Beatles-Yes or No

[Bernd]

Hi Guys,

Have been pondering for a while to set this question. And the moment is now I fear, as my system has just been served with a court order to prevent it to sent rude e-mails to the surviving members of the Beatles.

Seriously, they drive me crazy. My wife loves them and I know I am in the minority, but I am sure there must be somebody else who does not digs them at all.
I am not talking about their historical impact, no doubt about that, just that their musical output to me is just pap.
And for some strange reason if you like music you "have to" like the Beatles. If you don't it's almost sacrelige and uncomprehensable to the Beatles fans. And you get glazed over looks of pity and shaking of heads.

So am I alone out here in the Beatles free zone?????

Peace

Bernd:7:

[GMichael]

The Beatles are/were just OK for me. I remember them in the 60's when everyone went crazy for them. And I don't hate them. But I don't idolize them either. Plenty of fair music IMO. I pop them in from time to time but they never get played more than once in a few months.
Add the Stones, The Who and The Doors to that same list for me. They were OK, but I never saw why everyone thought they were so great.

[Bernd]

I remember the going crazy too. And can even understand that. It's just that the almost worship like behaviour, to my mind for just ok stuff, leaves me puzzled.
You see I like the Doors and the Stones, but the fab four........:nonod:

Peace

Bernd:17:

[Duds]

I can't stand them, and just dont understand the hype.

and you are right, for some reason if you don't like the Beatles, its assumed you dont know jack poop about music.

[Bernd]

I can't stand them, and just dont understand the hype.

and you are right, for some reason if you don't like the Beatles, its assumed you dont know jack poop about music.

Sit down next to me brother.:)

Peace

Bernd:7:

[GMichael]

I think that some of it has to do with the "love song" theme that attracts so many women to it.

[Resident Loser]

Hi Guys,

Have been pondering for a while to set this question. And the moment is now I fear, as my system has just been served with a court order to prevent it to sent rude e-mails to the surviving members of the Beatles.

Seriously, they drive me crazy. My wife loves them and I know I am in the minority, but I am sure there must be somebody else who does not digs them at all.
I am not talking about their historical impact, no doubt about that, just that their musical output to me is just pap.
And for some strange reason if you like music you "have to" like the Beatles. If you don't it's almost sacrilige and uncomprehensable to the Beatles fans. And you get glazed over looks of pity and shaking of heads.

So am I alone out here in the Beatles free zone?????

Peace

Bernd:7:

...the Stones better...and the Spoonful, and Dylan, and the Byrds, and Canned Heat...HOWEVER...I really came to appreciate the Fab Four much, much later...My first album of theirs was Sgt. Peppers and it was sorta' like required reading, bein' in a band and all, and while it was interesting, I liked the white album better...

Even later came Revolver and Rubber Soul both of which I found to be really good on various levels...I'd heard their contents previously but purchased them late 70s, early 80s???...In fact I recently purchased the Revolver CD at a local Target Store (on sale, of course)...a lost touchstone of my youth? Maybe, but I drop it in my GPX portable CDP ($7USD after rebate) and listen through my $5USD Wal-Mart provided Koss 'phones...I like it through 'phones...absolutely no current production values i.e depth or soundstage, whatsoever...just instruments and voices every which way...double-tracked vocals and various studio trickery...

Anywho, as a musician, I now realize it's really quite difficult to do what they did, regardless of any lack of deep artistic merit or social significance...Is it pap? Well, to some, so is Mozart I guess. I think it was Stravinsky who said Vivaldi wrote the same piece 400 times...everybody's a critic...It ain't really rock, it ain't really pop, it's just The Beatles...

jimHJJ(...and I guess that's good enough...)

[SlumpBuster]

Nope, never got the Beatles. Don't like them and find much of their music grating and annoying. Elenor Rigby, Yellow Submarine and similar rot hurts my ears. I can tolerate 1965 Beatles, i.e. 2 1/2 minute pop jems. But once they grew their hair long and started hang-out with homely chicks with floppy yits... what the hell was that all about? Although Yoko Ono gives great interview. I heard her on Fresh Air last year and it was really interesting.

Now the solo Beatles? Well that is another matter all together, at least when it comes to George and Ringo. "What is Life" is in my top 20 favorite songs of all time, I had loved that song for years as a kid and never knew it was George until college. Ringo Starr's "No-No Song" is similarly great fun, for example. And, the Concert for Bangledesh... wow, that just puts George in a league of his own. Solo McCartney and Lennon I can do without however.

