The Beatles


PDA

View Full Version : The Beatles


lostboyjp
12-12-2006, 07:23 PM
now im a fan of the who and the rolling stones and all them but i have to say that i think the beatles is the best band in music history.

they had so many hits and they were so popular its hard to argue with that
they even had movies.....

though they were completly doing LSD they were very famous and were known everywhere even little kids listened to them and thought of them as their role model

but i have to say that my favorite beatles song is here comes the sun...


SMURF POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

treefiddey
12-12-2006, 07:27 PM
the beatles were a band in the 60s. They made music. People liked them. There were 4 of them. One of their names was Ringo. They had brown hair. What's not to like?

bTOMd
12-12-2006, 07:28 PM
thank you captain obvious

but i personally think The Who were musically more talented, just weren't as lucky to be the first popular band

RainSong
12-12-2006, 10:05 PM
they appealed to everyone

jskinnirvana
12-13-2006, 01:34 PM
The beatles were the most INFLUENTIAL band, the best band is either zeppelin,cream, or hendrix band of gypsys hell yea

ElephantMan4563
12-13-2006, 01:41 PM
The Beatles have an incredible sound that traverses many a generation. Any one who can hear can tell the beatles were a great band. Grant it they are not the best instrumentalists who ever lived but they all had the most amazing voices and they all were such talented song writers they could have come up with a #1 it in their sleep (ecspetully by todays standards I'm sorry but you don"t need that much talent to do pop or Rap) Their one of my favorite bands and are definitly one of the greatest ever.

instantkarma93
12-13-2006, 10:09 PM
The beatles are the greatest and the most influentual band their ever was and ever will be. They were all muscial geniouses and were way more muscially talented than the who. Dont get me wrong the who are a great band but it was the Beatles who explored the sounds of eastern music and composed magnificent songs. Sgt. Peppers is the most influentiual album ever. The album is flawless the whole way through. My favorite track is a day in the life. It was so perfectly made. I also think John lennon is a hero and not just musically.

Sloopy
12-13-2006, 10:17 PM
the beatles were a band in the 60s. They made music. People liked them. There were 4 of them. One of their names was Ringo. They had brown hair. What's not to like?

Sorry I had to sig that.

hamett91
12-13-2006, 10:21 PM
They were absolutely genious. Thier lyrics are incredible. Paul and John had incredible voices. They'll never be touched by anyone.

[the]whorocks
12-13-2006, 10:38 PM
The beatles are the greatest and the most influentual band their ever was and ever will be. They were all muscial geniouses and were way more muscially talented than the who. Dont get me wrong the who are a great band but it was the Beatles who explored the sounds of eastern music and composed magnificent songs.

well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.

Mongoose87
12-13-2006, 11:37 PM
whorocks']well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.


Also, consider they did it with one major writer. The Beatles had three.

Maet
12-13-2006, 11:42 PM
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.

frippogenics
12-13-2006, 11:47 PM
^ Hah, riiight

[the]whorocks
12-14-2006, 12:06 AM
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.


Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

Jesse Mrau
12-14-2006, 02:27 AM
whorocks']while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs


So Abbey Road isn't complex?

EDIT: ^one thing about your sig though, as much as I love The Who, Townshend didn't invent the power chord. They are bare fifth chords, and probably existed just as long as any other chord. Also the first "pioneer" of the power chord was Link Wray, who used it before it was widely recognized.

Carnivean
12-14-2006, 09:43 AM
The Beatles were one of the best, if not the best. No one has wrote as many hits as they have and wrote music quite as good as them.

treefiddey
12-14-2006, 10:02 AM
whorocks']

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

:no:
the length doesnt make a song better in any way

...but...

I Want You and Hey Jude ar both over 7 minutes


not to mention the fact they they wrote

Let it Be, Across the Universe, Strawberry Fields Forever, I am the Walrus, Elanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never knows, and While My Guitar Gently Wheeps, which were in no way short little pop songs.

They also completely changed all of music with Revolver, which was incredibly different and revolutionary at the time.
:D

Maet
12-14-2006, 05:35 PM
whorocks']Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

I was actually thinking more... socially/politically. I'll explain if I'm asked to.

paul889988
12-14-2006, 07:07 PM
I was actually thinking more... socially/politically. I'll explain if I'm asked to.

explain im interested

the beatles were just the greatest band ever, with there expermentation, their feel good songs, their tripy and macca is just the greatest composer of the 20th centurary proof? abbey road

Sloopy
12-14-2006, 08:24 PM
Yeah dude the Beatles rock forver. You my friend, lostboyjp, seem over zealous on the matter though. That sort of annoys me. We dont need a thread every week by some new CR fan about how good the Beatles are. Sorry, no way.

rock_and_blues
12-14-2006, 09:15 PM
The Beatles>The Who

The Who were just a loud band...if it wasn't for powerchords and a Marshall, Townshend wouldv'e been ****ed...simple as that. And I'm sorry but when was the last time I saw the Who at the TOP (meaning #1) of the "Greatest Band/Album/Song" list? Can't say that I have (sure they're on there, but they're around 20)...plus how many songs have the Who written that was revolutionary to how music was made? Hmmmm......How many have the Beatles written. Well theres:

Tommorrow Never Knows, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, The entire B side of Abbey Road (pop symphony, anyone?)

