Beatle-mania

[Gimlet]

I don't get it.

Don't know if this has really been news state-side, but in the UK there's been a lot of a fuss around the upcoming release of a "new" Beatles single recorded using AI to resurrect some old John Lennon vocals and Harrison guitar playing from an old unrecorded song.

I've never understood the fascination with the Beatles. Yes they wrote some great songs, and plenty of duds as well, like all bands. But they were only together seven years. What they did they did well but it wasn't particularly ground-breaking in musical terms. There were plenty of better singers and musicians around in their day and many were more prolific.
McCartney is a good song writer, but in an age stuffed with good song writers. Lennon was a good singer, but he was no Philip or Don Everly. Harrison was a good and guitarist and on occasion an inventive song writer but he was no Jimmy Page or Kieth Richards. Starr was an adequate drummer for the task, but doesn't bear comparison with Kieth Moon or John Bonham.

The Rolling Stones were contemporaries of the Beatles and they're still going strong into their late '70's, still selling out stadiums, still producing albums of critical acclaim and their back-catalogue dwarfs the Beatles output and makes them look like a flash in the pan. And I'm not particularly a Stones fan. But credit where it's due.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles. Some of their songs are masterpieces, but I just don't think the mythology around them reflects their actual output.

 

[Jwebb90]

I’ve never been able to get into the Beatles. I’ve tried several times with no success. Part of me feels like they are one of those bands you are told you have to like and something is wrong with you if you don’t. However, I can’t deny their lasting impact and influence. I just don’t understand why they are so influential

 

[Bengel]

I think the gist is, while short lived, they went from Love me do to Sgt. Peppers album in that time and that was ground breaking.

 

[jerry]

Their cultural impact was/is significant. The music is part of it. So is the (at the time) innovative use of the recording studio technology. And how their individual personalities blended.

 

[mikethompson]

Their cultural impact was/is significant. The music is part of it. So is the (at the time) innovative use of the recording studio technology. And how their individual personalities blended.

Agreed - the Beatles were more than the sum of their parts.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

I believe it's the strong melodies the Beatles were able to create that made (and still make) such an impact. Their melodies are recognizable in any setting. People have done their songs in Bluegrass style, lounge jazz elevator music instrumental, orchestral, etc, etc. This can only be done because the melodies are absolutely brilliant and translate onto multiple instruments and musical settings.

If one likes the songs is another matter, but the fact that almost everyone recognizes them instantly testifies to the strength of the songwriting. When you realize they didn't "read music" and weren't particularly "trained" for the endeavor, it becomes even more amazing. It was serendipity when they got together.

"Best singer," "great guitarist," etc, etc. All that stuff is subjective and solely a matter of taste and opinion. Mine is that George Harrison was an absolutely brilliant guitarist. Take his slide playing, for example. Just hearing a few notes of it lets me know it's him. To be recognizable like that, just with the sound of a guitar, is ridiculously difficult to achieve. Most guitar players just sound like guitar players: but to have your own voice on the instrument is a rare talent. (A few other players come to mind that were able to achieve this: Edward Van Halen, Steve Vai, Carlos Santana, David Gilmore - all these guys are recognized by their guitar tone/sound instantly.)

For what it's worth, I don't like all of what the Beatles did. I'll take their suit and tie, short hair period over all that hippy I-am-the-walrus stuff anyday. But even the later stuff had the brilliant melodic pull that kept people listening.
I'm way younger than the original audience, but I heard all this stuff in the car when a boy because of my Beatles-loving mother. I never followed Lennon or McCartney's solo careers (Lennon struck me as sort of angry and McCartney's stuff was too poppy for me), but I got into much of Harrison's solo work. I also loved what he and his friends did with The Traveling Wilburys. YMMV.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I don't get it. Music is a matter of taste.

Don't know if this has really been news state-side, but in the UK there's been a lot of a fuss around the upcoming release of a "new" Beatles single recorded using AI to resurrect some old John Lennon vocals and Harrison guitar playing from an old unrecorded song. Yuck.

