The Beatles

[sifi]

Station To Station is his most original album imo... the 'soul' stuff kind of missed the mark for me

generally it was downhill from Hunky Dory

Yeah, fair comment. With honorable mention for Station to Station, which is brilliance.

Back to general musical evolution, there are key things which happened which saw music change completely from the 50s pop music scene to the 60s pop music scene. And the most important change was artists writing and recording their own material, artists helping to produce their own material and artists writing more about what moved them.

And there were key players in those moves. And the Beatles were one of those key players.

[sifi]

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.

Under-rated, you mean surely? Otherwise everything third thing in human construction would have a little gold note attached to it saying "Thanks to The Beatles" on it?

[sifi]

I'd be fascinated to hear from those who think the Beatles have had their day who is actually better than them?

[Radar]

it was hardly their fault that they were the first at a lot of what they did. It's bound to sound dated, but then so does Django Rheinhardt, it doesn't take away from the original acheivements though

*shrugs* millions of people don't cream themselves over vintage Jazz though. Plus arguably classic jazz music is enjoyed deliberately for its retro feel.

whereas, in the case of the Beatles, there is the implication that this is still the best music that ever has or will be made, etc etc etc... it's tedious (the hyperbole, not the music)

I'd be fascinated to hear from those who think the Beatles have had their day who is actually better than them?

It's not a case of "who is better" - as I said, I just think that the praise reserved exclusively for the Beatles is rather monomaniacal and excessive.

The answer to your question is - there are hundreds of artists I would like to listen to as much as or more than the Beatles, not because they are for some subjective reasoning "better" but just because that is what I want (subjectively) to listen to!!!

[sifi]

I just think that the praise reserved exclusively for the Beatles is rather monomaniacal and excessive.

You should hear me when I get warmed up on the subject of another influential artist or the period.

It's not a case of "who is better" - as I said,

So there are a lot of artists who you reckon are as good as the Beatles then, and are annoyed they don't get as many people banging on about them?

Who are they then?

Floyd?

[Kowalski]

You should hear me when I get warmed up on the subject of another influential artist or the period.

So there are a lot of artists who you reckon are as good as the Beatles then, and are annoyed they don't get as many people banging on about them?

Who are they then?

Floyd?

Keith Floyd maybe, but certainly not Pink Floyd.

[Radar]

You should hear me when I get warmed up on the subject of another influential artist or the period.

So there are a lot of artists who you reckon are as good as the Beatles then, and are annoyed they don't get as many people banging on about them? Who are they then? Floyd?

Well, arguably your love for Bob is OTT as well, but at least it's someone other than the Beatles!!!

I reckon there are a lot of artists that are as enjoyable to listen to yes, but I'm not knocking people's taste, which is individual. My gripe is with the hysteria about the Beatles, not the lack of hysteria regarding other bands.

you have an odd take on why people listen to music. I doubt many people listen to old jazz for its retro feel, it's the musicianship.

*shrugs* I'd say you had an odd take on why people listen to music. Nobody cares about musicianship, it's all about how the music makes you feel!

Potayto, Potarto

[sifi]

I've just remembered.

Zeppelin.

Thank f**k for that, I knew there was something which annoying the hell out of me.

Zeppelin.

We can all move along now. Thanks.

And if I'm not mistaken it was Led Zep II that knocked off Abbey Road from the top of the chart too. Talk about balance.

Edited September 14, 2009 by sifimaster

[Wooderson]

The Beatles are the only thing that rivals the greatest ever British export, namely Association Football.

Yes, your DB9's and Spitfires and bridges and cordoroy were all well and good but nowt competes with the other two. My life would be gash without either.

[Wooderson]

while many do consciously, even the ones who say they don't, do subconsciously... it's the musicianhip that makes it 'work'

or not

Neil will be on here now saying that the dialtone on his Nokia is better than Bruce. Watch out Tone!

[Radar]

while many do consciously, even the ones who say they don't, do subconsciously... it's the musicianship that makes it 'work'

or not

"oh man, it's all about the craft man!"

rollocks! obviously being a competent musician (or group of musicians) helps, but if that was the only important thing, punk would never have happened, let alone thrived.

I'm tempted to mention Ringo's drumming as well, but no doubt that wasn't substandard, that was just what arrogant fools say, "they didn't get it, man!"

[ampersand]

I'm tempted to mention Ringo's drumming as well, but no doubt that wasn't substandard, that was just what arrogant fools say, "they didn't get it, man!"

he isnt the greatest, but what he brought to the beatles was mostly great.

for example, if it was bill bruford behind the drums, he wouldnt have complimented them as much.

[Langdale Wolf]

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?!"