[Bernd]

Hi Jim,

Trust you to put it into perspective. I get all that, it's just the "Blind Faith" display. People go and pay to enter the Cavern Club in Liverpool, and it's not even the original one. How mad is that?
And of course someones pap is someone elses enjoyment. No probs there too.
I am glad you appreciate their music. And yes give me McGuinn, Clark and Hillman any day over McCartney.
I do like the "Concert fo Bangladesh" though. Some fine tunes.
Peace

Bernd:7:

[Resident Loser]

Hi Jim,

Trust you to put it into perspective. I get all that, it's just the "Blind Faith" display. People go and pay to enter the Cavern Club in Liverpool, and it's not even the original one. How mad is that?
And of course someones pap is someone elses enjoyment. No probs there too.
I am glad you appreciate their music. And yes give me McGuinn, Clark and Hillman any day over McCartney.
I do like the "Concert fo Bangladesh" though. Some fine tunes.
Peace

Bernd:7:

...Sir Paul has always been Sir Paul...you can hear it from the first album to his most current release...dare I say English music hall? I mean what is Mull Of Kintyre anyway? I mean musically?

I guess it depends on your age...Most of what was youth-oriented music a priori was two and a half minutes of pablum...adult manufactured and sanitized...beach-blanket bimbo's and Frankie Avalon or Fabian or...so in reality it was simply a changing of the guard and the Beatles were these nice, neat, clean looking fellows who didn't rattle the parent's cages...The Stones were another story entirely...

Frank Sinatra, Elvis...same effect: screaming, pre-pubescent bobby-soxers or whatever...Glenn Miller and the Dorsey's et al were of my parents memories and I'd guess String Of Pearls still ellicits the same feelings now as it did in their youth...

Mine are still more like The Kingston Trio, The Beach Boys, Jan & Dean, The Supremes, The Temptations, Four Tops, Four Seasons and the others previously mentioned...even, lo and behold, classical and opera...I'd been to two opera performances (one at the old Met and one at the new) well before my first pop concert...The Beatles are there, but on the periphery...more or less cultural icons superimposed on the timeframe...yet in reality, part of the soundtrack to my youth...

jimHJJ(...whether I like it or not...)

[MasterCylinder]

Don't you guys know that anyone not worshipping the Beatles is an ignorant as$hole ???

But then again, you had to be there........I'm guessing most of you are too young.

[MindGoneHaywire]

If you don't like the Beatles, it's no skin off my nose & honestly, I don't care. I think there are things going on there that haters might not be hearing, but I'm not willing to be condescending just to get that across. If you don't like it, don't listen. No biggie.

If you do like pop and rock music, then I don't see why one wouldn't want to at least give a fair listen to try to 'get' some of what's going on. Repeated exposure via Muzak in supermarkets doesn't help. Actually listening to the records does.

If I could point to the single most prominent significant musical quality that sets their music apart, for someone for whom the songs simply don't do much of anything, it'd be McCartney's bass playing. Outside of the material itself, it's the single most interesting, innovative, and influential ingredient that's (relatively) easily discerned. But it's actually not that easy, and more likely to be taken for granted. I'm not a big headphones guy, but every time I listen to the Beatles on headphones I seem to hear something I never noticed before, and more often in the bass playing than in any other facet of the music.

There are plenty of people who don't buy into the cult, and that's fine, but there's no need to resort to insults on either side. What I will say is that having George Martin around helped these guys do something that I've only heard one person do better--Brian Wilson. They made music that wasn't all that simple, yet it sounds simple. The early, early stuff is simple enough, until you remember that the classical music critic of London's Times was going on about obscure qualities that the Beatles themselves weren't aware of that he noticed, and that was on their second album, in 1963. And there are sites that undertake a thorough and extensive theory-based analysis using the same criteria that is used to deconstruct and understand classical music. I can try and find a link if anyone actually wants to see this.

I would bring up the point that the early Beach Boys hits are catchy, hooky pop songs that sound awesomely simple, but are anything but. Try to bear that in mind if you give some of this stuff a listen; forget about the hits and how often you've had to hear them, give a record like the White Album a good listen on headphones, concentrate on the bass playing, and then come back & see if you feel the same way.

If it's a matter of them not rocking enough, get a hold of Live At The BBC, or the British edition of an album called Rarities (side 2, specifically), then tell me they didn't rock harder than anyone up to that time. Between the Little Richard covers, B-sides like She's A Woman and I'm Down, Taxman, or Harrison's lead work, especially around the time of Beatles For Sale and Help!, that's just not a reasonable conclusion.

[ForeverAutumn]

I'm staying out of this discussion because I've never owned a Beatles album in my life and all I know of them are the same old songs that get played over and over and over and over and over again. I know that this is not enough knowledge on which to form my opinion.

I do have a question for MGH and MC however (and anyone else who cares to answer)... If I were going to buy a couple of Beatles CDs, should I buy remasters or original recordings. The original recordings are a lot cheaper as the remasters appear only to be available as box sets. Which of their albums are the "must haves"? Thanks.

[3-LockBox]

I can certainly see how one would tire of the Beatles, considering how influencial they were, both musically and culturally. There was a time when you couldn't escape them. And maybe its easy to 'not get the hype', but when you compared what the Beatles were doing back in the '60s to what others in pop were doing at that time, it really wasn't hype.