I've never understood the fascination with the Beatles. Yes they wrote some great songs, and plenty of duds as well, like all bands. But they were only together seven years. What they did they did well but it wasn't particularly ground-breaking in musical terms. There were plenty of better singers and musicians around in their day and many were more prolific. You don't have to like them but this overgeneralized bunch of poo is easy to put out there casually, but ignores the fact that they were the most singular and groundbreaking group of the 60s and I'm leaving culture out of it (and there impact was other worldly on contemporary culture). As time went by what they were doing musically was unique and continued to be so and was pure genius. Again, all a matter of taste whether you like the music, but nobody has the time or the finger power to sit and type all that was the Beatles in terms of musicality - it's not even debatable, just isn't.
McCartney is a good song writer, but in an age stuffed with good song writers. Lennon was a good singer, but he was no Philip or Don Everly. Harrison was a good and guitarist and on occasion an inventive song writer but he was no Jimmy Page or Kieth Richards. Starr was an adequate drummer for the task, but doesn't bear comparison with Kieth Moon or John Bonham. And the obligatory picking the low fruit/easy but ill informed "takes" - come on. Read interviews from contemporary drummers and those of the past several decades - do they all agree? No. Do many if not most cite Ringo as probably the most underrated drummer ever and others praise his actual and real talent? Yep. McCartney a "good" songwriter? WTF. Lennon's voice was Lennon's voice - sit down sometime and listen what he could do with it - Dylan couldn't sing like the gals in ABBA, so what. The inventive and incredible harmonies fashioned by the Beatles, the inventive use of time, lyrics, you name it literally allowed rock to survive, change and explode. None of the artists you mention would have fit into the Beatles and vice versa - but that's kind of the point of art. You need to get out more educationally - read some of the damn good works written about the Beatles whether as a group or as individuals - read some of what artists from the 60s to now have to say about their influence.

The Rolling Stones were contemporaries of the Beatles and they're still going strong into their late '70's, still selling out stadiums, still producing albums of critical acclaim and their back-catalogue dwarfs the Beatles output and makes them look like a flash in the pan. And I'm not particularly a Stones fan. But credit where it's due. Calling the Beatles a flash in the pan because what's left of The Rolling Stones still Tours in their dotage - now it's obvious this was all started as clickbait/troll - that's not even a reasonable statement.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles. No you don't, lol. Some of their songs are masterpieces, but I just don't think the mythology around them reflects their actual output. You don't know enough of their history or rock, blues or jazz history to have the basis for just about anything you've written. There's way more reality vs. mythology about the Beatles because we've had the passage of right around 60 years since their coming out, so no excuse for regurgitating superficial "critiques" that were debunked by 1968, haha.

I'm not a musician, just one of I'm sure almost all on here who appreciate all sorts of music. I knew about the Beatles to the extent of what our local radio station played on AM when I was young and missed the first "wave" (and although my mom was incredibly musical, rock/pop never was or became her thing, so it wasn't available, so to speak, in the home, until I started buying my own records). But I got older, "discovered" what was out there and what came before and spent my time not just listening but consuming what there was to read about the music and musicians I enjoyed. Gotten into jazz more as I've gotten older and rock music went were it went in the 80s and by the 90s left me behind, and that's okay.

Bugs me to see overgeneralized nonsense - the kind of stuff that sounds good at the bar . . . . . . for about 10 seconds before the folks that know it's BS jump in.

Art generates passions and stirs emotions. You might think Van Gogh painted blurry canvases with his fingers but you'd look kind of silly suggesting that was the truth or that he wasn't a true master.

 

[ssjones]

McCartney is a good song writer, but in an age stuffed with good song writers.

I think McCartney stands pretty tall among song writers of any era, and will be remembered with greater reverence and streaming royalties than many others past or current.

Harrison was a good and guitarist and on occasion an inventive song writer but he was no Jimmy Page or Kieth Richards.

The Rolling Stones were contemporaries of the Beatles and they're still going strong into their late '70's, still selling out stadiums, still producing albums of critical acclaim

I have Hackney Diamonds, its ok, I'll likely never listen to it a again. "Critical acclaim" is a stretch.

