Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > Music > Bands & Artists > Classic Rock
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 01-21-2013, 05:31 AM   #21
beer bear
UG's Hermit
 
beer bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Lahti, Finland
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANG0DOWN21
They directly influenced me so much that I'm about to blow $400 to see Paul in detroit.


You lucky bastard.
I saw him in december 2011 and he's still got it. Thank god I got the tickets as a present from a relative. Now I'm starting to think how much the tickets actually cost. $400 is a bit steep. Mind you, the guy's still an absolute legend so it's kind of worth it.
beer bear is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:16 AM   #22
gabipe15
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Nobody can blame you for not liking the Beatles, but...

I think you haven't listened to them enough, and haven't read enough about them.

I know i'm a bit of a fan myself, though i don't listen them more than once a month maybe, but i can remember some impressive facts that i find amazing, for example:

1) They made the first video clip in history, maybe they invented MTV
2) Incorporated feedback in one of their songs (i feel fine) really early, i haven't heard someone before who did it
3)Used reversed tapes too
4)Made the first stadium gig ever
5)Have 27 no. 1 hits!
6)Made one of the first concept albums with sgt. peppers
7)Used fade-out endings (i don't remember records before doing them also, not sure they are the first)
8)Made a double album (also not sure if they are the first)
9)Yesterday is the most covered song in history (though i hate the song)
10)They made the first world satellite TV show with all you need is love and recorded it live
11)Their first record was recorded entirely on one day!
12)They incorporated eastern instruments on their songs such as sitar
13)Made one of the first heavy songs, with helter skelter

These are only to name a few of the facts why so many new generations love them. They were amazingly creative, funny, and innovative. Every artist remembers them as an influence.

For their skills and sound, i agree they sound bad but, it was the 60's, they sounded the best they could.

For their skills i don't know what the hell you mean with them being unskilled. There are hundreds of instruments played on their songs, and many are played by themselves, including piano, keyboards, sitar, ukelele, flutes, violin, trumpets, who knows what else.

And for their rhythm and groove, you really should check Paul's solo album "Run Devil Run" with old covers. Beast of an album.

Felt like writing. Sorry LOL!
gabipe15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 08:11 PM   #23
Supersonic-95
UG Member
 
Supersonic-95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by beer bear
You lucky bastard.
I saw him in december 2011 and he's still got it. Thank god I got the tickets as a present from a relative. Now I'm starting to think how much the tickets actually cost. $400 is a bit steep. Mind you, the guy's still an absolute legend so it's kind of worth it.



I think that it is terrible for man of such wealth to charge all that money.
Supersonic-95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2013, 01:41 AM   #24
phunkyfrets
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
One thing that always strikes me about the Beatles is that they were only a band for 10 years. At their genesis they were a poppy rock band that sang love songs in little clubs. Remember though, in 1960 music was nowhere near where it would be 1970. Their influences from the 50's were bands like Chuck Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, blues bands etc.

Originally, there was a charm to their music and personalities that escalated them to world wide fame rather quickly. If they had never changed their musical style they would be remembered as a good 60's pop band. The magical thing about the Beatles is in the early-mid 60's their musical style began to change quite a bit and would continue to do so until their end in 1970. The album Help! was probably the first big step toward what they would become and introduced a more melancholy and deep side to them.

In my opinion the next few albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sergent Pepper's are probably their greatest works (also a big fan of Magical Mystery Tour) and are some of the greatest gifts music has ever given me. Like I said opinion. The range in styles contained in these albums are enormous. Songs can range from deep emotional ballads (In My Life, Elanor Rigby, A Day in the Life) to catchy rock classics (The Word, With a Little Help From my Friends, Drive my Car) to great folksy tunes (Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood) all the way to probably my favorite type, full blown psychedelia (Love You Too, She Said She Said, Tomorrow Never Knows, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, I Am the Walrus). Yes, their songs are technically not too difficult, but as many others have mentioned technicality does not imply genius (also see Nirvana). However, they are harmonically, lyrically, and stylistically genius.

The thing that makes the Beatles awesome is they do all these genres so well. They use so many interesting instruments in their songs. Did you hear any sitars and tamburas in Western Rock and Roll before this? If anybody is a big Beatles fan and has not seen the Beatles Anthology Documentary Series I highly recommend it.