Now you wanna talk bewildering hype, lets go with the Beach Boys. Sure Wilson was a musical genius, when he wasn't barking at shadows. Or we could talk Byrds and Animals too. Of course there's no denying their influence as well, but sometimes its just a question of being able to listen to an act or not. I have a hard time sitting through an entire album by any of the acts I mentioned in this paragraph.

I listen to the Beatles all the time though.

[MindGoneHaywire]

If, as you say, Wilson was a musical genius, then why is the hype bewildering?

[3-LockBox]

I do have a question for MGH and MC however (and anyone else who cares to answer)... If I were going to buy a couple of Beatles CDs, should I buy remasters or original recordings. The original recordings are a lot cheaper as the remasters appear only to be available as box sets. Which of their albums are the "must haves"? Thanks.

Depends on how involved you want to get. You just start with the last album and work backward, or you could start at the beginning, though I do not care for the "Yeah, yeah, yeah" stuff. I'd start with Rubber Soul. A 'must have'? I think my all-time favorite Beatles album is still, The White Album, their most ecclectic. All of my CDs are first issue, but I was always pretty pleased with the quality of their albums anyway. They seemed to make the transition to CD a lot better than a lot of '60s pop acts. I haven't heard the remasters, didn't know there were any...and I'm not going to buy them.

[MasterCylinder]

wow - Autumn.

"Must haves" ?

That is a tough one.


Early stuff -- Meet the Beatles

Later stuff -- Anything between Rubber Soul and Abbey Road (with one possible exception being Magical Mystery Tour, in addition, Let it Be was not in the true line-up, but a compilation later released).

My two favs -- Revolver and Abbey Road.

[Resident Loser]

...MGH and me in agreement...let's get TtT over here and split a Musketeers bar...

McCartney's bass playing...you betcha'...He was voted, in at least one of the Playboy readers music poll as best bassist...OK, OK not a biggie, but as suggested, listen to his playing...preferably through 'phones...The sound of his Hofner is really nice...

Same with Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys...sounds simplistic until you rerally listen...Same day I bought the Revolver CD at Target, I picked up the BBs Sounds Of Summer...With Waldo 'phones and my cheapo CDP and even though many of the cuts are mono, you can hear t'aint so simple...

jimHJJ(...do a BB search at youtube...look for Their Hearts Were full Of Spring...be patient, wait for the performance...)

P.S. A link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FsBo5j6ip44&search=brian%20wilson

[3-LockBox]

If, as you say, Wilson was a musical genius, then why is the hype bewildering?

note the 'Wilson barking at shadows' comment. And maybe the hype I'm referring to isn't so much the '60s period (when they last mattered), but from the early '70s on. This band has definately rested on its laurels for three decades now, and is still carried by the successes of 40 years ago, and their musical output since the early '70s has been forgettable, if not terrible.

My point was that anyone can pick apart any 40 year old act. Hype? Blame the media, not the people who liked the music. I say I love The Beatles but honestly, I haven't listened to an album of theirs in some time. Or the Beach Boys. OTOH - I can live without hearing anything by The Animals, ever again.

[Resident Loser]

I'm staying out of this discussion because I've never owned a Beatles album in my life and all I know of them are the same old songs that get played over and over and over and over and over again. I know that this is not enough knowledge on which to form my opinion.

I do have a question for MGH and MC however (and anyone else who cares to answer)... If I were going to buy a couple of Beatles CDs, should I buy remasters or original recordings. The original recordings are a lot cheaper as the remasters appear only to be available as box sets. Which of their albums are the "must haves"? Thanks.

...Revolver and Rubber Soul definitely...with the white album you get the sense of who did what, even though the writers were Lennon/McCartney, I think it's a precursor to their solo careers...Abbey Road, fourth in my book...

I'd go for the cheaper ones...as I've said before, they really have no production values insofar as soundstage etc. Target may still have Revolver on sale...

jimHJJ(...you may be pleasantly surprised...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

That doesn't make sense, since mental illness and/or substance abuse adds mystique to perception of an artist (think Keith Richards, Jackson Pollock, Kurt Cobain, Syd Barrett, Hunter S. Thompson, Chet Baker, Bukowski, etc). If anything, that should be the least bewildering aspect of it.

[Resident Loser]

note the 'Wilson barking at shadows' comment.

...ever hear Pet Sounds?...

jimHJJ(...woof, woof...)

[audiobill]

Which of their albums are the "must haves"? Thanks.

I'd start with the following in chrono order:

Meet the Beatles
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgnt Pepper's...
The White Album (my all-time fave of theirs)
Abbey Road
and Let It Be

FA -- buy them all -- if any band deserves it they do -- don't think twice -- just go into the store and buy all of the ones on the list above.

