The Beatles

[sifi]

odd that you chose that over golden slumber. should really be grouped together anyway.

i think the first part is amazin!

Well, it's probably my favourite bit on side of Abbey Road from Pam to the end I guess. Really moving on up that crescendo for me.

Radar - I think there is some truth in what you say, but it's interesting that a lot of people who like lots of different music have all contributed to the thread. An almost universal appeal, if you like. Can't think of anyone else that would come close to that. For reasons probably you've already stated.

Damn, that was tough the selecting your favourite 20 songs by the Beatles.

Mind you, I did a similar exercise once for an artist who I won't name, and I managed to whittle that down to 76 tracks ....

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Wooderson]

Hello Goodbye - Lennon

So that's John 10.5, Paul 6.5 and George 3.

Lennon?

[Radar]

they did some good songs..??

I don't like them because I was 'spoon fed' them, I like them because they were so good, that it was pretty unavoidable that 'we' would be spoon fed.

I couldn't really give a monkeys who likes them, but anyone who thinks we're somehow deluded because we like them is, is simply displaying an arrogance of the highest order (like they get the fact that they weren't actually that good)

yes. they did some good songs. get over it!

anyone my age or younger has been spoon fed them, singing them like nursery rhymes in school etc.

I'm not saying you're deluded, just that a little perspective wouldn't go amiss! I wouldn't say it was arrogant to suggest that the Beatles aren't the unreachable apogee of music, never shall the like be seen again!

Sifi - thank you for your far more sensible response.

[sifi]

Lennon?

Whoops, typed up wrongly. I did do the count as that one being a Macca one, mind.

[Wooderson]

I think it's the fact that most of us have been spoonfed their songs since we were in the cot, that makes me object to the fawning adoration.

Yes they did some good songs but this is monomania gone overboard, one of the few threads discussing music on the discussions board for a while, and it's about the bleedin obvious.

Ah well, knock yourselves out, I'm just bored (again)

The music and career of The Beatles is the most important artistic oeuvre in the last 50 years.

Simples!

[sifi]

Caitlin Moran in the Times reviewing the Beatles week was brilliant this week. I've annoyingly bolded out the bits that made me laugh out loud.

"You know what? The Beatles are still underrated. Seriously. The ill-minded and dim-hearted can argue about it all they like, but the simple, scientific fact is that if we were, as a species, to truly acknowledge how great the Beatles are, then every third item manufactured on Earth — bread, shoes, ploughs, USB memory sticks — would bear a tiny gold label, with, “Thank you, the Beatles”, written on it, by way of continual, rolling gratitude from Mankind. Yes, Alexander Fleming invented penicillin, but it does not have the piccolo trumpet solo to Penny Lane in it. Fair enough, the combined efforts of more than 8,000 people put men on the Moon. But the Moon does not have John Lennon’s eyes. And, there can be no doubt, the Chogha Zanbil ziggurat, in southern Iran, is the sole, extraordinary remaining monument of a vanished civilisation. But the Chogha Zanbil ziggurat is fatally disabled by the fact that you can’t get steamingly drunk and play it really loudly, while climbing up on your sofa and leaping off it, repeatedly — as you can with Hey Bulldog.

Let’s be clear, here. The Beatles 1) invented Elvis, 2) constructed the Gutenberg printing press and 3) won the Second World War. And you know that’s actually true.

On this basis, then, it’s clearly a borderline insult that the BBC put out a mere “Beatles Week” this week. “Beatles Week”? Holy moly, a week’s for, I dunno, Depeche Mode. Not the Beatles — the only band who had all the Beatles in it."

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol...icle6829366.ece

[sifi]

The music and career of The Beatles is the most important artistic oeuvre in the last 50 years.

And they were the only band to have all four members of the Beatles in it .

* more hysterical laughter *

I actually illegally downloaded Let it Be. I did this without a care because I actually own it already on vinyl, on tape and on a CD, but the CDs got a terrible scratch through it.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Radar]

The music and career of The Beatles is the most important artistic oeuvre in the last 50 years.

