1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

The Beatles

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by fleabass89, Jul 13, 2001.

  1. OK, the point of this thread is not to diss The Beatles. But I don't get what the big deal about them is. People make it like they are gods and the best song writers ever. They could write some pretty good pop/rock songs, and Paul M. had a decent voice, but their songs, IMO, aren't anything that special. I don't get where all this musical genius came from. Their songs are really simple, their lyrics are unimaginitive, and Ringo sucks at drums! Now Pink Floyd, they were a breakthrough band. But what is the deal with the Beatles? Sorry if I offended anyone, and I do like the Beatles, but I still don't get it. Please don't take this to mean something like that "Red hot chili peppers suck" thread.
  2. They were different.
  3. dude, i fully agree with you! i don't see anything special in them!!
    and i think some of Beatle's musics r anoying
  4. Bruce Lindfield

    Bruce Lindfield Unprofessional TalkBass Contributor Gold Supporting Member In Memoriam

    Actually, growing up in the 60s in England, there were dozens of bands who sounded just like the Beatles in their early career - there were large numbers of clones and "Mersey Beat" bands around.

    I must say that I got heartily sick of the Beatles at the time and would avoid them where possible, until one of my cousins played me "The White Album" which had some interesting stuff, at a party. I must say that in '69, Pink Floyd sounded a far better option to me.

    At my school, the "plebs" liked the Beatles and the "cool" kids were passing round copies of "Ummagumma"! ;)
  5. gweimer


    Apr 6, 2000
    Columbus, OH
    The Beatles, along with The Beach Boys, moved what would be considered pop music to another level and opened the doors for things to come. Some of their stuff may sound dated now, but the vast majority holds up, IMO. I think it was Paul McCartney who may have first given some help to Pink Floyd - I recall a story that he had something to do with early recording/producing or possibly giving them a nod in the press.
    Yes, there are plenty of stories giving The Beatles credit for being in the right place at the right time (first major band in the post-JFK era, etc. etc. ), but they do have the talent to withstand such scrutiny, and I doubt they would have lasted without it. I'd say they were among the first of the bands that proved you didn't have to follow formula to continue being creative or successful.
    As far as their songs being simple, I'd say that some of them are, but many of them sound simple until you try to reproduce them. I'd say deceptively simple would be more accurate.
  6. yawnsie


    Apr 11, 2000
    You know what, I agree with you to a certain point - the Beatles have definitely been put on a pedestal. Sgt Peppers is probably the most over-rated album of all time, and a lot of their stuff was somewhat overhyped (Yellow Submarine anyone?). But in my opinion, and a lot of others it would seem, they have a tally of classic songs which outnumbers any other band or songwriting team.

    The thing about their musical abilities comes back to that old "Is theory good or bad?" chestnut. What I will say is that the Beatles didn't make music for musicians (Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is up to you.) - when was the last time a load of guitarists stood around admiring a George Harrison riff? But having said that, listen to the chord structure of Yesterday - hardly simple and straightforward, is it?

    And another thing - if it weren't for the Beatles, I wouldn't have any admiring young ladies coming up to me after gigs in the Cavern, realising I'm the closest they'll ever get to Paul McCartney. ;)
  7. purple_haze


    Jun 29, 2001
    London Town
    Quality is subjective. Perfection is absolute.

    I heard this little quote somewhere and it relates quite nicely to the topic of The Beatles. They were the best band ever. Hands down, bar none, no questions asked. You can ramble on about "opinion" untill you're blue in the face but they were the best.

    They simply had it all. They wrote good songs (duh), they had individual talent (guitar solo on let it be), they had great lyrics, they had a great attitude, personalities and stage presence.

    Best of all, they p*ssed off Bible-thumpers.

    Best Band Ever.
  8. I think the Beatles were great because they were creative. If you listen to Abbey Road or any one of their albums from Sgt. Peppers on, they started to get a distinct sound from the rest of the pop folk. Abbey Road is my favorite Beatles album. :)
  9. Yesterday is a great song, and it's probably my favorite Beatles song. It just seems like they put more time into it. Yellow Submarine could've easily been written in 5 minutes (probably less). I don't think they always put forth their greatest effort. Also, being different doesn't nessecarily make you good.
    Some of their tunes had chord progressions that were never heard before. Of course there are plenty of songs with a very different sound and obscure chords that totally suck.

    I think Best Band Ever is kind of a stretch. Nirvana went through that, they're an over rated band too (I enjoy alot of their music though).

    What it boils down to is, I think they get more recognition than they diserve. Alot of bands DON'T get the recognition they diserve. I don't even think what they diserve will change anything, they just got lucky.
  10. they may have done mostly simple pop songs, BUT as far as pop songs go, they are the alpha and omega. they did it all.
  11. agyeman

    agyeman Member

    Mar 6, 2001
    The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles. The Who are better than The Beatles.
  12. It's easy to argue one way or another whether the Beatles were over rated or not. What is undeniable is the impact they had on rock music. They took it from simplicity and made it an art form. No other band has had the same impact.

    As far as being out dated...It's interesting that they can come out with a greatest hits album thirty years after they broke up and it sells over 20 million copies. Apparently there are quite a few people who don't think their music is outdated at all.
  13. Max

    Max Supporting Member

    Feb 14, 2000
    Bakersfield, CA
    Fleabass, your take on the Beatles is similar to what I hear from my teenager and some of his friends. I think it kind of has something to do with the fact that the Beatles' songs and performances don't have the sweaty ferocity of the bands they like, a la RHCP, Sublime. However, if they were to travel back in time and catch the Beatles in Germany, I bet they would mosh. The Beatles could rock hard. (Rent Backbeat.)