...theres more (entire albums of such classiscs) but I'd say you get the point. "What about Tommy?!?!" cries the Who fan, well while Townshend was writing up his opera about a blind/deaf boy, the Beatles had already become the most popular band in the world, wrote Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (both of which opened up the world of psychedelia, and as was stated early completely changed the musical landscape of the 60s), and had evolved...they went from covering Chuck Berry, to writing songs like Strawberry Fields Forever and Blackbird. So in conclusion...the Beatles are better than the Who...simple as that

*prepares for flame war from Who fans*

[the]whorocks
12-14-2006, 10:16 PM
ok well guys, i seem to have hit the jackpot of Beatles fans, so im gonna need soem help here....


Ha! my plan to cause strife within the UG community has succeeded completely(evil laugh)...*runs aways and hides in cave*

Abe
12-14-2006, 10:52 PM
So Abbey Road isn't complex?

EDIT: ^one thing about your sig though, as much as I love The Who, Townshend didn't invent the power chord. They are bare fifth chords, and probably existed just as long as any other chord. Also the first "pioneer" of the power chord was Link Wray, who used it before it was widely recognized.

I think the more obvious point is that townshend didn't invent the Marshall stack, I think it was someone else, the name escapes me. Uhh, Mr Meershall perhaps :p:

The Beatles are one of those bands where I don't think I can actually pick a favourite album, and thats because I love many of them, not because I hate them all.

Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers and Help! are my fave's at the minute.

ncsurfer
12-14-2006, 10:54 PM
whorocks']Yea, they started at the right time. Had The Who started 1 or 2 years earlier, then we would be worshipping The Who's name (though I already do) instead of the Beatles.

And remember, the Beatles only lasted what, 6, 7 years? The Who are still alive and kicking (maybe not as hard, but still) after 41/2 years (they're first album was either 1964 or 5, cant remember)

I think they're just all around better. Rock didn't by itself turn from 3 minute songs to 5+. I believe it was mostly The Who that started the tradition of long, complex songs that we now know as Classic Rock.

just my 2 cents

bullshit. All I have to say about the matter.

Maet
12-14-2006, 11:51 PM
explain im interested

Consider the small time frame between the assassanation of JFK (Nov.22 1963) and the effective start of Beatlemania when "I wanna hold your hand" was released in America (Dec. 26 1963). Consider that the Beatles were moderately successful in Britain at the time they were starting out, and the fact they were struggling with breaking into the American Market in 1963.

The Beatles didn't just spark out of nowhere and take the world by storm. A lot of unnusual circumstances played in their favour. They began as any (some might agrue) "credible" rock band starting out does. They struggle, maybe get a break, and if their lucky make it big. The Beatles are no exception, as grand as they became. It's not a matter of who came first (or who didn't come first for that matter). It's a matter of luck and marketing. You can hate the big corporations and the men in suits all you want, but when it comes to money, they don't fuck around.

So what does JFK have to do with Beatlemania? Simple. American's just lost a great leader to an assassanation, a devastating blow for them. Quite depressing you might say, no? And little over a month later, a fresh and perky song comes out of Britain and everyone just picks right up again (also consider that this fresh and perky song came from a band who American adolescences use to scorn as lame. Funny how things change over a few months). Americans didn't forget about their loss, but they sure as hell were feeling better, and it's all thanks to the Beatles. And what better way to repay them then gobbling up every conceivable form of Beatles products and music, and making them the biggest band in the world for 8 some odd years.

Like I said, The Beatles started out as average as any band, and managed to make it big based on some unusual circumstances. Pretty lucky, don't you think?

And just so you don't get any ideas, I'm not a Beatles hater/lover. I kept this post as neurtal as I could possibly have. I don't deny that the Beatles managed some truly remarkable feats towards the middle-end of their career. I'm just saying that the Beatles had rather humble beginnings, and achieved what any kid in a band wants to achieve: a break in the industry and a niche in the market. And maybe make some good music too. :)

Jesse Mrau
12-15-2006, 02:01 AM
EDIT: ^Hmmm, never thought of it that way. Quite an interesting point.