Enjoy & let us know what you decide

audiobill

PS., I have the first gen CDs and they sound quite good to these ears

[Resident Loser]

...there ya' go Bernd...threads been jacked by the proselytizers...

Can't swing a dead cat without hittin' a Beatle buff...

jimHJJ(...it's bigger than you feared...)

[3-LockBox]

...ever hear Pet Sounds?...

jimHJJ(...woof, woof...)

Yes. I own it. Wilson had a great ear for melodies and arrangements and was a pioneer in the studio, 40 years ago. In fact I have owned both the first run and the latest re-issue. But as much as I understand Wilson's achievements as a producer, I have a hard time listening to the '60s stuff because of the over use of a certain instrument (which someone told me what it was a while back, but I forgot) that makes some sort of hooting or honking sound that drives me nuckin futs. Wilson's lyrical content is very hit and miss with me as well. Its a love hate thing I have with the BBs.

I like the late '60s output more...I think Feel Flow is the greatest pop performance of all time, musically and production wise. I listen to that song all the time.

[3-LockBox]

That doesn't make sense, since mental illness and/or substance abuse adds mystique to perception of an artist (think Keith Richards, Jackson Pollock, Kurt Cobain, Syd Barrett, Hunter S. Thompson, Chet Baker, Bukowski, etc). If anything, that should be the least bewildering aspect of it.

I guess my edit was after this post...

But anyway, illness and addiction adds 'mystique' if by 'mystique' you mean tragedy.

[Resident Loser]

Yes. I own it. Wilson had a great ear for melodies and arrangements and was a pioneer in the studio, 40 years ago. In fact I have owned both the first run and the latest re-issue. But as much as I understand Wilson's achievements as a producer, I have a hard time listening to the '60s stuff because of the over use of a certain instrument (which someone told me what it was a while back, but I forgot) that makes some sort of hooting or honking sound that drives me nuckin futs. Wilson's lyrical content is very hit and miss with me as well. Its a love hate thing I have with the BBs.

I like the late '60s output more...I think Feel Flow is the greatest pop performance of all time, musically and production wise. I listen to that song all the time.

...the dread theremin...a little goes a long way...probably should have put it back in it's case after Good Vibrations...

Somewhere on PS there's a dog barking...final cut I think...Pet sounds? barking at shadows? Maybe he was nuts ahead of his time...

P.S. Don't buy the soundtrack to Forbidden Planet (the sci-fi flick) it's all theremin..all the time...

jimHJJ(...consider yourself warned...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

>maybe the hype I'm referring to isn't so much the '60s period (when they last mattered), but from the early '70s on. This band has definately rested on its laurels for three decades now, and is still carried by the successes of 40 years ago, and their musical output since the early '70s has been forgettable, if not terrible.

Outside of the "Brian's Back" campaign, a hit single or two in the early & mid-70s, and the Brian-less 'Kokomo,' I'm just not sure what hype you're referring to. Maybe I missed it. I just don't remember much hype for any Beach Boys recordings in the past 30+ years.

If what you're referring to is the TV movies & documentaries, box set, reissues, or SMiLE, that's by far involving the 60s stuff, not anything later.

>My point was that anyone can pick apart any 40 year old act.

Yeah, but unless it's of the 'I just don't get ____ variety,' as in this thread, it's usually based on the sort of dislike that spills irrationally onto the page when one tries to put it into words. Arguing like or dislike is pointless, of course. If there are specifics that can be pointed to that add any reason or logic to the tearing apart of an old band that many once found something to like about, then there's something to discuss. That seems to happen rarely. I'll offer as something of a case in point: Milli Vanilli, roundly reviled for merely being dancers. But today, that's closer to the essence of how pop stars are manufactured and marketed than we ever might've imagined, especially if you take into consideration the combination of instrumental talent and entertainment quotient combined in the pop of the past such as the Beatles...and, say, the Jackson 5.

People who like punk tearing apart prog acts, and vice versa, is usually based on the sort of dislike that I personally don't consider worth arguing about. But when you factor in people with agendas that have reason to try to tear someone apart, i.e. custom-made 'authors' flogging ghostwritten tomes scribbled from the point of view of jilted lovers, dumped creative or managerial partners, etc., I do think that in most cases the perceptions, even if I don't or didn't agree with them, exist for reasons that make sense to me. Beatles worship is a case in point. They might not be the greatest pop act of all time, but when you consider that they created the bulk of their material, as opposed to, say, Elvis, or Sinatra, that pushes them far over the top, in my estimation. Anyone who turned out a rock and roll record in the 15 years after their appearance on the Ed Sullivan show who denies their influence better have a good case, because most of the time that claim simply won't stand up to scrutiny.

>Wilson's lyrical content is very hit and miss with me as well. Its a love hate thing I have with the BBs.