So back to your original post. If you don't like the Beatles then you don't like the Beatles, but I think there is something that is just so unique and beautiful about them. They grew and changed so quickly and were caught up in the midst of one of the most defining eras of all time. I am not sure how much of the Beatles you have listened to, but I would recommend giving some of the songs and albums listed above a listen. And when you're down there's a few lines that always seem to cheer you up:

"Oh I get by with a little help from my friends,
Mm get high with a little help from my friends,
Mm gonna try with a little help from my friends"
phunkyfrets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 09:46 AM   #25
pavan
stunt guitar
 
pavan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bangalore, India
The Beatles are fine.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard Feynman

Last edited by pavan : 12-04-2013 at 02:29 PM. Reason: figures in a google search of my name
pavan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2013, 12:52 PM   #26
helltothee
Idiot
 
helltothee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: west mids, england
I think a lot of is their versatility as phunkyfrets said. They innovated a lot but made it seem so simple.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by FryingNemo
I saw Satan one day
He looked kinda gay
The bible hates gays
So Satan I shall slay
Amen.
helltothee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 01:19 AM   #27
griffin888
Registered User
 
griffin888's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Northern New Jersey
I don't care for them much either, don't know why. I've listened to a bunch of their catalog, but for whatever reason they never seemed to click with me. It is what it is. I love the British progressive bands of the late 60s/early 70s like Floyd, Yes, ELP, Genesis, etc, and I don't think they would've gotten the exposure they did if The Beatles didn't "pave the way" so to speak. If there was one record from The Beatles that I care for it's Sgt. Pepper's, I think that record really opened the door for those progressive bands I listed. Very creative and innovative album.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunkelheit-164
Tell your daddy you're going out tonight,
cause you feel an urge to get some wood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs1020
it could turn the wangcaster into a bass.
griffin888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 05:38 AM   #28
ivd11
Registered User
 
ivd11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: philippines
dude., i absolutely understand you , i mean we've got our own tastes on music, right? so i hope you'd understand me on how i hate you for not liking The Beatles and for giving your foolish reasons. =D peace.
ivd11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 03:00 PM   #29
Tor_Hershman
Universal Toilet Cleaner
 
Tor_Hershman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Place Of The Skull, West Virginiť
You stated,
"...I'm denying the right of people born after the Beatles' reign who've been conditioned by society to think the Beatles are good and no-one should think otherwise. If this statement offends you, It's likely to be true."

I am not angered BUT rather mystified by this statement.
You speak of "...denying the right" and then say that those people ARE "Conditioned."
Is the psychosocial state of "Conditioning" a RIGHT?


Last edited by Tor_Hershman : 02-08-2013 at 04:34 PM. Reason: addein a pic
Tor_Hershman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 05:08 PM   #30
Wetsteel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANG0DOWN21
They directly influenced me so much that I'm about to blow $400 to see Paul in detroit.

Damn. I wouldn't pay that much to see a band I -did- like. I've got no argument with the OP. I don't like the Beatles either. No discredit to any of the members of the group, but their sound just never appealed to me. As I was born in -59, I can't say I was really old enough to have participated in any of the hysteria. I did have an Apple 45 by them with Hey Jude on one side and Revolution on the other, and at some point I had a red vinyl album with I Wanna Hold Your Hand on it, but they were never that big a deal to me at all. Just wasn't into their sound. But to call the OPs' arguments idiotic and offer no other reason for such a reply is the equivalent of saying 'yo momma'. Jut my two cents.
Wetsteel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:44 AM   #31
The Charm
King Platypus
 
The Charm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Obligatory.

Quote:
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success: the Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worth of being saved.
In a sense the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little attention to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as one can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for free for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply publicize what the music business wants to make money with.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles. And rock critics will study more of rock history and realize who invented what and who simply exploited it commercially.

Beatles' "aryan" music removed any trace of black music from rock and roll: it replaced syncopated african rhythm with linear western melody, and lusty negro attitudes with cute white-kid smiles.