Simples!

Trying to wind me up, I'd imagine :P

Yep - agree totally with Ms Moran's righteous pisstake, assuming and hoping that's what it was.

[-pogo-]

Let's admit it guys, whether you like the Beatles or not, they represent the highest form of music snobery in that any negativity towards them (or anything against the status quo of "allowed" negativity) is considered to be idiotic, when realy, liking the Beatles or not is subjective.

I agree with the bloke on the BBC site who said something along the lines of that they took music that was meant to be dirty, sleazy and against the grain and made it into something that gets sung in playgrounds and nursing homes.

[sifi]

Let's admit it guys, whether you like the Beatles or not, they represent the highest form of music snobery in that any negativity towards them (or anything against the status quo of "allowed" negativity) is considered to be idiotic, when realy, liking the Beatles or not is subjective.

But the Beatles man. The only band to have all four members of the Beatles. One Beatle on drums, two on guitar and one on bass, with vocals shared. You just don't get that many Beatles per head of capita in any other band.

[-pogo-]

But the Beatles man. The only band to have all four members of the Beatles. One Beatle on drums, two on guitar and one on bass, with vocals shared. You just don't get that many Beatles per head of capita in any other band.

Same can be said of the Eagles.

[sifi]

Same can be said of the Eagles.

No it can't silly. There were no members of the Beatles in the Eagles.

[Radar]

No it can't silly. There were no members of the Beatles in the Eagles.

that's exactly it

[sifi]

There are a handful of artists that I hold with a similar level of astonishment at how good they are/were: Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Duke Ellington, Dylan... and a few others. They're achievements are a wonder to behold. Who would you put on a similar level?

Bowie, Stones and Free.

[sifi]

mmmm, a bit funny...

It's like the bloke who wrote the article (from some daft book) about how Sgt Peppers isn't actually any good, and everyone who says it is is misguided..

and he isn't

I liked it because she's a big Beatles fan, but she realises she goes over the top with it.

[sifi]

the Stones, yes... Bowie (imo) has done virtually nothing that's particulary original. Free... better than Bowie, but still not really up there with the true creators

I think he was in the van for a few movements. His Berlin period was fairly avant guarde, I think. And his white-eyed soul stuff was fairly interesting. But it's all repackaging what went before. Normally is. Apart from a few amazing examples. Even Stevie wasn't that original per se, was he?

You didn't ask for new or original, anyhow. You asked for "good", which is slightly different. I don't think the Stones even at their peak were new or original. Exile is partly 30s blues, partly late 60s Dylan electric country stuff and part 50s rock n'roll. And that's my favourite album by them.

[Radar]

There is lots of music that I used to love but hasn't passed the test of time, and I've gone off it.

The plain fact of the matter is that for me, everytime I give them a rest (and I do have to every now and again ), when I go back to them, or am reminded by a new batch of shows, or old ones simply being revisited, I'm truly amazed at how fantastic most of it sounds.

I'm not saying you're arrogant for suggesting that they aren't the bees knees, it's the implication that I'm (and others) are misguided somehow (re your suggesting that I don't have a sense of perspective).

There are a handful of artists that I hold with a similar level of astonishment at how good they are/were: Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Duke Ellington, Dylan... and a few others. They're achievements are a wonder to behold. Who would you put on a similar level?

.. because he partly agreed with you

I'd stick the Beatles soundly in that category. Some great songs but which often sound very dated to me.

Okay, apparently you're not the only one, but I find the continued hero-worship OTT. Only my opinion mind, for what it's worth.

Well okay you are entitled to your opinion, but I find the Beatles dated and the regard for them excessive. Can I say that without being arrogant?

Well I don't want to put a long list, but certainly there's no artist that I slavishly hero-worship in the way that some (many?) people still do with the Beatles! Hendrix might be towards that category for me, admittedly, but I try to avoid hero-worship in general.

