#1
Somebody explain me!!! Why the Beatles is the best band for so many people? I don't understand, all the time we are discussing about them, but no one can't explain me.They just told me " It's Beatles"!!!
Okey, they had good to remember songs , but there is no good guitar skills, no good guitar tricks, just simple rock-n-roll, nothing more, maybe i'm to young for them.
#2
They were good because they had no good guitar tricks, just simple rock and roll
#3
Quote by Tempoe
They were good because they had no good guitar tricks, just simple rock and roll

Yes sure, i understand, but is it enough to be the best? I think, that they just started to play in good time for to be success, there weren't so many band, there weren't so many types of music, they were ones of the explorers of overdrive effect. I think they were ones of the first explorers of music, that's why everybody remember them. Rolling Stones still alive, but everybody remember "The Beatles".
#4
Simply put; the Beatles created many recording effects and wrote songs in many styles that still today influence nearly everything you listen to. Without the Beatles, your favourite bands probably wouldn't exist.

Musically, they're not too relevant now and they're certainly not the best, but they're the originators and at the very least you have to respect them for that.

In short; yes, you're probably too young for them to really have any impact on you.
#5
Quote by Tube_silence
Somebody explain me!!! Why the Beatles is the best band for so many people? I don't understand, all the time we are discussing about them, but no one can't explain me.They just told me " It's Beatles"!!!
Okey, they had good to remember songs , but there is no good guitar skills, no good guitar tricks, just simple rock-n-roll, nothing more, maybe i'm to young for them.


What makes ANY music good?

Music is not a skill it's an art. Playing an instrument is in part a skill but it's the art that makes it good. To me, anyway. It is possible to make good music which is not difficult to execute, and which is not complex.

What makes music good is difficult to capture, and explain, and label. Its like some subtle magic, which is why it is so beautiful to me.

The beatles made some cool music, but what you are missing is how revolutionary a lot of it was. It was new and great. A lot of music in general changed because of their influence. You look back on it now, seeing all of what came after, but at the time it must have been so awesome.

Maybe to understand better you could listen to everything else that was available at the time. There was some other cool stuff as well, but beatles were quite unique.

But youre right. They we rent impressive instrumentalists. They were impressive songwriters.
#6
Well, they pretty much changed the world of music. You can still hear their influence in many songs today. To me it is amazing that they still have such an influence 50+ years later. I think if you were to look back and see most of the music before The Beatles, you'd be surprised at how revolutionary they sounded for the time.
"Being honest may not get you a lot of friends, but it'll always get you the right ones."
#7
Quote by Izzy-Sweet
Simply put; the Beatles created many recording effects and wrote songs in many styles that still today influence nearly everything you listen to. Without the Beatles, your favourite bands probably wouldn't exist.

Musically, they're not too relevant now and they're certainly not the best, but they're the originators and at the very least you have to respect them for that.

In short; yes, you're probably too young for them to really have any impact on you.


Agree with your opinion, maybe i should grow up a little for listening The Beatles.
I respect them,anyway.
#8
Quote by fingrpikingood
What makes ANY music good?

Music is not a skill it's an art. Playing an instrument is in part a skill but it's the art that makes it good. To me, anyway. It is possible to make good music which is not difficult to execute, and which is not complex.

What makes music good is difficult to capture, and explain, and label. Its like some subtle magic, which is why it is so beautiful to me.

The beatles made some cool music, but what you are missing is how revolutionary a lot of it was. It was new and great. A lot of music in general changed because of their influence. You look back on it now, seeing all of what came after, but at the time it must have been so awesome.

Maybe to understand better you could listen to everything else that was available at the time. There was some other cool stuff as well, but beatles were quite unique.

But youre right. They we rent impressive instrumentalists. They were impressive songwriters.


Thanks for your feedback. As i see , you're a big fan of The Beatles.
#9
Quote by songbird64
Well, they pretty much changed the world of music. You can still hear their influence in many songs today. To me it is amazing that they still have such an influence 50+ years later. I think if you were to look back and see most of the music before The Beatles, you'd be surprised at how revolutionary they sounded for the time.