I think the more obvious point is that townshend didn't invent the Marshall stack, I think it was someone else, the name escapes me. Uhh, Mr Meershall perhaps :p:

Wrong you are, Townshend and Entwistle were directly responsible.

In the early-mid 1960s, Pete Townshend and especially John Entwistle were directly responsible for the creation and widespread use of stacked Marshall cabinets. Townshend later remarked that John started using Marshall Stacks in order to hear himself over Keith Moon's drums, and Pete himself also had to use them just to be heard over John.

In fact, the very first 100 watt Marshall amps (called "Superleads") were created specifically for Entwistle and Townshend when they were looking to replace some equipment which had been stolen from them. Prior to the theft they were each using 50 watt amps, Townshend was using a Marshall JTM45 and Entwistle had a Fender Bassman.

They approached Jim Marshall asking if it would be possible for him to make their new rigs more powerful than those they had lost, to which they were told that the speaker cabinets would have to double in size. They agreed and six rigs of this prototype were manufactured, of which two each were given to Townshend and Entwistle and one each to Ronnie Lane and Steve Marriott of The Small Faces. These new "double" cabinets proved too heavy and awkward to be transported practically, so The Who returned to Marshall asking if they could be cut in half and stacked, and although the double cabinets were left intact, the existing single cabinet models were modified for stacking, which has become the norm for years to follow.

D_y_p26
12-15-2006, 02:04 AM
The Beatles were lucky. They weren't genius' or gods, just lucky.
you are completely wrong....The beatles are innovators...
they are one of the first ones at their time who created a whole new style and actually made it good
so many musical styles nowadays was influenced from their music
its like the same as trying to create a new style right now.....and its hard

Maet
12-15-2006, 11:46 PM
you are completely wrong....The beatles are innovators...
they are one of the first ones at their time who created a whole new style and actually made it good
so many musical styles nowadays was influenced from their music
its like the same as trying to create a new style right now.....and its hard

:rolleyes: *sigh*

Two words: Scroll up.

chrisb92
12-16-2006, 01:04 AM
EDIT: ^Hmmm, never thought of it that way. Quite an interesting point.



Wrong you are, Townshend and Entwistle were directly responsible.

Your gonna need better proof than that, anyone can put any bullshit they want on Wikipedia. I love both bands but the Beatles are definetely better

Jesse Mrau
12-16-2006, 03:20 AM
^http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/marshallstack.htm :rolleyes:

BrainDamage
12-16-2006, 11:00 AM
The Beatles>The Who

The Who were just a loud band...if it wasn't for powerchords and a Marshall, Townshend wouldv'e been ****ed...simple as that. And I'm sorry but when was the last time I saw the Who at the TOP (meaning #1) of the "Greatest Band/Album/Song" list? Can't say that I have (sure they're on there, but they're around 20)...plus how many songs have the Who written that was revolutionary to how music was made? Hmmmm......How many have the Beatles written. Well theres:

Tommorrow Never Knows, Norwegian Wood, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Within You Without You, A Day In The Life, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, The entire B side of Abbey Road (pop symphony, anyone?)

...theres more (entire albums of such classiscs) but I'd say you get the point. "What about Tommy?!?!" cries the Who fan, well while Townshend was writing up his opera about a blind/deaf boy, the Beatles had already become the most popular band in the world, wrote Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (both of which opened up the world of psychedelia, and as was stated early completely changed the musical landscape of the 60s), and had evolved...they went from covering Chuck Berry, to writing songs like Strawberry Fields Forever and Blackbird. So in conclusion...the Beatles are better than the Who...simple as that

*prepares for flame war from Who fans* easy there. Both were great bands who were hugely successful and popular. Obviously you prefer the Beatles over the Who. Some people (like me) do not.

daytripper75
12-16-2006, 11:56 AM
Revolver

isnt this almost the same as this thread? i know you said favorite, and not best, but its more or less the same thing.

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=442166

rock_and_blues
12-16-2006, 01:42 PM
easy there. Both were great bands who were hugely successful and popular. Obviously you prefer the Beatles over the Who. Some people (like me) do not.


I like both bands as well, but as you said, its obvious i like the Beatles more. It just irritates me when someone comes into a thread about the Beatles (or any CR band for that matter), saying a band like the Who (or Zeppelin, or the Stones etc) are better than them. They know what there about to start. Its a complete disruption in any form of civilized conversation about the band and it turns into a "Band A vs Band B" thread. So, I try to get people to shut up about it, and only talk about the band that is specific to the thread.