Contemporary musicians never spoke highly of the Beatles, and for a good reason. They could not figure out why the Beatles' songs should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that the Beatles were simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to "Beatlemania", which had nothing to do with their musical merits). THat phenomenon kept alive interest in their (mediocre) musical endeavours to this day. Nothing else grants the Beatles more attention than, say, the Kinks or the Rolling Stones. There was nothing intrinsically better in the Beatles' music. Ray Davies of the Kinks was certainly a far better songwriter than Lennon & McCartney. The Stones were certainly much more skilled musicians than the 'Fab Fours'. And Pete Townshend was a far more accomplished composer, capable of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". Not to mention later and far greater British musicians. Not to mention the American musicians who created what the Beatles later sold to the masses.

The Beatles sold a lot of records not because they were the greatest musicians but simply because their music was easy to sell to the masses: it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth. They wrote a bunch of catchy 3-minute ditties and they were photogenic. If somebody had not invented "beatlemania" in 1963, you would not have wasted five minutes of your time to read a page about such a trivial band.
__________________
The B-52 Bombers Group!
Own a B-52 amp? Join the club!

Quote:
Originally Posted by nashawa
He may be a troll, but he's an incredibly successful troll. So kudos on that.
The Charm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2013, 12:24 PM   #32
wil
..but Teles are better
 
wil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the lovely welsh seaside
I don't know who wrote that piece above but it smacks of NME style, preening, needlessly racially apologetic, 'just out of Uni' drivel.

Nice name-check of Tim Buckley there, I was also expecting an honourable mention of 'Forever Changes' by Love, and Nick Drake for good measure (I'm actually fond of all of these, but I hope some of you will get the point)

As for the Beatles robbing rock n'roll of 'black music', I'm tempted not to even go here but----deep breath....Why should four lads from the North of England have even thought about (and I doubt they did, at all) keeping the 'black' spirit of rock and roll? They struck out on their own and came up with original material, if they'd have stayed playing Chuck Berry and Little Richard covers, they wouldn't have got very far.

Ray Davies a better songwriter? Evidence please? The lasting legacy of the Kinks (even after the London 2012 Waterloo Sunset resurgence) has been influencing quirky British, lorks-a-lawdy-love-a-duck shite like Blur's Parklife. The Beatles influenced EVERYBODY, (from Ozzy to Wes Montgomery to Paul Gilbert to Oasis to Metallica, Jimi Hendrix etc etc)

The Stones are better musicians? Tell me that 'Keef' is a better guitar player than George Harrison-please!

Pete Townsend a better composer? No, just no.

Anyone who doubts the harmonic complexity of the Beatles music should pick up a great book called 'Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles'--seriously, it's a fascinating read and hammers home the fact that the Beatles were really quite advanced musically, they just delivered it in such a subtle way.
__________________
Thank God im an atheist

Last edited by wil : 02-20-2013 at 12:53 PM.
wil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 02:41 AM   #33
crzywhiteboy
Too Cool To Post
 
crzywhiteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York
I dont know about what and who they have influenced really. And i really done care but the Beatles are awesome. I mostly listen to Metal and the Beatles. Its not always about shredding up and down the neck. Their music is good for any mood you may be in, always put me in a good mood.
crzywhiteboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 09:27 AM   #34
Bigbazz
Registered User
 
Bigbazz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Some of their later stuff is genius, you don't write music like that without being exceptionally musically talented. They banged out a lot of stuff, some of it better than others but you have to understand that a lot of it was litterally jamming.

Les Paul was very responsable for advances in recording but that doesn't take away from what the Beatles achieved. I personally don't like their earlier stuff, but from 1965 onwards they had some amazing songs, and a few not so great too but the good stuff is what makes them.

Were they top musicians playing wise? They weren't no concert virtuoso's thats for sure but they could play well enough to perform the music they wrote. Paul is still at it today, that song he recently recorded with the rest of Nirvana where they basically just jammed it out live in a studio and then recorded it down, it wasn't anything complicated it was just an energy filled jamming session with a bunch of musicians playing some good heavy rock and enjoying themselves, an in the moment recording and that is something that the Beatles were about.

Not everyone is going to like them, I didn't get them myself for many years. But I gave them a chance a few years back by suggestion of my bands other guitarist (who has been a big beatles fan since he was a child) and I learned to appreciate them, but to do that you really have to (in my eyes) forget the early stuff and move on to the later.


