yeah, those songs might seem "so done" today, but the next generation should know that the Beatles pioneered this idiosyncratic, ironic(?), medley style, along with George Martin.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anyone else not like The Beatles?
- Thread starter Snowglo
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough.
I also think that REVOLVER must be reckoned with as a watershed album.
The collision of genre, the saturation of sounds, the delight in creation, the modernist
attitude and above all the intense subjectivity of that collection altered the boundaries of the pop genre
(Despite the inclusion of the dreaded "Yellow Submarine").
I'm sure one of the reasons for my dislike is hearing the same 10 songs on the radio since the early 70's. Who knows, I make like some of there stuff I've never heard? However, it's going to be extremely difficult to try.
Also, could so much of their popularity be due to they are "The Beatles"? I'm sure a lot of folks will not express their honest opinion and simply go with the masses. Sheeple!
Also, could so much of their popularity be due to they are "The Beatles"? I'm sure a lot of folks will not express their honest opinion and simply go with the masses. Sheeple!
The Beatles' catalogue is so vast and varied that if there is not a single Beatles song you can appreciate or enjoy then you are stigmatizing their popularity. ANY other band or artist this does not apply to. But the Beatles are unique. They are the WWII of music. The exception.
Also: maybe you just don't like their voices. I suppose that would really ruin their catalogue.
ALSO (again): the Beatles are SO FAMOUS that not liking them is just as reactionary as liking them. Very few things are that famous. McDonalds? Coke? MAYBE
Also: maybe you just don't like their voices. I suppose that would really ruin their catalogue.
ALSO (again): the Beatles are SO FAMOUS that not liking them is just as reactionary as liking them. Very few things are that famous. McDonalds? Coke? MAYBE
When the Beatles came onto the music scene in about 1963 it was a huge leap from the kind of music we were listening to at the time. I was about 12 and was caught up in the excitement, being thus encouraged to begin a semi-serious study of guitar so that I could do their early stuff. The ensuing British Invasion was even more exciting and influential for me, exposing me to the early roots blues music that inspired other English musicians. Aside from what one may like or dislike personally about their music, their profound influence on music is undeniable.
I believe that the Beatles started to fully mature musically starting with the Rubber Soul album, going through Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album and Abbey Road. I've omitted M.M.T. as a sort of psychedelic aberration, not bad and good in its own right, that seemed more as a musical experiment than a polished musical performance. We also see the emergence of the talent of George Harrison, bubbling up through the dominance of Lennon/McCartney. Today, I'm only now beginning to appreciate McCartney's techniques and tone on bass.
I believe that the Beatles started to fully mature musically starting with the Rubber Soul album, going through Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album and Abbey Road. I've omitted M.M.T. as a sort of psychedelic aberration, not bad and good in its own right, that seemed more as a musical experiment than a polished musical performance. We also see the emergence of the talent of George Harrison, bubbling up through the dominance of Lennon/McCartney. Today, I'm only now beginning to appreciate McCartney's techniques and tone on bass.
Last edited:
Maybe you should listen to other songs besides the usual stuff, I like their dark mellow stuff, Fool on the hill, Eleanor Rigby, Across the universe , I'm the walrus that's good stuff - back then and still now ... Or maybe their music is just not for you...
I will now start the 72 hour Beatles marathon.
I appreciate how they changed modern music, but don't really care to listen to them. I dig a few of their songs (Eleanor Rigby, for one), but they're a little more "pop-py" than I usually prefer. I don't understand the cult-like devotion. I can listen to them (although if I am listening to more than a few songs of theirs at a time, they can get kind of annoying), but I don't seek them out.
No troll intention. Just my opinion.Curious if I'm the only one who cannot stand The Beatles? I will give them all the credit in the world for their success and how they arguably changed the industry, but I absolutely, cannot listen to their music. One of their tunes comes on the radio, I can't get to the kill switch fast enough.
I listen to all genres from jazz to punk to metal to country. I just don't get the hype?
I'm probably going to get banned for this one.
That is ok, as long as you like P-Basses. That's all that matters here!
Awesome band no doubt. On the other side, one could argue that the Beatles invented metal.