BrainDamage
12-16-2006, 01:48 PM
^^Yeah, you are right but...ah screw it lets just get back to the Beatles. Keep the Who (or any other band for that matter) out of this :p:

rock_and_blues
12-16-2006, 01:54 PM
^^Yeah, you are right but...ah screw it lets just get back to the Beatles. Keep the Who (or any other band for that matter) out of this :p:


Thats all I wanted man...

So on topic...anybody have the new album (not reall new...but you know what I mean) Love? It is amazing, I'd recommend it to any of you guys. One thing though, make sure your familiar with the original versions of the songs, because it wont be as fun to listen to (ex: picking apart all the background sounds and realizing what song they're from). It's not neccesary, but it takes abit away from the experience

pumpkins_rule
12-16-2006, 01:58 PM
Consider the small time frame between the assassanation of JFK (Nov.22 1963) and the effective start of Beatlemania when "I wanna hold your hand" was released in America (Dec. 26 1963). Consider that the Beatles were moderately successful in Britain at the time they were starting out, and the fact they were struggling with breaking into the American Market in 1963.

Moderately sucessful? They had several straight number one's, and had millions of people queing outside their airplanes and limos. Leanr your history buddy.

The Beatles didn't just spark out of nowhere and take the world by storm. A lot of unnusual circumstances played in their favour. They began as any (some might agrue) "credible" rock band starting out does. They struggle, maybe get a break, and if their lucky make it big. The Beatles are no exception, as grand as they became. It's not a matter of who came first (or who didn't come first for that matter). It's a matter of luck and marketing. You can hate the big corporations and the men in suits all you want, but when it comes to money, they don't fuck around.

Well for one, they had George Martin producing who was pretty far ahead of his ime. They're also credited with keeping the entire concept of a pop band alive, as it was predicted bands would be obsolete in favour of pop singers. Need more proof? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper etc. No one had ever done pop albums like this before. The mix of commercial songs laced with dynamic and innovative intrumentation and melody construction had never been done before.

So what does JFK have to do with Beatlemania? Simple. American's just lost a great leader to an assassanation, a devastating blow for them. Quite depressing you might say, no? And little over a month later, a fresh and perky song comes out of Britain and everyone just picks right up again (also consider that this fresh and perky song came from a band who American adolescences use to scorn as lame. Funny how things change over a few months). Americans didn't forget about their loss, but they sure as hell were feeling better, and it's all thanks to the Beatles. And what better way to repay them then gobbling up every conceivable form of Beatles products and music, and making them the biggest band in the world for 8 some odd years.

Because, you know, JFK dying is wholly responsible for all the innovation and songs that are still remembered 50 years afterwards. That's extremely logical.


Like I said, The Beatles started out as average as any band, and managed to make it big based on some unusual circumstances. Pretty lucky, don't you think?

*sigh*, some people are just so ignorant.

And just so you don't get any ideas, I'm not a Beatles hater/lover. I kept this post as neurtal as I could possibly have. I don't deny that the Beatles managed some truly remarkable feats towards the middle-end of their career. I'm just saying that the Beatles had rather humble beginnings, and achieved what any kid in a band wants to achieve: a break in the industry and a niche in the market. And maybe make some good music too. :)

Well if you were so unbiased maybe you would have actually read up on a little music history and realised that The Beatles did so many things unprecendented in music it's laughable to claim otherwise. But you know, since you know so much more then music historians...

pumpkins_rule
12-16-2006, 02:01 PM
whorocks']well, i'm sorry dude, but kinda have to disagree with you there.

now, don't get me wrong, the beatles were great and they were extremely influential, but i think that rock would have definitely turned into what it was today without them, and i think the who changed music into most of what it was in the 70s. while the stones and beatles were still writing short, pop songs about love and the such, the who had come out with Tommy, with long complex songs, that, IMO, blew anything the beatles or stones ever wrote right out of the water. i personally believe they had more skill on a whole then the beatles did, whether it be guitar, bass, drums or songwriting.

like i said, i love the beatles and the stones, i just personally believe that the who are better.

Now I love The Who, but by the time they came out with Tommy, the Beatles had already released Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and The White Album, all of which were sonically more innovative then Tommy. Hell even The Who's opus, Who's Next, is full of pop songs. They were much better and much more innovative then standard pop songs, but they were still pop songs. Again, learn your history before you make claims that aren't true in the least.

Maet
12-16-2006, 03:06 PM
Your really don't know who you're messing with.

Moderately sucessful? They had several straight number one's, and had millions of people queing outside their airplanes and limos. Leanr your history buddy..

Maybe if you paid attention to a word I typed, you'd know I was talking about PRE-Beatlemania and PRE-1964. Before the Beatles made it big. "Moderately Successful" BEFORE Beatlemania. Don't even try to argue that The Beatles simply flew into America with a few songs and were instantly loved and adored, that's simply not the case.