I agree that they changed a lot in world music.
#10
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 grun etc etc etc
Praise the Z-Dog, my DADDY ♂♂♂
#11
Quote by Banjocal
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 grun etc etc etc


Thank you for your explanation. I agree, rock musicians always were more commercial, but it's not their fault, i think that they needed to work with producers, because rock music so close to drugs, alcohol and many many more dangerous things, they have to be more controlled and sure they were close to commercial way. Also without any good producers The Beatles weren't able to become a famous band.
#12
As I kid I liked a lot of my mom's music. Never The Beatles though. Lennon's & McCartney's voices didn't seem to blend very nicely to me. Never got into them at all.

That being said, I'm glad they existed and influenced so many bands and changed the direction of popular music for the better.
#13
Quote by Tube_silence
Thanks for your feedback. As i see , you're a big fan of The Beatles.

I wouldn't say that. I have tremendous respect for them and their accomplishments. They wrote a lot of great tunes. But, it's not so much my style. I don't have a single beatles tune in my playlist. Though I did do a cover of lennon's imagine on YouTube, I changed the tempo/rhythm quite a bit.
#14
Quote by fingrpikingood
I wouldn't say that. I have tremendous respect for them and their accomplishments. They wrote a lot of great tunes. But, it's not so much my style. I don't have a single beatles tune in my playlist. Though I did do a cover of lennon's imagine on YouTube, I changed the tempo/rhythm quite a bit.

Could you show your cover of Lennon's Imagine?
#15
Quote by Banjocal
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 grun etc etc etc


But the biggest question is:
"At this time were a lot of bands who had played very similar music to The Beatles, but only The Beatles were successful"
#16
Quote by Tube_silence
Could you show your cover of Lennon's Imagine?


Sure, it was my first video. The editing was rough. All the footage you see is what was recorded. It is not mimed over a separate recording, and every part was one take the whole way through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQPY3dg1aPQ
Last edited by fingrpikingood at Oct 7, 2014,
#17
Quote by Tube_silence
But the biggest question is:
"At this time were a lot of bands who had played very similar music to The Beatles, but only The Beatles were successful"


The beatles were not the only successful ones. they had huge boy band appeal, but just because they were popular, I don't find that means they were any less impressive.

I would also add That I find Oscar Peterson was the greatest pianist of all time and I would say critics would consider Art Tatum the best. Not duke ellington. Music art anyway. doesn't make much sense to talk about who was best.

listen to the beatles, all the varieties of songs they put out, how different they are, how innovative they are, and the number of them there are, and imo, that's why they are revered by artists and musicians, and not just fans. Their music is also not just simple diatonic 4 chord pieces, so the theory guys dig it as well.

why they were so famous, i think is more complicated.
#18
Quote by Tube_silence
But the biggest question is:
"At this time were a lot of bands who had played very similar music to The Beatles, but only The Beatles were successful"

Quote by Tube_silence
Thank you for your explanation. I agree, rock musicians always were more commercial, but it's not their fault, i think that they needed to work with producers, because rock music so close to drugs, alcohol and many many more dangerous things, they have to be more controlled and sure they were close to commercial way. Also without any good producers The Beatles weren't able to become a famous band.

It's a quote from a music critic called Piaro Scaruffi. He's got a massive reference library but his comprehension for art is atrocious at best. Think of a technically skilled piano player who only does covers of top 40 songs.

Or his personal artwork of overblown photoshop filters over snapshots which accompany his essays on various classical art movements.
Praise the Z-Dog, my DADDY ♂♂♂
Last edited by Banjocal at Oct 7, 2014,
#19
The Beatles were basically just One Direction but with poor production.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#21
Quote by fingrpikingood
Sure, it was my first video. The editing was rough. All the footage you see is what was recorded. It is not mimed over a separate recording, and every part was one take the whole way through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQPY3dg1aPQ


Wow, that was really good!
"Being honest may not get you a lot of friends, but it'll always get you the right ones."
#22
I am old enough to have been around before the Beatles came into the music scene. There was nothing (not even remotely) like them when they came out in 1963 (1964 in the US). Yes there were other bands but go back and listen to their contemporaries because there were some very good ones. the difference was consistancy. Each Beatles album was a step forward from the last. That wasn't true of many other bands. I understand what you don't get about the Beatles but it's like saying Thomas Edison wasn't much of a genius because his original light bulb barely put out one watt of candlepower or that Henry Ford wasn't much of an inventor since his first modal T car was only 20 horsepower and had a top speed of only 40 miles an hour. The Beatles were as much musical pioneers in their field as Edison and Ford was in theirs.
#23
It also occurs to me that in a little more than three years (April 63 to August of 66) the Beatles released seven albums and did five tours (2 tours of the US, 1 European tour, 1 UK tour, and 1 World tour). With one roadie (Mal Evans) no fancy tour busses or private jets. All in a three year period. Today you are lucky if a band releases one album in three years.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Oct 7, 2014,
#24
Quote by fingrpikingood
Sure, it was my first video. The editing was rough. All the footage you see is what was recorded. It is not mimed over a separate recording, and every part was one take the whole way through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQPY3dg1aPQ


