music.
Yeah, The Beatles saw all these incredible things lying in plain sight (seriously) and decided to use them, changing the universe forever.
Brian Wilson might have said that, but it's pretty obvious he was there before them, looking at the years (1966 compared to 1967). "Good Vibrations" sounds a lot like "Strawberry Fields".
As for "I Want You (She's So Heavy)", it sounds like a mix of Cream's "Sunshine Of Your Love" and Cream's "Sitting On Top Of The World", plus a synth. If you think the synth makes all the difference, try again.
As for "Everybody's Got Something To Hide", proto-punkiness had been done already years before, and it does sound like a watered-down, bluesier "My Generation" (with a completely different riff, but does it matter?). If not, next thing you might say is that The Kinks "You Really Got Me Going" doesn't sound like "My Generation". (Heck, even "Louie, Louie" sounds like "Smells Like Teen Spirit", and less than the former sound like each other.)
And I know about them not having heard "I Can See For Miles". I know this stuff. I know it was merely the review that inspired them, with its proclamations of the loudest song ever heard - which basically means someone had the idea first, and had already done it, and The Beatles were just trying to live up to their own version of it.
How we forget that the Who was influenced first by the Beatles melodic style and their vocal harmonies. How we forget that Brian Wilson was first influenced to make Pet Sound by listening to Rubber Soul. Why because he called it Rock first album without filler. Oh yeah he also liked the Beatles use of odd instrumentation like Yesterday string quartet. Rubber Soul use of the sitar, strange keyboard sounds. Pet Sounds influenced Sgt Pepper and while responding to Revolver, Wilson gave up after listening to "Strawberry Fields Forever". Lets not forget the The Stones made the underated Satanic Majesties Request after being influenced by the Beatles. Everyone was influencing each other. The Beatles were more influenced by non rock sources just as much as rock music.
Actually, I seriously didn't forget any of that, or even agree with it.
To take them one by one.
- If The Beatles hadn't existed, perhaps they would have been influenced by The Beach Boys instead? Or lots of other folks? Vocal harmonies are a pretty basic thing...
- Brian Wilson had already made songs like "In My Room" (in 1963, no less!). All that Rubber Soul did was increase his ambition; it didn't do a thing other than that.
- String quartet, weird instrumentation? For starters, it was George Martin's idea. Second, strings had been done to death in music, for hundreds of years - even in pop music. Not so mind-blowing, don't you think?
- Strange keyboard sounds? Listen to something like Les Baxter's "Music Out of the Moon" from 1947. Ages ahead of whatever "strange keyboard sounds" The Beatles had.
- "Strawberry Fields Forever" making Brian quit was, I think you'll agree, a blow to music. Talk about influence.
- Maybe The Rolling Stones would have made a proper album instead, if The Beatles hadn't been around? (Even though I love "She's A Rainbow" and think it outBeatles the Beatles.)
Everyone was listening to what the Beatles were doing in studio 2 even John Cale himself. Cale said the Beatles were heading something different in music which influenced him. He cites "She Said She Said" unusual beat, lyrics and tricky time signature as a inspiration.
Brian Wilson getting there before the Beatles is your opinion. He obviously thought they did. I think they got their wih "Tomorrow Never Know" the most musically forward rock track I have heard in that period. Yet this is my opinion and it is what is just a opinion. I think we speak a different musical language because "Strawberrry Fields Forever" and "Good Vibrations" are two entirely different sounding songs.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" " uses Classical Indian Music, Avant style tape loops and string sections, odd melody, the sense of key is vague, two different songs, endings and the use of mellotron and Indian Instruments. There was nothing like it in pop music and rock music.
I Want You (She So Heavy) is a two part song, the first is just blues rock, the second is almost metal like, with avant electronic music, with some jazz and latin influence on the drums. Nothing like Cream more like Pink Floyd "Eclispe" which Roger Water has admitted as a influence.