Well for one, they had George Martin producing who was pretty far ahead of his ime. They're also credited with keeping the entire concept of a pop band alive, as it was predicted bands would be obsolete in favour of pop singers. Need more proof? Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper etc. No one had ever done pop albums like this before. The mix of commercial songs laced with dynamic and innovative intrumentation and melody construction had never been done before.

Wow. How original. I still don't care. I'm not arguing the magnitude of their accomplishments, I'm arguing the cause of Beatlemania and their fame.


Because, you know, JFK dying is wholly responsible for all the innovation and songs that are still remembered 50 years afterwards. That's extremely logical.

Twisting my words, I see...

I never said that JFK's death is responsible for making the Beatles famous 40 years after both facts. I said that JFK's death is partially responsible for the INITIAL success of the Beatles in late '63 and early '64.


*sigh*, some people are just so ignorant.

No kidding. You try and destroy my points by infusing your arguement with all this cliched "Beatles are awesome innovators, they did so much for music, they are the best and always will be, no one stands a chance against them" crap. You might win some points with their fans, but not any points with me or people who are familiar with debate. Their accomplishments are irrelevant to my point, which is arguing that the Beatles initial success was not some walk in the park along a preexisting path layed down by some nonexistent gods of rock. It was a hard road, as it is for any band, past present and future.

As people, they are no different then anyone else. Proven by the fact that Harrison is dead of cancer and Lennon was riddled with bullets. I'm pretty sure that death, or being able to succumb to death = not Gods.


Well if you were so unbiased maybe you would have actually read up on a little music history and realised that The Beatles did so many things unprecendented in music it's laughable to claim otherwise. But you know, since you know so much more then music historians...

Again, who claimed otherwise. Certainly not me. I guess because I didn't rattle off a list of amazing things they did means I'm ignorant. Oh well, c'est la vie....

And as a closing thought, I'm not saying I know more than music historians. I'm just saying I know more than you. :o

hamett91
12-16-2006, 04:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_lF6Olo-i4

MeylokK
12-16-2006, 04:37 PM
i find the beatles boring and monotonous

hamett91
12-16-2006, 04:38 PM
i find the beatles boring and monotonous
:eek:


:mad:

Antroid
12-16-2006, 05:17 PM
I love the Beatles and they've influenced nearly everyone ive ever met (But so have Zeppelin and cream) I dont think its fair to say that they're THE best, theres no such thing as the best band in the world but if you think about every band has its songs that people love and hate. Yeah so....GO BEATLES WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

jac_murphy
12-16-2006, 07:06 PM
So on topic...anybody have the new album (not reall new...but you know what I mean) Love? It is amazing, I'd recommend it to any of you guys. One thing though, make sure your familiar with the original versions of the songs, because it wont be as fun to listen to (ex: picking apart all the background sounds and realizing what song they're from). It's not neccesary, but it takes abit away from the experience

A lot of the songs on Love are taken from the Anthology series.

-Jacques

paintITblack39
12-16-2006, 07:19 PM
I like Love, especially Tomorrow Never Knows/Within Without You. That song rocks.

i find the beatles boring and monotonous
:mad:

I find your mom boring and monotonous. :devil:

lexhibit
12-16-2006, 07:21 PM
The Beatles phenomenon.
They were a good group, yes; broke ground yes, and yes I worship them too. YET in retrospect, they were just in the right place at the right time. There were other groups at the time like the Stones, The Who and the Kinks to name a few that were just as good and are still around, but they didn't have the luck and good timing that the Beatles had. Also, the reason the Beatles were so popular in the US in 1964 was they didn't come over to the states until they had a number 1 record in the US. No other group from England had the smarts to do that and thats why the other groups I mentioned impact wasn't as strong in America as the Beatles. Like Lennon always said, "we were JUST a good group that got lucky and had a good manager". Also remember that the beatles we're actually formed in 1958 with Lennon McCartney Harrison Sutcliff and Best, so they had 6 years of playing in bars before they got famous, thats when they made all their mistakes, when nobody was watching.

Sloopy
12-16-2006, 07:54 PM
The Beatles phenomenon.
They were a good group, yes; broke ground yes, and yes I worship them too. YET in retrospect, they were just in the right place at the right time. There were other groups at the time like the Stones, The Who and the Kinks to name a few that were just as good and are still around, but they didn't have the luck and good timing that the Beatles had. Also, the reason the Beatles were so popular in the US in 1964 was they didn't come over to the states until they had a number 1 record in the US. No other group from England had the smarts to do that and thats why the other groups I mentioned impact wasn't as strong in America as the Beatles. Like Lennon always said, "we were JUST a good group that got lucky and had a good manager". Also remember that the beatles we're actually formed in 1958 with Lennon McCartney Harrison Sutcliff and Best, so they had 6 years of playing in bars before they got famous, thats when they made all their mistakes, when nobody was watching.

