Why did Beatles become such a great band?

[zack01]

Are there any easy answers to such a "stupid" question?

[dave_clark69]

British.
End of thread

[Ívar Þórólfsson]

Originally Posted by zack01

Are there any easy answers to such a "stupid" question?

1. This should be in the Misc. forum.
2. You have to realize that in this era, the Beatles were nothing short of revolutionary, their music and their look. Parents hated them and teenagers loved them.
3. They had good and catchy music. I like them.

[Mr.QuakQuak]

teh beatles > j00

[Lyle Caldwell]

Play live for 12 hours every night for three years. You'll either get good or die.

[LajoieT]

A LOT of things went right for the Beatles. They were the right people in the right band at the right time with the right climate (political and economic). They were talented (but many others were also) which helped and there was a HUGE population of kids that bought into them for a variety of reasons.

[Woodchuck]

Drugs. IMO, they did their best stuff on drugs.

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

IMO, another big reason of Beatles' success was George Martin. I think that without him, the Fab Four wouldn't be the same.

[odie]

What is your obsession with the Beatles? I am not off subject to far with that question.

Why ask such a simple question. You like simple answers??

Why did they become such a great band?? Because they had good commercial timing.

[Mike Money]

Black Sabbath was great because of Bill Ward and Geezer Butler... Geezer wrote the lyrics, and probably more than half of the more memorable guitar riffs...

Ozzy and Tony are the replaceable members of Sabbath, imho...



Pre-LSD beatles isn't that much better than blink182, really... but then throw in the LSD, and boom... good music.

[paniak17]

Originally Posted by Mike Money

Pre-LSD beatles isn't that much better than blink182

I hope that was a joke...trust me, ANYTHING is better than blink182, and i mean ANYTHING, and actually if you listen to there early stuff, its not all that bad. Of course it doesnt compare to the stuff they did after ruber soul.

[Against Will]

Originally Posted by paniak17

I hope that was a joke...trust me, ANYTHING is better than blink182, and i mean ANYTHING, and actually if you listen to there early stuff, its not all that bad. Of course it doesnt compare to the stuff they did after ruber soul.

He agreed they were better, he just didn't think they were MUCH better.

And Blink 182 aren't that bad, I can think of hundreds of groups that are worse.

Beatles were a combination of lucky and clever.

[cowsgomoo]

their success at the time was largely due to the snowball effect of popularity among a group of people with lots of disposable income for the the first time (postwar baby boom teenagers)... it was an ideal time for crazes.. the media wasn't as fragmented, so you got stuff that'll never happen again, like the entire nation tuning into watch a band on tv (!)

you have to remember the baby boomers were absolutely indulged, complacent and spoilt like no generation before or since... many of their parents knew first hand what it was like to face the horrors of war, and were determined that their kids shouldn't have to face those kinds of things... that and the prosperity of the nation during that post-war period meant the time was absolutely right for a string of massive entertainment events & icons.. the Beatles and Elvis obviously being 2 of the biggest

and they had some good songs you could whistle and tap your feet to...

a bit later, they were lucky enough to be developing strongly as songwriters during a time of huge changes in recording technology (doubtless stimulated by the cultural and economic impact of the success of groups like themselves )... so their albums were able to show a growth and development that few artists have equalled

but I think their continued success is due to them writing several catchy songs that people could sing along to.. we wouldn't be talking about them today if their songs were crappy, regardless of the cultural impact they made in the 60's


and how in the hell did a gratuitous Blink 182 insult get into a thread about the Beatles???

[jenderfazz]

Like most every successful band, it was a combination of things. They had talent, visual appeal, catchy songs, and appeared at the right moment. Of course, that could make any one hit wonder (and it made many in the 60s). The Beatles kind of took that and did their own thing basically. Had they remained a bubblegum pop band like their first albums (which aren't bad at all, IMO) they wouldn't have become this famous (or should I say, memorable). But they weren't one-sided and really followed the 60s in terms of feelings, drug use, and expressed it in their songs. Whenever I think the Beatles aren'tanything great, I remember that they broke up in like 1970. That's amazing... bands like Led Zeppelin and Rush and Pink Floyd were just getting started really. To think that the Beatles made that kind of cool music in the 60s is astonishing... same with Jimi Hendrix. He's doing some great stuff, but it really seems like nothing new, just some flashy guitar work and bluesy stuff. And then you realize he was doing all this stuff in the 60s... definitely years ahead of a lot of other guitarists.

[nashvillebill]

Many people lose sight of history...let's look at Jimi Hendrix and his influence. Born in 1942, recorded Purple Haze in 1967, died in 1970...Yet a thread a month or so ago claimed Stevie Ray Vaughn influenced Hendrix !! (SRV, born 1954, would've been 13 when Purple Haze was recorded, and SRV didn't release his first album--Texas Flood--until 1983...)

So their early stuff sounds sorta crappy, compared to today's modern stuff...but look at what they were working with. 2 or 3 track recordings, no overdubbing, lousy PA systems...and no Talkbass forum on the Internet to tell Paul what he was doing wrong.

Oh well I'm rambling. Had to set the record stright on the SRV vs. Hendrix thing though.

[Floating teetH]

I don't really dig their "psychedelic" stuff. Then again, I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but I really like pink floyd, and I don't like there "psychedelic" stuff, either. Either it's a coincidence, i hate syd barret, or on some (subconcious? ) level, I'm bothered by the goofy clothes and the whole making money off of the popularity of drugs and/or drug induced "enlightenment" thing....

Oh, wait....I know I hate syd barret.

Would 'A Day in the Life' be considered "psychedelic" period type stuff for the Beatles? I like that one.

[swampash]

because of paul

[driver800]

Originally Posted by Lyle Caldwell

Play live for 12 hours every night for three years. You'll either get good or die.

yes, that made them a great band. But I really think they probably weren't a great "band" after 64 or 65.

I think a better question is why were they such great recording artists? Their early astronomical success gave them freedoms seldom afforded to any artists before them. They used the freedoms to push the boundries farther than they had been pushed previously. And they were steered by a very competent George Martin.

About their popularity in the U.S.: When they made their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show, the whole country had been in mourning over the death of JFK for more than 2 months. Everyone, especially the youth were in desperate need for hope and enjoyment; for something fresh and new. The Beatles came along at exactly the right time to pull people out of their sadness. This contributed to their enormous success and it's unlikely to occur again.

[Benjamin Strange]

Originally Posted by Mike Money

Black Sabbath was great because of Bill Ward and Geezer Butler... Geezer wrote the lyrics, and probably more than half of the more memorable guitar riffs...

Ozzy and Tony are the replaceable members of Sabbath, imho...



Pre-LSD beatles isn't that much better than blink182, really... but then throw in the LSD, and boom... good music.

What makes Mike Money's posts so great is that you can't tell if he's seriously high on drugs or just seriously stupid.

[BluesBrian]

Originally Posted by swampash

because of paul

because of John