I love Keith Richards, but purely as a lead guitar, Harrison outshines him. Harrison's solo work is also far superior to Richards.

I love both bands, in different ways.
The Beatles the best pop band and the Stones are the best rock & roll band.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I still haven't had my first cup of coffee, lol. I'll meditate a few more minutes on the Fab Four before grinding the beans.

 

[Chasing Embers]

he was no Philip or Don Everly

Must've had something going on. I know who Lennon was, had to look up the Everlys.

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

Must've had something going on. I know who Lennon was, had to look up the Everlys.

LOL, it's an Iowa thing to recognize them, Andy Williams and Donna Reed (and wish Buddy Holly and others hadn't gotten on a plane near Clear Lake back in the day).

 

[jerry]

I find all, yes all, their recordings interesting, at least. Often fascinating. I still listen to songs from "Help" ... "Rubber Soul" ... and "Revolver" over and over again.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I find all, yes all, their recordings interesting, at least. Often fascinating. I still listen to songs from "Help" ... "Rubber Soul" ... and "Revolver" over and over again.

"Tomorrow Never Knows" is probably responsible for the types of music that I currently enjoy.

 

[RookieGuy80]

I had asked several in my parents generation about the Beatles and Beatlemania. I was told you had to be there to get it. I'm willing to buy that. Sometimes it's just like that, that you had to be there. My own kids asked me about Nirvana the same way I asked about the Beatles.

It's easy enough to look at it objectively I suppose. A group of counter culture young men from a foreign land, harmonies and a more drums forward sound. To everyone comparing them to the Rolling Stones, remember it's apples and oranges in the early Beatles times. The Stones were still a wannabe blues band at this point. You'd do better comparing them to the Dave Clark Five or very early Moody Blues (think Go Now moreso than Days of Future Past).

There is nobody who can write a pop song better than McCartney, at least no singer songwriter. It took the discovery of Norah Jones before we could find someone who can carry a torch as well as Harrison. Lennon's willingness to experiment with sound(s) is certainly worthy of emulation. And even Ringo is one hell of a session drummer, not everyone has to be Bonham or Moon.

 

[yanoJL]

I don't get it.

...

Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles. Some of their songs are masterpieces, but I just don't think the mythology around them reflects their actual output.

Agreed.

I recognize their talent and innovation, but their work never hit me with the same intensity as other bands like Led Zeppelin or Dire Straits.
Of course, I find myself toe-tapping when I hear a few of their songs. But I agree that the level of hype was unwarranted.

fun fact: when the Beatles were finished, all four members were still in their 20s.

 

[mso489]

One of the brilliant aspects of the Beatles was their ability to draw "rock and roll' music from many genres effectively. They drew from garage rock, blues, and soul, but also from many old English music hall standards with particular verve, charm, and a love that transcended irony. The Stones are a never-ending tour de force, but the Beatles were two centuries of good music in a few years. Sgt. Pepper was a mind bender, the anthems for their time.

John Lennon's life was a sort of epic tragedy, love lost and found, and an untimely end.

 

[scloyd]

I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but when the mood hits, I'll tune into the Beatles channel on Sirius XM radio in my truck.

The Beatles Channel - 18
All things Beatles. All of their hits, album tracks, live recordings, rarities & solo songs. Plus interviews & exclusive hosted shows. It's the soundtrack for generations of music fans….provided by John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

 

[JackOrion]

I see it this way, You listen to the Beatles when you’re a kid, then you grow up and listen to Dylan.

 

[brian64]

I've never understood the fascination with the Beatles.

Part of me feels like they are one of those bands you are told you have to like and something is wrong with you if you don’t.

Just listen to side two of Abbey Road. If you still don't understand, well, yeah there might be something wrong with you. Just kidding (sort of).

Seriously though, I can't say I've ever really been a huge Beatles fan, and I don't listen much to their earliest stuff. For me the albums that have most of what I like the best about their music are Revolver, Sgt Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road and Let It Be.

Abbey Road is definitely my favorite (the White Album would have been much better as a single album IMO...about half of it I don't care all that much for...the rest is great).

 

[El Capitán]

Not a fan of The Beatles. More of an Elvis guy.