    I say the Beatles are the best band ever for the melodies they created.

    I absolutely love the Anthology CD with Yesterday where Paul is calling the chords out to George and plays it for the first time. Gives me chills every time.
  14. Brad Barker

    Brad Barker

    Apr 13, 2001
    berkeley, ca
    No matter how great the Beatles were, they never seemed to make "the perfect record." (record meaning album...damn grammy terminology throws me off...).

    My dad and I went to a record store to get Revolver after seeing the "100 Greatest Albums of Rock and Roll" on vh1, seeing that Revolver earned the top spot (Nirvana was second...guess which record...).

    Anyway, I liked a lot of the songs off of the album...but there were some that weren't as great...in fact, it was split about 50/50. Months ago, I was really into the White Album, but that was about 25% outstanding, the rest being songs that I could live without.

    Well I guess the whole point of this is the Beatles were far from perfection. John Lennon would love this post: he was the most self-depricating Beatle..."we were just a rock band that made it big..."

    I think John summed it all up, don't you?
  15. TonyS


    Dec 13, 1999
    There is something to say (in a positive way) for a Band that broke-up over 30 years ago, to garner these kinds of discussions. Their music made a giant impression on the listeners and MUSICIANS of the day, it's really as simple as that. Most of the musicians that I know from those days still feel the same way.

    They (the Beatles) were hugely successful here in the US. Whether it was "luck" or "hard work and talent", is not even debatable in my mind. Never the less ... AT THE TIME ... they offered a view of music that was well received by U.S. listeners. Tens of millions of people through out the world agree on the quality of the music, and the proof is the huge numbers of record sales that they made.

    Someone mentioned an age differential earlier and I am confident that this is where a lot of misunderstanding comes from .... you had to be there at the time. That younger people don't understand the music is not surprising. How can a 15 yr old (as an example) appreciate the music scene that existed 25 years before they where born.?
  16. I think that the Beatles' lyrics were pretty darn imaginitive. And one of the reasons that they were so good is that as others pointed out, they did it all. They wrote pop songs, hard rock songs, country, lots of different stuff. Meet the Beatles was much different than Revolver which was much different than Let it Be, they did everything. I don't think that they're overrated. And they were everywhere too, my girlfriend's mother listened to them when she was young and lived in Pakistan. That's pretty far away.
  17. you must not have heard to much from them if you think that their lyrics are unimaginative. such as elinore rigby, with in you with out you. those songs are genius and just a little more deeper than pink floyd. pink floyd may have been more your style but to say that pink floyd compared to john lennon or paul mcartneys lyrics are better than i would have to say that you are wrong. the beatles did not sound like other bands it was other bands that sounded like them. after them it was like bluesit that everything was derivitive. and to say that lucy in the sky with diamonds is unimaginative makes you extremely uniformed or with bad taste for good music...no offense. and maybe pauls bass wasnt on par with jack bruce and harrisons guitar was no eric clapton and ringo certantly was no ginger baker but together they had a harmony with eachother like no one else and sometimes that is more important than their individual talents. and plus how can you beat a band "that was more popular than jesus," but lets not bring that up again
  18. air_leech


    Sep 1, 2000

    whats your point?

  19. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    "Yesterday" is ALL Paul(no one else is on it)
    Yes, the tune's composer credits say "Lennon/McCartney"...that's not totally accurate.

    Revolver is one bad-ass album...IMO, that's about as Avant Gard as Pop gets-
    1)Who at that time was doin' backwards guitar solos("I'm Only Sleeping")?
    2)The last tune on the record, "Tomorrow Never Knows"...what the Hell is that tune about?! What were they 'on' when that one was composed? For one thing, these guys were checking out '60s Free Jazz(like Coltrane & Ayler). I'd give 'em props for attempting to incorporate what was goin' on around them(Avant Gard Jazz)into their tunes.
    3)"Elanor Rigby" sounds like a little mini-orchestral piece...who in Rock/Pop(at that time)was using brass & strings?
    4)Double-tracked guitar solos("And Your Bird Can Sing"). Joe Walsh was one guy who dug Harrison's guitar work; Walsh said he was baffled by Harrison's solo on "...Your Bird..." & practiced & practiced until he finally got it.
    Later, Harrison told ol' Joe that it was doubletracked!
    5)Then there's the obligatory 'drug tunes'..."Got To Get You Into My Life" & "Doctor Robert"; bands at the time were not supposed to talk about 'gettin' high'. ;)
    6)"Taxman"... a pretty basic 3-chord tune with an altered 9th chord?! In Pop?! Listen CLOSELY to the vocal harmonies.
    BTW, the Acid-laced Hendrix-inspired guitar solo is Paul(even though Harrison wrote the tune).

    FWIW, I grew up with The Beatles in the '60s; when I moved down here to Virginia, they became forgotten...as a teen, I dissed them & only got back into them in the late '80s(when their records were issued as cds).
    IMO, "luck" had nothing to do with it... ;)
  20. Blackbird

    Blackbird Moderator Supporting Member

    Mar 18, 2000

Share This Page