Well, the love/hate thing makes sense, because it inspires the sort of reactions, both pro and con, that don't lead someone to investigate much past their surface reactions. People who choose to look beyond those reactions find out pretty quickly that Brian Wilson was not a lyricist. When he had people like Roger Christian and Gary Usher to work with, the BBs cars'n'surfing lyrics are probably better than what you're used to. When he didn't, he was stuck with Mike Love. That's why he went out & hired people like Tony Asher for Pet Sounds & Van Dyke Parks for SMiLE. You would've, too. Dealing with Mike Love's banal rhymes isn't something I'd want to have to deal with if I could do what he could in the studio. Sorta like eating pate or caviar on Wonder bread & wondering if there isn't a better combination you could facilitate.

>illness and addiction adds 'mystique' if by 'mystique' you mean tragedy.

No, it's mental illness & substance abuse that's the tragedy, not the mystique. But then Keith Richards is still alive, and so is Brian Wilson. I didn't list quite a few people--Miles Davis, Eric Clapton, etc. etc. who overcame addiction & averted tragedy, and that's not a word I'd even apply to a couple of the other people I mentioned. I understand that the Brian Wilson hype is similar to the Beatles hype, but it seems to me it's all about the 60s stuff.


RL...

>Glenn Miller and the Dorsey's et al were of my parents memories

Funny thing. Not mine; but my father did play with Jimmy Dorsey for awhile. But he never had a Tommy rec that I know of, he was a big fan of Tatum, Basie, and Buddy Rich's big band (which of course was later). Glenn Miller...I don't think he had a very high opinion of his work, and I've never really heard anything that would convince me otherwise, either. Give me Fletcher Henderson any day of the week, but Benny Goodman & Duke Ellington, I would've thought, or hoped, would've been more along the lines of what made impressions on more people in those days, rather than Miller...whose popularity would be easier for me to swallow if Cab Calloway had managed to be just a bit more prominent. Only in the sense that the guys whose work consciously leaned more towards 'entertainment' rather than 'art' would naturally be seen as more accessible...

[E-Stat]

...with the white album...
Number
.................................................. .................................................. .........9
.................................................. .................................................. .........Number
9
Number
.................................................. .................................................. .........9


Isn't stereo cool?

I have some Bea' uls myself, but never really got into them either. Must have rock repertoire, but infrequently played at Chez Stat.

rw

[Slosh]

People who don't like the BeAtles scare me. :o

NP: The Decemberists - The Crane Wife (if you're an R.E.M. fan definitely pick this up when it's released)

[E-Stat]

...the dread theremin...a little goes a long way...

P.S. Don't buy the soundtrack to Forbidden Planet (the sci-fi flick) it's all theremin..all the time...
Hey now, don't be puttin' down the theremin. The Bernard Herrman soundtrack to The Day The Earth Stood Still is a classic!

I think Bernie put it to good use - not "campily" as with the Robby the Robot. Gort could kick his ass!

rw

[Troy]

I'm with MGH in the sense that I couldn't care less if you don't like the Beatles. But if you like rock and pop music, I'm not really sure why you wouldn't as The Beatles pretty much defined the genre thru the 60s.

It's ok to like the band and still not buy into the hype. Yes, the band is too hyped and overplayed by todays frenzied media. I guess my real question is: should you hate the artist being hyped, or should take them at their simple face value and hate the media for hyping it so much that it can't possibly live up to the expectations heaped upon it?

I think the previous paragraph applies to Brian Wilson very much. If I gotta hear about what a genius he is one more time . . . He created some cool music 40 years ago. Move on already!

The Beatles were great and rock music, and culture in general, would be a whole lot different today if they never existed. Take it for what it is and ignore the hype. There's a lot of very enjoyable music there.

Yeah, the "No No Song" was brilliant. Way better than anything The Beatles did. LOL

FA, buy used copies of Beatles albums. Try any of the original albums that you see, remastered or not. Avoid box sets, greatest hits and best of packages. Personally, I like the albums from about 65 to 67 that are all arty and psychedelic.

[bobsticks]

...ask Tesco Vee.

[GMichael]

How about a poll:

Love 'em
Hate 'em
Who gives a flying fig...

[3-LockBox]

Yeah, the "No No Song" was brilliant. Way better than anything The Beatles did. LOL

I liked that one too :lol:

[MindGoneHaywire]

...ask Tesco Vee.

One down, three to go...

[musicoverall]

If you don't like the Beatles, it's no skin off my nose & honestly, I don't care. I think there are things going on there that haters might not be hearing, but I'm not willing to be condescending just to get that across. If you don't like it, don't listen. No biggie.

If you do like pop and rock music, then I don't see why one wouldn't want to at least give a fair listen to try to 'get' some of what's going on. Repeated exposure via Muzak in supermarkets doesn't help. Actually listening to the records does.