Yeah, he saw where I was coming from!

[Langdale Wolf]

It's not snobbery. I've hardly ever heard anyone come up with any vaguely constructive criticism against them.

Absolutely - nail on the head there, tony.

Some people don't like them, I accept that and people are allowed their opinion, but I too have never heard any decent constructive criticism about them. Phrases such as "They were rubbish" or "massively overrated" or "musical snobbery" are not constructive.

I'm not saying pogo or Radar are this, but there are a LOT of people out there who don't like the Beatles purely because so many millions of people do.

[sifi]

examples of Stevie's awesomeness (?):

Happier Than The Morning Sun

Maybe Your Baby

I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever)

and he was only just getting into his stride around about there

Wrong. But only because you've "Please Don't Go" missing from that list.

Station to Station is Bowie being very original, mixing up American and European styles in a way I've not heard before.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Wooderson]

I'm sorry but Free being better than Bowie is the funniest thing I've read on Efests since the Nal's rant about the only way you can possibly improve on Macca's gig at Glasto 2004.

Honestly lads? Free? Paul Rogers Free? Better than the man who wrote "Heroes"? No chance.

[sifi]

Honestly lads? Free? Paul Rogers Free? Better than the man who wrote "Heroes"? No chance.

Not as widely played, but consider tracks like Songs of Yesterday, or Woman, stuff like that. The Highway Song, Broad Daylight. Or even Heartbreaker. Not the over-played gretest hits rubbish.

And I never said Free were better than Bowie. I said I liked them equally.

[Radar]

I too have never heard any decent constructive criticism about them. Phrases such as "They were rubbish" or "massively overrated" or "musical snobbery" are not constructive.

I'm not saying pogo or Radar are this, but there are a LOT of people out there who don't like the Beatles purely because so many millions of people do.

Is "they sound dated and what was once cutting edge now is average" constructive? I don't think you can criticise constructively, as they won't be back to put things right, as it were. I also dislike the suggestion that they came out of nowhere and did all these unique things, as they were a product of their inspirations same as most other bands, and besides the musicological angle is terribly pseudy?!

Yea, I like some of their songs well enough, but there is also a feeling that the hero-worship is simply too much, especially now.

[Langdale Wolf]

Is "they sound dated and what was once cutting edge now is average" constructive? I don't think you can criticise constructively, as they won't be back to put things right, as it were. I also dislike the suggestion that they came out of nowhere and did all these unique things, as they were a product of their inspirations same as most other bands, and besides the musicological angle is terribly pseudy?!

Yea, I like some of their songs well enough, but there is also a feeling that the hero-worship is simply too much, especially now.

No - it's simply an incorrect opinion. :P

As for the 'hero worship' - are you referring to this thread in general, and the fact that we've discussed things such as 'your favourite 20 Beatles songs' etc? Is that hero worship? Or is it just discussing a band a lot of people clearly have a real passion for?

Note that very little of this thread is about them, and is more about their music?

[The Nal]

There are a handful of artists that I hold with a similar level of astonishment at how good they are/were: Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Duke Ellington, Dylan... and a few others. They're achievements are a wonder to behold. Who would you put on a similar level?

Depends really

Robert Johnson (For influence)

Chuck Berry (Same reason)

Leadbelly

Sinatra

Ella Fitzgerald

Billie Holiday

[Radar]

No - it's simply an incorrect opinion. :P

As for the 'hero worship' - are you referring to this thread in general, and the fact that we've discussed things such as 'your favourite 20 Beatles songs' etc? Is that hero worship? Or is it just discussing a band a lot of people clearly have a real passion for?

Note that very little of this thread is about them, and is more about their music?

And now who is being arrogant as f**k?!

I'm just saying what I think about the Beatles, that their time has passed, but their fans haven't moved on... I dunno what I'm trying to say. I just think the Beatles are overrated, and more overrated now than they were in the first place.

Is it not about their "unrivalled genius?!"