Good cover, i like your funky guitar pattern
Last edited by Tube_silence at Oct 7, 2014,
#25
Quote by fingrpikingood
The beatles were not the only successful ones. they had huge boy band appeal, but just because they were popular, I don't find that means they were any less impressive.

I would also add That I find Oscar Peterson was the greatest pianist of all time and I would say critics would consider Art Tatum the best. Not duke ellington. Music art anyway. doesn't make much sense to talk about who was best.

listen to the beatles, all the varieties of songs they put out, how different they are, how innovative they are, and the number of them there are, and imo, that's why they are revered by artists and musicians, and not just fans. Their music is also not just simple diatonic 4 chord pieces, so the theory guys dig it as well.

why they were so famous, i think is more complicated.


Yes, we shouldn't talk about, who was the best, but The Beatles were strangely successful group, maybe you right they knew something more...
Last edited by Tube_silence at Oct 7, 2014,
#26
Quote by Rickholly74
I am old enough to have been around before the Beatles came into the music scene. There was nothing (not even remotely) like them when they came out in 1963 (1964 in the US). Yes there were other bands but go back and listen to their contemporaries because there were some very good ones. the difference was consistancy. Each Beatles album was a step forward from the last. That wasn't true of many other bands. I understand what you don't get about the Beatles but it's like saying Thomas Edison wasn't much of a genius because his original light bulb barely put out one watt of candlepower or that Henry Ford wasn't much of an inventor since his first modal T car was only 20 horsepower and had a top speed of only 40 miles an hour. The Beatles were as much musical pioneers in their field as Edison and Ford was in theirs.


Good comparison. Or Nikola Tesla with his games about transportation of information and contemporary internet. Totally agree. I will listen The Beatles again.
#27
Quote by Rickholly74
It also occurs to me that in a little more than three years (April 63 to August of 66) the Beatles released seven albums and did five tours (2 tours of the US, 1 European tour, 1 UK tour, and 1 World tour). With one roadie (Mal Evans) no fancy tour busses or private jets. All in a three year period. Today you are lucky if a band releases one album in three years.

Yeah, old bands were much more productive than bands today
#28
Quote by songbird64
Wow, that was really good!


Thx! I wish I could have made more videos like that, but it's really time consuming. Even productions like in my sig are pretty time consuming, but adding the video editing is a whole extra level still.
#29
Quote by Tube_silence
Good cover, i like your funky guitar pattern


thx man.

Quote by Tube_silence
Yes, we shouldn't talk about, who was the best, but The Beatles were strangely successful group, maybe you right they knew something more...


i think it's a combination of the first real boy band at a period of history where artists had to do everything legitimately basically. Where there was less ghost writing, and no autotune and stuff like that. On the cusp of this new era in music, the birth of pop, and in this band, you had 2 great songwriters that were taking popular music in a new direction.

I think really the only thing they didn't have going for them, is that they weren't crazy instrumentalists, but a lot of people don't care about that. They want music they dance to, and a boy band they could crush on. The Beatles were those things, but also just great innovative songwriters.
#30
Quote by fingrpikingood
thx man.


i think it's a combination of the first real boy band at a period of history where artists had to do everything legitimately basically. Where there was less ghost writing, and no autotune and stuff like that. On the cusp of this new era in music, the birth of pop, and in this band, you had 2 great songwriters that were taking popular music in a new direction.

I think really the only thing they didn't have going for them, is that they weren't crazy instrumentalists, but a lot of people don't care about that. They want music they dance to, and a boy band they could crush on. The Beatles were those things, but also just great innovative songwriters.

Nowadays bands have much more different opportunities to become commercially successful, but not successful in art.
#31
Quote by Tube_silence
Agree with your opinion, maybe i should grow up a little for listening The Beatles.
I respect them,anyway.