If I could point to the single most prominent significant musical quality that sets their music apart, for someone for whom the songs simply don't do much of anything, it'd be McCartney's bass playing. Outside of the material itself, it's the single most interesting, innovative, and influential ingredient that's (relatively) easily discerned. But it's actually not that easy, and more likely to be taken for granted. I'm not a big headphones guy, but every time I listen to the Beatles on headphones I seem to hear something I never noticed before, and more often in the bass playing than in any other facet of the music.

There are plenty of people who don't buy into the cult, and that's fine, but there's no need to resort to insults on either side. What I will say is that having George Martin around helped these guys do something that I've only heard one person do better--Brian Wilson. They made music that wasn't all that simple, yet it sounds simple. The early, early stuff is simple enough, until you remember that the classical music critic of London's Times was going on about obscure qualities that the Beatles themselves weren't aware of that he noticed, and that was on their second album, in 1963. And there are sites that undertake a thorough and extensive theory-based analysis using the same criteria that is used to deconstruct and understand classical music. I can try and find a link if anyone actually wants to see this.

I would bring up the point that the early Beach Boys hits are catchy, hooky pop songs that sound awesomely simple, but are anything but. Try to bear that in mind if you give some of this stuff a listen; forget about the hits and how often you've had to hear them, give a record like the White Album a good listen on headphones, concentrate on the bass playing, and then come back & see if you feel the same way.

If it's a matter of them not rocking enough, get a hold of Live At The BBC, or the British edition of an album called Rarities (side 2, specifically), then tell me they didn't rock harder than anyone up to that time. Between the Little Richard covers, B-sides like She's A Woman and I'm Down, Taxman, or Harrison's lead work, especially around the time of Beatles For Sale and Help!, that's just not a reasonable conclusion.

So I won't try. Disliking the Beatles isn't an affliction, although I would challenge those folks to give them a careful listen.

As for the Beach Boys, I took your advice about listening closely only fairly recently, and until I did, I would have disagreed with you. I bought the Pet Sounds box set and really listened to the whole thing. Brian's genius is unmistakable. Before the box set, I enjoyed the album but thought it was nothing special. Hearing the songs with parts missing really made the parts that were there stand out and now I listen to the finished disc with a whole new perspective. Just freakin' incredible music and, as you said, very deceptive in its denseness and complexity.

[Bernd]

...there ya' go Bernd...threads been jacked by the proselytizers...

Can't swing a dead cat without hittin' a Beatle buff...

jimHJJ(...it's bigger than you feared...)

Hi Jim,

I expected that. I read the whole lot through this morning (still a bit hazy from a little session last night).
Some great points argued, and I have listen (had to) often when my wife is on a Beatles trip.
Her favourites are the White Album, Rubber Soul and Abbey Road but they just do not talk to me. Figure in the hype and the often mentioned historic importance and it doesn't come together in my head. Maybe you had indeed to be there, or had to experience the pre-Beatles musical landscape.
Well we like what we like. And as I have said in my original post I have never questioned the historic and influencial importance and for that I certainly think they deserve the accolades, but I was talking about the music and since I don't get that.....
I guess the crux of the matter for me is the so often displayed inhability, of the Beatles base, to accept that somebody might not be crazy about the fab fours musical output.
Take any other artist and you will not get that sort of a reaction.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[Dave918]

Only owned one Beatles album, Meet the Beatles, and rarely ever played it. Their work just never appealed to me at any level.

-dave

[shokhead]

Love the Beatles. I'm sure alot because of my age and the timing of them. I dont have early stuff. Rubber Soul,Hard Days Night on to A Road. If nothing else just listening to the masterful work of John Lennon. I took all my Beatle cds and burnt only songs with John in the lead. I listen to it more now.

[likeitloud]

My wife has those double CD's, early and later years, and the #1's cd. She requests
one of those a couple times a month, and all I know when I hear them, I do crack a
brew, and listen up. Alot of those tunes are holding up pretty well after 40 years or
so. They were waay ahead of anything else in the 60's. I don't think George Martin gets
as much credit as deserved for their sound. The production for a lp released in
1964/65 is unreal, IMO. So big fan, not really. Spin a disc once in awhile and I'll
be listening.

[nobody]

I can take 'em or leave 'em.

This thread got me to actually put on one of the few Beatle records I own...2 of the four were gifts. I actually bought a couple compilations of their early stuff.

Listening to some compilation, I think its called Hey Jude. Side one's pretty good and side two's ok if you skip the title track. I Should Have Known Better Paperback Writer and Ballad of John and Yoko would be my favorites on there. Somebody also bought me Abbey Road which is way too littered with stuff like Octupus' Garden and that goofy opus on side two for me to sit through, even though there are a couple good songs on side one. Usually, if I listen to any Beatles, I just grab a conmpilation of their older more poppy rock stuff.

I guess my ambivilance toward them is because while I do like most of their early material and a few scattered songs of their later stuff, the transition was pretty much going away from music i like into stuff I'm not as fond of.