Great analyzation. Yeah when I think British Invaison I think of the Stones , the Who, and the Kinks. The Kinks more than the others though. They are like ultimate Mod-Culture in my mind. (in their music and their appearance). The Beatles dont really make me think "British Invasion" Anyone else agree?

DeSean
12-16-2006, 09:40 PM
I like Love, especially Tomorrow Never Knows/Within Without You. That song rocks.


:mad:

I find your mom boring and monotonous. :devil:
The only song I could stand off Love was Octopus' Garden. I didn't like the album.

frippogenics
12-16-2006, 09:58 PM
Everyone's saying "oh they were just at the right place at the right time." I don't really give a shit. It doesn't really matter how famous they were, to me their output speaks for itself. I personally think they were one of the greatest bands of all time and to downplay their originality and influence is an exercise in futility. The truth is they were doing things that no other pop group at the time even dreamed of. No other one band has changed the face of pop music in the way that they have. The way they formed a balance between perfectly written pop songs and rabid experimentation is amazing to me. I feel they deserved all their success.

gtrfrk123
12-18-2006, 08:50 PM
hey what are your favorite songs by them? i listen to a lot of pink floyd , the david gilmour and syd barrett era, so i thought i'd probally be interested in the beatles, so far the only one i know i'm gonna download is lucy in the sky with diamonds.

VoodooChild15
12-18-2006, 10:27 PM
The Beatles phenomenon.
They were a good group, yes; broke ground yes, and yes I worship them too. YET in retrospect, they were just in the right place at the right time. There were other groups at the time like the Stones, The Who and the Kinks to name a few that were just as good and are still around, but they didn't have the luck and good timing that the Beatles had. Also, the reason the Beatles were so popular in the US in 1964 was they didn't come over to the states until they had a number 1 record in the US. No other group from England had the smarts to do that and thats why the other groups I mentioned impact wasn't as strong in America as the Beatles. Like Lennon always said, "we were JUST a good group that got lucky and had a good manager". Also remember that the beatles we're actually formed in 1958 with Lennon McCartney Harrison Sutcliff and Best, so they had 6 years of playing in bars before they got famous, thats when they made all their mistakes, when nobody was watching.

I agree to a point, but are you really going to tell me any Kinks album comes close to being on par with Abbey Road or Revolver? Arthur was great, and so was a lot of other things, but the Beatles definitely had something special even among their contemporaries.

lexhibit
12-18-2006, 10:48 PM
I agree to a point, but are you really going to tell me any Kinks album comes close to being on par with Abbey Road or Revolver? Arthur was great, and so was a lot of other things, but the Beatles definitely had something special even among their contemporaries.

The Kinks - Something Else and Village Green Preservation Society just to name 2.

I think I said that I "worship" the Beatles too and yes I agree they broke ground, I know, I know, I know, YES they we're special, I'm NOT a Beatles basher!!!BUT there was other good music from 1963-1970. It wasn't just the Beatles doing great things.

I'm basically saying they weren't ALWAYS breaking ground. For Example, Sgt. Pepper was influenced by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds according to Paul.
Also... You've got to hide you're love away - John doing Dylan
I'm Down - Paul doing Little Richard
Sun King - John doing Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac's "Albatross", these are all quotes by John and Paul that we've all heard before in countless interviews, Pauls is in Musician magazine 1980. He does say they INVENTED the Beatles haircut, the leslie speaker for vocals, the concept album, etc. etc.

They admit it themselves, they we're influenced by others and they we're innovative in that way, because they we're taking the influences and making it their own, so it sounded fresh. Oh why am I bothering, I'm going to play The Who Live at Leeds now at 120 decibels! Bollocks!
By the way, Revolution #9 is my favorite Beatles track, oops does that piss the Beatle snobs off too?! LOL