Grow up for listening Beatles? lol how old you, 6yo?
IMHO, they were so popular because they played a totally commercial music that was easy to understand and feel by everyone. Not King Crimson at all
#32
Good point. There are so many more opportunities to get yourself heard today with things like the internet and cable TV. Back in 80's when MTV was still Music TeleVision with real music, a lot of great bands that would never have been heard had that forum to get exposure. Today with the many cable stations out there like VH1 Classic and Axs TV and especially YouTube we may see a resurgence of opportunity to hear real music played by real musicians again. For now we have the highly over produced Top 40 controlled by the Clear Channel Radio network who owns more than 1200 radio stations across the country and decides what you will listen to. A radio DJ that plays what they want is as extinct as dinosaurs.
#33
Quote by Libertarian
Grow up for listening Beatles? lol how old you, 6yo?
IMHO, they were so popular because they played a totally commercial music that was easy to understand and feel by everyone. Not King Crimson at all

I agree that it's not something like King Crimson, it's too big of a difference if we talk about commercial side of their music. Sure if we compare The Death and Oasis, Oasis has much more potential for commercial success. First of all it depends on type of music.The Beatles played music which was not so hard to listen, but easy to memorize.
#34
Quote by Rickholly74
Good point. There are so many more opportunities to get yourself heard today with things like the internet and cable TV. Back in 80's when MTV was still Music TeleVision with real music, a lot of great bands that would never have been heard had that forum to get exposure. Today with the many cable stations out there like VH1 Classic and Axs TV and especially YouTube we may see a resurgence of opportunity to hear real music played by real musicians again. For now we have the highly over produced Top 40 controlled by the Clear Channel Radio network who owns more than 1200 radio stations across the country and decides what you will listen to. A radio DJ that plays what they want is as extinct as dinosaurs.


I don't see how it's much different from then to now. We have different mediums and people have become more aware to just how large the musical spectrum is, but what is extremely popular, as far as substance goes, hasn't changed in decades.
#35
Let's face it, if the Beatles came out today most Rock 'n Roll fans would dismiss them as another boy band. I mean they had every characteristic: 4 good looking british guys with "cute" haircuts singing about love and wanting to hold hands, if you see a lot of their earlier shows it's hordes of teenage girls screaming like hyenas. Yeah, they eventually wrote some deeper stuff after hitting some acid, but if they came out today the way they did we all know they would be treated like 5 Seconds of Summer by most UG users.
"The government should legalize weed, taxit, and give the money to NASA. Then NASA inspires kids to explore the universe and weed does the same fore adults"-Carl Sagan
#36
You can't rewrite history and make comparrisons about what the Beatles would be like if they came out today. If they came out today they would be influenced by everything that came before them and would sound completely different and be relevant to this era. You can't judge things from 50 plus years ago against what is available today. Would you judge an IBM computer from the 60's that took up a space the size of most apartments and costs millions to design and build against an 2014 iPad?

Wasn't it just this year that Paul McCartney and Dave Grohl won a Grammy for "Best Rock Song". So much for not being relevant in 2014.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Oct 16, 2014,
#37
I think one of the things a lot of guitarists seem to forget about The Beatles is that in their later years they were really doing things in the studio that no rock group had ever done before. Some of those songs were basically impossible to perform live at the time. In this age of computers and synthesizers I think a lot of people have forgotten just how innovative and difficult it was to produce some of those sounds back then. Their goal was always to make great music, regardless of the instruments used or how they were used.

Sure they weren't the most technically gifted guitarists or instrumentalists, but is pure technical ability really the mark of a great musician? I would have thought songwriting/musicality/harmony is more important unless you are a session guitarist or cover band, or at the very least equally important. Many of the most well known riffs in history are very simple technically, guitar or otherwise (the opening of Beethoven's 5th Symphony for example)

P.S. If anyone hasn't seen it that Beatles Anthology DVD set (about 10 hours long) has some great insights into some of the things The Beatles did and why. George Martin basically said when they stopped performing live and started writing "studio songs" they reached a whole new level musically. I'd have to agree with him.
Last edited by bptrav at Oct 20, 2014,
#38
Plain and simple, the Beatles were all about song writing. Lennon and McCartney were the best duo of writers in my opinion, and in the same band. Simple lyrics and simple playing--until the 70's when the drugs became prominent.
I saw McCartney in Dallas this past week, he's 72 yrs old and still amazing live. I would vote him as my 'greatest rock artist' of all time.
#39
Its all about the songwriting. John and Paul were both great songwriters and put their heart into every song.