As they went on, their albums were littered with a bunch of hokey filler crap like Yellow Submarine, Maxwell's Silver Hammer, When I'm 64, etc...

I guess I will certainly admit the Beatles made some songs I really do like and they cartainly changed rock music...I'm just not so sure it wasn't better before they got their hands on it.

[shokhead]

You cant find an album without filler crap. Smoke a joint and listen to S Peppers and MMT.

[nobody]

2 of the worst offenders to my ears. Getting high doesn't make me all hippy dippy doopey enough to make those albums something I wanna listen to.

I am the Walrus is not deep and trippy to me...it's stupid and childish...yeah, even after a couple hits of acid.

Like I said, I understand they were influential and huge and all that. I just wan't into where they were going.

[BradH]

I'm just not so sure it wasn't better before they got their hands on it.

Yeah, an army of sweater wearers named Bobby.

How's that workin' for ya?

[nobody]

Not so well...but guys like Gene Vincent, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley and many more could have kept rocking just fine.

If I wanted something more pop, there was always a young un' named Frank Sinatra.

R&B and doo wop was in fine form.

If I wanted more complexity, the jazz world was blossoming throughout the 50s-60s.

If you prefer the Beatles brand of rock as it evolved...fine, you're strongly in the majority. But, without the Beatles, there was plenty beyond the likes of the Four Freshman and their ilk.

[Jim Clark]

Put me down in the "No" category. Thank you very much for asking. I mentioned this almost casually several years ago and some poster from St. Louis, not Mr. Peabody btw, said that "not liking the Beatles was akin to not liking music". All in all that single comment remains the single most asinine comment ever made to me on this board. I have no doubt that he could say the same about mine.

Musically there's very little about the 60's that speaks to me or that I find entertaining in any way shape or form. Like "Eva Braun" in the movie Field Of Dreams, I'll take 2 50's and move along. I realize that there's a whole host of icons from that era. Bigger than big who remain popular and in many cases a whole lot bigger than they were at the time and that my friends is pretty darned big. Guess I'm not impressed to awfully much by what so many others think. The bottom line is that the music of the Beatles as a whole just doesn't appeal to me. I have the distinct impression that the Beatles and the other icons of the 60's seem to have been afforded pretty decent lifestyles despite not having earned much money off of me.

Then of course there are the Kinks and that's a different matter entirely...

jc

[shokhead]

At the time the Beatles were fresh,now the music i must admit is abit long in the tooth and i listen to it abit less but it still hold up pretty good and its to bad no SACD or DVD-A to freshen it up.I think a nice stereo SACD would be pretty nice.
Bo Diddley,Little Richard,Gene Vincent? I would have been laughed off my block. Give me the Monkees anyday. Where i grew up it was motown and then the Beatles,a little Beach Boys and some Ventures. LOL

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Somehow I've managed to not buy a Beatles CD all these years. I was going to buy the complete box set a few months ago, but figure as soon as I do they will announce the new digitally remastered, DSD encoded SACD/CD Hybrids.

So right now I'm waiting.........

[BradH]

...but guys like Gene Vincent, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley and many more could have kept rocking just fine.

If I wanted something more pop, there was always a young un' named Frank Sinatra.

R&B and doo wop was in fine form.

If I wanted more complexity, the jazz world was blossoming throughout the 50s-60s.

If you prefer the Beatles brand of rock as it evolved...fine, you're strongly in the majority. But, without the Beatles, there was plenty beyond the likes of the Four Freshman and their ilk.