paintITblack39
12-19-2006, 12:42 AM
hey what are your favorite songs by them? i listen to a lot of pink floyd , the david gilmour and syd barrett era, so i thought i'd probally be interested in the beatles, so far the only one i know i'm gonna download is lucy in the sky with diamonds.
Since you like Floyd check out all their stuff from 1966-1970
The Beatles phenomenon.
They were a good group, yes; broke ground yes, and yes I worship them too. YET in retrospect, they were just in the right place at the right time. There were other groups at the time like the Stones, The Who and the Kinks to name a few that were just as good and are still around, but they didn't have the luck and good timing that the Beatles had. Also, the reason the Beatles were so popular in the US in 1964 was they didn't come over to the states until they had a number 1 record in the US. No other group from England had the smarts to do that and thats why the other groups I mentioned impact wasn't as strong in America as the Beatles. Like Lennon always said, "we were JUST a good group that got lucky and had a good manager". Also remember that the beatles we're actually formed in 1958 with Lennon McCartney Harrison Sutcliff and Best, so they had 6 years of playing in bars before they got famous, thats when they made all their mistakes, when nobody was watching.
Yet, they did with their music what could have been a step backwards. As much as I like their psychedelic music, it was a very risky idea switching from their very poppy and already high selling albums to a very experimental and psychedelic music. Well, I guess when it comes to experimenting, everything is risky, because you have to pull it off the right way. They pulled it off the most perfect way they could. Look at Rubber Soul: Experimental and yet some poppy songs. Revolver gets a little more serious and then they get into Sgt. Pepper's, White Album, Magical Mystery Tour, etc. I think they nailed the transition in their music and did it 100% perfect.

frippogenics
12-19-2006, 12:46 AM
I think I said that I "worship" the Beatles too and yes I agree they broke ground, I know, I know, I know, YES they we're special, I'm NOT a Beatles basher!!!BUT there was other good music from 1963-1970. It wasn't just the Beatles doing great things.

I don't really see the point of your original post, this is a Beatles thread. I wouldn't go into the only Led Zeppelin thread and tell people that they weren't the only rockin' band around in '68. If you wan't to talk about how great the Kinks were, I'd love to (I think they're an amazing group as well). Just bring up one of the Kinks threads floating around.

Pacarazzi
12-19-2006, 09:09 PM
the beatles are overrated.

they just came earlier, they would be much less popular if they had started out later than they did.

they aren't amazing.

i appreciate what they've done, that's for sure.

but they are still way overrated.

krymson
12-19-2006, 10:34 PM
the beatles are overrated.

they just came earlier, they would be much less popular if they had started out later than they did.

they aren't amazing.

i appreciate what they've done, that's for sure.

but they are still way overrated.

That's kinda true the right timing was part of it.

I like their weird shit Like I am the walrus and Helter Skelter

LKW
12-20-2006, 07:02 AM
Overrated is such an overrated term. I say they're rated just right. By me. How others rate them is irrelevant. Every opinion will be disagreed with by someone.

However, they really pushed the enveloppe with songs like Revolution 9, Helter Skelter, I Am The Walrus, etc... and Especially Tomorrow Never Knows is unbelievable. It's basically a droning bassline over a breakbeat, decorated with ambient sounds made with tape recorders (basically using them as rudimentary samplers). There's virtually no melody except for the vocal line (which is a simple and repetetive melody), the whole song is centered around that groove and variation/structure is added by creating soundscapes rather than changing chord progressions or melody. Nowadays that's a pretty normal approach to writing a song, but back then that was unheard of.
And it still ****ing rocks, even today. I have friends who aren't very familiar with the Beatles or any classic rock, sometimes i sneak that song in playlists between some modern stuff like drum n bass and they don't even notice there's a song in there that's 40 years old... when i tell them it's the Beatles, they usually don't believe me untill i prove it. I think that's saying something.

So i wouldn't call them overrated, no. If you can be the most popular and most covered pop band in the history of music and still manage to make music that's decades ahead of its time, you've earned my respect.

heartsandbones
12-20-2006, 11:20 AM
I'm basically saying they weren't ALWAYS breaking ground. For Example, Sgt. Pepper was influenced by the Beach Boys Pet Sounds according to Paul.
Also... You've got to hide you're love away - John doing Dylan
I'm Down - Paul doing Little Richard
Sun King - John doing Peter Greens Fleetwood Mac's "Albatross", these are all quotes by John and Paul that we've all heard before in countless interviews, Pauls is in Musician magazine 1980. He does say they INVENTED the Beatles haircut, the leslie speaker for vocals, the concept album, etc. etc.


Come on Man!!!So you say they cant be influenced by any one else for a few songs!Its not like any of those songs are their best ones anyway!! The Beatles were lucky, you could say that and i wont disagree. But think of this: they kept on to their audience for 6 years with loads of no.1 lps- most modern bands lose ground after a few singles!