See the difference in credentials?
note : to put things in context, this was released pre-Zeppelin and pre-Sabbath. It's not pre-Who though.
theres probably a lot of bands you like that wouldn't exist (or would sound very different), were it not for the Beatles. I don't like the same 20 songs from them that I hear on the radio very much either, but listening to the white album, revolver, or sgt. pepper straight through is a sonic exploration and there has to be something that resonates with you. Plus, as a bass player I sometimes listen to them purely for that lovely hofner w/ flats panned hard to the right or left. every note that McCartney played on their albums has its place and his playing never gets old to me
Well young whipper-snapper, let me tell ya.
Considering my "Beatles Best" song book has 120 songs in it I'd say, "yeah, you've missed a few" (they've recorded about 309 songs, 72 of which were covers). So if you have only heard 10, you owe it to yourself to go listen to a few more.In 1964 when the Beatles showed up there was nothing like it on the radio at all. Most of the songs out were three chord wonders and hardly any of them even used a minor chord let alone a diminished. So it was a fresh new sound and a lot of it came really quickly as they were extremely prolific in the first years. Most of the songs were teen-age love songs which were appropriate for their audiences at the time. Pretty much anybody could and did sing them.
I think one of the big reasons they are still so popular is that there are old dudes like me who associate their songs with great experiences in their lives. This is particularly true of high school and early college experiences. It's a kind of knee jerk thing - hear this song and remember what you were doing or where you were when you used to hear it. Plus, a lot of them are fun to play and slmost always get people up dancing.
You also have to remember that recording technology back then was not what it is now. Heck, most of their early albums were available in Mono and only later in Stereo. And typically the stereo was a wide pan with perhaps voices and drums on one side and everything else on the other. I remember getting the Monoraul version of the Rubber Soul album for Christmas in 1965 and taking it back to trade it in for the stereo version.
Go listen to the Sgt. Peppers album sometime and then try to figure out how you would record that album with a maximum or 8 tracks to record on - yup, that whole album was recorded on an 8-track board, not 16, 32, 64, or 128 tracks - just 8. So they did some pretty amazing things at the time. There was no digital anything back then. It was all analog. And reverb was an effect from springs. And delay's were actually done by a looping tape (tape delay). If you bumped the reverb unit it would set those springs banging against each other and sound like a thunderstorm. So we have lots of advantages that weren't around when they were making music.The Beatles were always pushing the edge back then and going in directions no one else did.
You don't have like "the Beatles" because everyone has different musical taste. But, if you are a bass player, even if you don't like them, you should pay attention to at least some of the bass work that Paul McCartney did on Beatle's songs over those years. If you don't, you're missing out on some valuable lessons.
Yeah, give a listen to "Helter Skelter" through headphones and then try to tell me they didn't rock.
I have little doubt in my mind the importance of the Beatles in the history of rock music. They definitely influnced a lot of rock bands at the time, but I don't think that Heavy Metal can be dated as early as the Beatles. Some Zeppelin is definitely very heavy, but even that isn't entirely metal. The first thing that is almost undeniably metal was Black Sabbath.
No troll intention. Just my opinion.
I'm probably going to get banned for this one.
*sigh* This again? Really?
There's no "arguably changed the industry" about it. The Beatles revolutionized the world of pop music in ways that, clearly, are incomprehensible to many people who are under the age of 40, maybe even under the age of 50.
If you had any idea of the kind of dreck that was being served up on the radio and sold in the record shops (yes, there were record shops in those days) before The Beatles came along (i.e. Pat Boone, Neil Sedaka, Frankie Avalon, etc.)...and then compared it against the pop music that came along immediately after The Beatles hit the big time, maybe then you would get it.
If you insist upon evaluating the music of The Beatles, most of which was created 45-50 years ago, against what is being created & produced right now, you will miss the point - entirely and completely. And if you're like many others of that generation who "don't get The Beatles" or "don't see what all the fuss is about", then you likely can't even discern the influence of The Beatles in the music that you listen to every day - not because their influence is so minimal or subtle...but because their influence is so ubiquitous.
The influence of The Beatles is so widespread and so deeply-rooted, at least within any type of mainstream pop or rock music, that it's not common to encounter music in such genres that was not influenced by The Beatles. That's how ubiquitous their influence actually is. And that may be the reason why you can't easily pick it out - because it's what you likely hear all the time, without ever knowing it!
MM
Last edited:
I can even appreciate Yellow Submarine. When I listen to the Beatles, I don't see separate songs. I see it all as one vast mega composition, spanning the entire history of the band. Each part connects to another in some way, taking on a life in itself.
bass forums the world over laugh at the stupid threads on TB, this one confirms it.
- Status