You're quite easy to wind up.

But you make an interesting point though dude - you said you think their time has passed. I disagree. Let me explain: I was born in 1980. My mum was one of the screaming fans in the heyday of Beatlemania - she queued overnight to get a ticket for their gig in Sheffield and screamed through the whole concert (now THAT is blind hero worship).

When I was young, I heard the Beatles an awful lot, but mainly their earlier stuff. I knew almost all the early Beatles stuff (I'd say up to and including Rubber Soul) Dad prefers their later stuff so as I got older, and got into music, I'd raid his LP collection and put those later albums on. I preferred them. Whereas music such as Fairport Convention, some substandard Motown compilations and 10CC were put to one side, I kept going back to the likes of Pepper, The White Album, Abbey Road etc. I didn't think some of the songs on those albums sounded like they were 25-30 years old, and sounded like they could have been released the following day and still compare to the contemporary music of the day.

So, I grew up liking them more and more, especially when I got a better idea and a wider range of other artists and other genres. It got to the point that I love them more than both of my parents.

My wife isn't that 'with it' when it comes to music. She only knew Rubber Soul when I met her. I got her to listen to more and more Beatles albums. She loved them and commented on how fresh they sounded. So, 10 years after I became a huge fan of theirs, she did too.

I've no doubt that my son will listen to Beatles records as he grows up, and I'd be interested to find out what he makes of them and if he likes them.

My point is that there are different tastes within my family, but we all like the Beatles and have discovered them at different stages of our lives.

So in my family, their time is far from over, and as long as their records exist on vinyl, tape, CD and mp3 format, I doubt it will.

[sifi]

Truth-Jeff Beck

And you could probably throw Cream in there too.

[Radar]

The Beatles are the only thing that rivals the greatest ever British export, namely Association Football.

Exactly the kind of overblown tripe comment I was highlighting, thank you!

I'm glad the Beatles still continue to bring you such joy, however...

[Langdale Wolf]

The Beatles are the only thing that rivals the greatest ever British export, namely Association Football.

If you add real ale into that mix, we could be very special friends.

[sifi]

Both my daughters (17 and 27) adore The Beatles. Yes, they've been listening to them since they were born, but there's plenty of other artists they've been exposed to since then, that they don't like at all/ Why would that be?

Was it because not one member of those bands were a Beatle?

[sifi]

If you add real ale into that mix, we could be very special friends.

And don't forget the Bob Dylan Live at the Royal Albert Hall Bootleg discs ....

[Radar]

yea well, no-ones ever said Ringo wasn't a great drummer before

and punk will not be rembered for it's musical innovation. I loved it at the time, but hardly listen to any of it now

Indeed, but seeing as music is only worth listening to because of the "great musicianship"...?

I suppose not, but you're changing the subject again. And music doesn't have to be innovative to be great, per se.

Was it because not one member of those bands were a Beatle?

:P

[Langdale Wolf]

And don't forget the Bob Dylan Live at the Royal Albert Hall Bootleg discs ....

Now they know how many Bobs it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

See what I did there?

[Radar]

but Ringo WAS a great drummer.

for me though, the truly great music, that I go back to year after year, was innovative

Ah, I see, I must have been mistaken...

Surely the only benefit in "innovation" is that it is new to you. Once it becomes familiar, surely that benefit is lost? There's an argument there, anyhow.

Ok, trying a different tack, without hyperbole, in brief, what was so great about the Beatles? I've probably heard it all before, but please remind me...

[Langdale Wolf]

Ah, I see, I must have been mistaken...

Surely the only benefit in "innovation" is that it is new to you. Once it becomes familiar, surely that benefit is lost? There's an argument there, anyhow.

Ok, trying a different tack, without hyperbole, in brief, what was so great about the Beatles? I've probably heard it all before, but please remind me...

FFS mate - you've got 22 pages to go through for some sort of idea!!!

[sifi]

Ok, trying a different tack, without hyperbole, in brief, what was so great about the Beatles? I've probably heard it all before, but please remind me...

Ah ... I know this.

Because they were the only band to have not one, not two, not even three but all four members of the Beatles in them. Sometimes they even had a fifth Beatle in there, but I think that was showing off.

[Langdale Wolf]

Ah ... I know this.

Because they were the only band to have not one, not two, not even three but all four members of the Beatles in them. Sometimes they even had a fifth Beatle in there, but I think that was showing off.

And ALSO - during the Let It Be album, they had another Beatle playing with them. A Black Beatle.

[sifi]

And ALSO - during the Let It Be album, they had another Beatle playing with them. A Black Beatle.

And it wasn't Ringo messing around and having blacked up like on the Help! album, I assume?