Them being inovative cant really be denied either - rubbersoul, revolver and sgt peppers were very innovative at their time, you might think now well they dont sound new, but thats because theve been out 40 years!!

paintITblack39
12-20-2006, 07:07 PM
the beatles are overrated.

they just came earlier, they would be much less popular if they had started out later than they did.

they aren't amazing.

i appreciate what they've done, that's for sure.

but they are still way overrated.
See, the haters like you even out the overrated/underrated scale. Its really in the middle of the road now.

treefiddey
12-20-2006, 08:23 PM
the Beatles are my favorite band.
I agree that The Who and The Kinks were very good bands, but I dont know. I just like the Beatles more. Their songs feel more... like works of art. The Beatles can paint pictures with their music more than any other band that I have ever heard.

lexhibit
12-20-2006, 08:52 PM
Come on Man!!!So you say they cant be influenced by any one else for a few songs!Its not like any of those songs are their best ones anyway!! The Beatles were lucky, you could say that and i wont disagree. But think of this: they kept on to their audience for 6 years with loads of no.1 lps- most modern bands lose ground after a few singles!

Them being inovative cant really be denied either - rubbersoul, revolver and sgt peppers were very innovative at their time, you might think now well they dont sound new, but thats because theve been out 40 years!!

First of all I said they were ground breaking. I said I'm a Beatles worshipper, but
C'mon all of these facts are common knowledge to Beatle fans. I'm NOT saying they weren't innovative, but they had some help.

IF I needed someone - The Byrds
Run for your Life & Come Together Lyric's "borrowed" from Chuck Berry songs
Good Morning Good Morning - 60's Special K Breakfast Commercial
Helter Skelter - An atttempt by McCartney to sound like the Who - "quote from McCartney interview Musician magazine 1980"

Right up to his death, John, admitted they BORROWED a lot of their idea's?! Am I the only one that knows that.

"I'm not knocking the Beatles as a band or a thing or whatever it is, I'm just stating a fact. I said what I said and it was wrong, or taken wrong, and now it's all this."

lexhibit
12-21-2006, 08:26 PM
Does anyone watch The Beatles Anthology DVD over and over like me? I think this is the best Music DVD Documentary Ever. I hear there is a directors cut of this with even MORE material. Wow, I love this DVD, it's so cool to have the whole surviving band doing the authorized interviews together in the same room for some parts. I hate it when I get a music documentary by other bands and only 1 original member is involved or the group can't sit together in the same room because they hate each other.

lostboyjp
12-23-2006, 05:05 PM
i find the beatles boring and monotonous
well thats because your an idiot

Maet
12-23-2006, 05:27 PM
My sig just keeps growing...

lostboyjp
12-23-2006, 05:34 PM
My sig just keeps growing...
lol well im glad you could use me in there

lostboyjp
12-23-2006, 05:36 PM
The Beatles phenomenon.
They were a good group, yes; broke ground yes, and yes I worship them too. YET in retrospect, they were just in the right place at the right time. There were other groups at the time like the Stones, The Who and the Kinks to name a few that were just as good and are still around, but they didn't have the luck and good timing that the Beatles had. Also, the reason the Beatles were so popular in the US in 1964 was they didn't come over to the states until they had a number 1 record in the US. No other group from England had the smarts to do that and thats why the other groups I mentioned impact wasn't as strong in America as the Beatles. Like Lennon always said, "we were JUST a good group that got lucky and had a good manager". Also remember that the beatles we're actually formed in 1958 with Lennon McCartney Harrison Sutcliff and Best, so they had 6 years of playing in bars before they got famous, thats when they made all their mistakes, when nobody was watching.
shut up...

lostboyjp
12-23-2006, 05:38 PM
Everyone's saying "oh they were just at the right place at the right time." I don't really give a shit. It doesn't really matter how famous they were, to me their output speaks for itself. I personally think they were one of the greatest bands of all time and to downplay their originality and influence is an exercise in futility. The truth is they were doing things that no other pop group at the time even dreamed of. No other one band has changed the face of pop music in the way that they have. The way they formed a balance between perfectly written pop songs and rabid experimentation is amazing to me. I feel they deserved all their success.



EXACTLY!!! FINALLY SOMEONE SEES THE LIGHT!

jac_murphy
12-23-2006, 06:33 PM
^ Geez, man, people are gonna have different opinions than you. Lexhibit's post was perfectly well-reasoned, and just because he doesn't agree with you, all you can say is "shut up?" Get over it.

-Jacques

Sloopy
12-24-2006, 02:30 AM
^ Geez, man, people are gonna have different opinions than you. Lexhibit's post was perfectly well-reasoned, and just because he doesn't agree with you, all you can say is "shut up?" Get over it.

-Jacques

Genius. Be my friend and get him banned like I did to jsknirvanna or whatever his name is.

DieN
12-24-2006, 07:41 AM
The Who *rock* much more, in my opinion.
However, they are very different bands and have their own qualities.
I still respect the beatles!

BrainDamage
12-24-2006, 02:15 PM
because you made this into a vs. poll, I'm gonna have to close it :)

Plus it'll put an end to some stupid arguing.

***CLOSED***