I am not of fan of punk rock. "Money That's What I Want" is a early proto-punk rock song by some. Everybody's Got Something To Hide", to call it a water down blues song again your opinion. The song rocks with a unusual riff and rhythm. Kurt Cobain was influenced by the guitar tones of Black Sabbath and songs like "Helter Skelter" and "Revolution" So what if the Who influenced "Helter Skelter" it's the finished product that matters. What's funny they did not hear the Who song and they made a new sound.
I'm a musician I have influences and inspirations. So did Brian Wilson and The Beatles. It appears you can't accept that Brian Wilson was insprired by the Beatles and what they did. Instead you throw opinions to try to negate their influence. Remember Everyone was listening to what the Beatles were doing in studio 2
I don't get what your point is. It's like you are trying to discredit the Beatles influence on music or you can't accept the fact the Beatles influenced their peers.
I could point out they were hundreds of guitarists that were influenced by Hendrix. Playing the guitar was invented before Hendrix so that makes his influence less important or less influential. The Who were influenced by the Beatles melodic music and vocal harmonies. What's the big deal even The Beach Boys took from the Beatles vocal harmonies and they basically rewrote Ticket To Ride and Tell Me Why in later songs. The Beatles did not invent vocal harmonies big deal. So that does not mean they could not influence other musicians. The Who were also influenced by the Beach Boys.
The Beatles should be respected for creating an album like Rubber Soul that inspired his peers to try to make a better albums say Pet Sounds. Rather than your a matter of fact opinion.
George Martin helped like any producer should. When it came to Beatles adding new instruments like Indian Instruments, Mellotron and the synthesizer or techniques like backward guitar or tapes loops it was their idea. It was McCartney idea for strings on 'Elearnor Rigby" and Lennon idea for strings on "Strawberry Fields Forever". McCartney sat down on the piano on Yesterday and partnered with him on string arrangement on Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby. The string arrangements were based on their suggestions and ideas.
Again out of context. I think we all know they were strange keyboard sounds before the Beatles. That does not mean the Beatles could have not influenced others for the type of keyboard sounds they were creating.
It's a matter of opinion either by you or Chelsea when the The Rolling Stones made a proper album. The fact is the Beatles influenced them should not be taken away from the Beatles.
What bothers me Mismaiome about someone like you. You are trying to discredit the Beatles influence on musicians by making points if it was someone else or it was done in 1947. The important thing it was the musicians who cited what the Beatles were doing as important to them. In the end of the day thats what matter.
- If The Beatles hadn't existed, perhaps they would have been influenced by The Beach Boys instead? Or lots of other folks? Vocal harmonies are a pretty basic thing...
- Brian Wilson had already made songs like "In My Room" (in 1963, no less!). All that Rubber Soul did was increase his ambition; it didn't do a thing other than that.
- String quartet, weird instrumentation? For starters, it was George Martin's idea. Second, strings had been done to death in music, for hundreds of years - even in pop music. Not so mind-blowing, don't you think?
- Strange keyboard sounds? Listen to something like Les Baxter's "Music Out of the Moon" from 1947. Ages ahead of whatever "strange keyboard sounds" The Beatles had.
- "Strawberry Fields Forever" making Brian quit was, I think you'll agree, a blow to music. Talk about influence.
- Maybe The Rolling Stones would have made a proper album instead, if The Beatles hadn't been around? (Even though I love "She's A Rainbow" and think it outBeatles the Beatles.)
No, I'm trying to explain that you should listen to their music instead of going on about how inestimably influential they were. For all you know, the praise thrown on them overwhelmed other artists and discouraged them from trying to reach great heights (just take Brian Wilson as a real example) - for all you know, without The Beatles, we would have had even better music. If anything, their beginnings were a step back from the Motown and Spector of the early 60's, yet they made music go down their route.
The Beatles were awesome, yes. They're my favorite band.
But they just weren't geniuses of innovation. Listen to all the electronic music made before "Tomorrow Never Knows" if you want to see.