And lets not forget that they technically invented metal with Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy.
__________________
Cornford Hellcat
Peavey 5150
Marshall 1960A
1994 Ibanez Jem 7V
Fender Stratocaster x3 (2 of them built from bits and pieces!)

Last edited by Bigbazz : 04-16-2013 at 09:35 AM.
Bigbazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 05:03 PM   #35
therealmuffin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Musicians who don't like the Beatles don't really like music. They're involved in music more or less to be cool or identify with a specific scene. It's kind of like being a gourmet chef and not liking French cooking. It just doesn't make sense.

Last edited by therealmuffin : 05-02-2013 at 05:32 PM.
therealmuffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 01:21 AM   #36
Sti Eci Tehpor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
honestly, **** anyone who does not like the Beatles musicianship period
Sti Eci Tehpor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 01:43 AM   #37
manualex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbazz

And lets not forget that they technically invented metal with Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy.


Paul McCartney wrote Helter Skelter because he saw in a interview that in Pete Townsend said that I can see for miles was "loudest, rawest, dirtiest song the Who had ever recorded."

McCartney then "wrote 'Helter Skelter' to be the most raucous vocal, the loudest drums, et cetera" and said he was "using the symbol of a helter skelter as a ride from the top to the bottom; the rise and fall of the Roman Empireóand this was the fall, the demise."


On 20 November 1968, two days before the release of The Beatles, McCartney gave Radio Luxembourg an exclusive interview, in which he commented on several of the albumís songs. Speaking of "Helter Skelter", he said: "Umm, that came about just 'cause I'd read a review of a record which said, 'and this group really got us wild, there's echo on everything, they're screaming their heads off.'

And I just remember thinking, 'Oh, it'd be great to do one. Pity they've done it. Must be great ó really screaming record.' And then I heard their record and it was quite straight, and it was very sort of sophisticated. It wasn't rough and screaming and tape echo at all. So I thought, 'Oh well, we'll do one like that, then.' And I had this song called "Helter Skelter," which is just a ridiculous song. So we did it like that, 'cuz I like noise."

McCartney has used this song as a response to critics who accuse him of only writing ballads.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingDime666
It's dubstep minor in E.


Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_muse
Every self respecting Muser regards the 2nd Law as their magnum opus.

Last edited by manualex : 05-03-2013 at 01:46 AM.
manualex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2013, 12:48 PM   #38
Sti Eci Tehpor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Sorry, that was mean; this is why I hate Tequila.
Sti Eci Tehpor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 12:02 AM   #39
hhhhdmt
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealmuffin
Musicians who don't like the Beatles don't really like music. They're involved in music more or less to be cool or identify with a specific scene. It's kind of like being a gourmet chef and not liking French cooking. It just doesn't make sense.

no there are plenty of people who love music but don't like the beatles.

And they are overrated. Like another poster stated, they did not create heavy metal. The idea of writing "Helter skelter" came from listening to Pete townsend/the who. Heavy metal would exist, with or without the beatles. They did not create rock either, even though many of their fans believe that they did.

And the beatles certainly had some good songs. But they had quite a bit of filler even on their best records. I have heard Beatles fans say "well a Beatles filler song would be a highlight for most groups". This is the kind of blind praise that irritates many people. No band would be proud of Yellow Submarine, Octopus Garden, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Honey Pie, the story of bungalow bill. These are not even average songs, let alone great. And its true that practically every band has some bad songs, but with the beatles its musical blashphemy to say so. The above however are weak songs and would not be highlights for most bands.

Yes they have good stuff like In my life, Michelle, Dear Prudence etc. But their work is far from flawless.
hhhhdmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2013, 12:19 AM   #40
WaltTheWerewolf
Caffeinated
 
WaltTheWerewolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Gainesville
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealmuffin
Musicians who don't like the Beatles don't really like music. They're involved in music more or less to be cool or identify with a specific scene. It's kind of like being a gourmet chef and not liking French cooking. It just doesn't make sense.


got any proof for that statement? sense when is The Beatles a prerequisite for being a true musician? IMO the Beatles were made famous for their boyish looks and poppy songs, other than that they are overrated trash! Paul was great at picking the bass but other than that...ya Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da...IMO the worst of beatles songs...I'm glad they are NOT an influence!
WaltTheWerewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Forum Archives / About / Terms of Use / Advertise / Contact / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2014
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.