Yeah but where was it going? All those Bobbies killed that first wave of RnR, not the Beatles. You can't really blame the Bobbies - it was what the market demanded. I'm not sure that's been fully explained but that's how it happened. The kids just weren't buying rock 'n' roll by 1959. Even Buddy Holly gave up and focused on crooner music and production. Little Richard renounced sin and threw his jewelry into the Sidney harbor. Jerry Lee Lewis had that problem with Minahs and State Lions. (Sorry, old joke.) Chuck Berry? IRS. Elvis? U.S. Army. Then Buddy died. Some of them kept going but they were doing the same thing over and over. That works for you and me as hardcore music lovers in 2006 but that wasn't working for the mass youth market in the early '60's. The Beatles revived a genre that was considered dead by many. The Beatles, from their very first record, had a rawness that hadn't been heard in years and a combination of elements that had never been heard before. Think about it. They played authentic r&b and rock 'n' roll in the rhythm section, they wrote songs that sounded like Buddy Holly writing for Motown and they sang like a 3-piece Everly Bros. And it rocked. Add the distinctive haircuts and the scouse accents (Liverpool? Where the hell's that?) and you've got more than something for the girls to scream about. It was the rise of the artists-as-gang mentality in youth culture, a gestalt concept that didn't exist with Cliff AND The Shadows or Elivs, Little Richard or Chuck Berry w/ their backing bands. They were a unit, a new concept that survives to this day. (Actually, this started w/ the Crickets but it only lasted for a couple of singles.) I doubt if Jan Berry or Brian Wilson, despite their brilliance, could've revived rock the way The Beatles did. So, you may cite all those other genres that were around when they hit but they forged most of those genres into one cohesive sound that rocked and yet was totally their own. I guess what I'm saying is the Beatles weren't just a "brand of rock", as you say. They redefined everything, they became what rock was about. Some say the Stones were better. I say the Stones were blacker. The Stones were more American. The Beatles had cast a much broader net for their influences but I guess it depends how you want to define rock. But check out that Time/Life documentary about how the Stones met the Beatles for the first time. Here's what would not have happened without the Beatles. The Stones were a club band playing for those Beatles-hating blues hounds at the Crawdaddy in Richmond when the Fab Four walked in wearing floor-length red coats. Jagger said he was onstage singing when they walked in and decided at that moment he wanted to be famous. Backstage they met the Beatles and found out they were "cool". It was during this conversation, according to Keith Richards, that the Beatles convinced the Stones they should write their own songs instead of sticking to cover material. Richards cites that moment as an inspirational turning point in their own career. Would the Stones have done that otherwise? Maybe. The real significance is this conversation happened in a place that was Blues Central for the early British blues movement yet here were the Beatles telling the Stones to branch out. Their word carried weight and it wasn't just because of record sales.

[nobody]

See this is how people get annoyed with the Beatles thing.

I've said I like a lot of their songs, especially the earlier stuff and admitted they were a hugely influential band that changed music. But, somehow that's not good enough. Because, while liking them, I prefer other styles and didn't like some of their musical directions; so, I must be shown the light. Anything less than worshipping their musical perfection is blasphemy.

I like the Beatles and they changed everything in at least some measure by overshadowing everyone else. Other artists would have likely taken vastly different directions had the massive popularity of the Beatles not pointed the direction for the marketplace.

I still say when the Beatles came on the scene you had Roy Orbison...there's someone taking early rock 'n' roll steps further and who was still strong at the time. Sure, his type was pretty much shown the door when everyone went Beatle crazy, but the point is, there were people who would have kept rock going and would have likely had a bigger hand in its direction had the Beatles not hit. Dion was going well. Johnny Cash was strong. The girl groups were cranking out great songs. The already mentioned Motown and other R&B stuff kept along quite nicely at at least some level of independance from the Beatles.

And, sorry, but to my tastes, I would have preferred the music stay where these folks had things than where the Beatles took 'em. Its not a judgement against the Beatles or an undermining of their considerable accomplishments...just a personal opinion that I preferred earlier rock and some early Beatles stuff to the direction of later 60s, early 70s music that was shaped largely by the influence of the Beatles. If I'm looking through my records and wanna toss something on...I know which side of that divide the vast majority of my selections are gonna come from. Its just that simple.

We always have years here and there where the mass media thinks rock or whatever other kind of music is dead. Yet, artists keep coming along and keep cranking something out. Had the Beatles not came along, another artist or perpahs instead a group of artists would have done something. Surely, it would have been different, and there is njo way to say if it would have been better for music's evolution or worse. Personally, as someone who despite liking the Beatles ok preferred the music that was made before they changed everyhinhtg, I'm not about to unequivicolly state that music without them would have been worse and tend to think maybe it would have been better.

[shokhead]

Like them or not,we needed them. Who's to say when the British invasion might have started? Maybe in the late 60's or even the 70's before the stones,Animals,Cream, Dave Clark 5, Freddie and the Dreamers,Hollies, ect thought they might make a go of it over here. Beatles had guts,i remember when Sg Peppers came out,it was like omg,what is this. Nobody could get enough of it and something that just doesnt happen,the other bands were talking about it also. Then MMT,wow. Maybe it was the Beatles being one of the first{or the first?} rock bands having orchestra instruments in there music.

[Dusty Chalk]

I'm about the Beatles the way Jay is about most classic rock -- I've heard enough in my entire life up until this point to satisfy me for the rest of my entire life. I won't go postal if I accidentally hear them in the mall or something, but I eschew their music as much as possible.

So, yeah...Beatles-free here, too! More or less...

[BradH]

See this is how people get annoyed with the Beatles thing.

I've said I like a lot of their songs, especially the earlier stuff and admitted they were a hugely influential band that changed music. But, somehow that's not good enough. Because, while liking them, I prefer other styles and didn't like some of their musical directions; so, I must be shown the light. Anything less than worshipping their musical perfection is blasphemy.

It's not about worshipping anything, it's about understanding historical facts. Four years after "Love Me Do" they were in the studio recording "Strawberry Fields Forever". You can reduce that to a "different direction" to be liked or disliked but I say that's a rate of change that's almost disturbing. There's a beauty to that curve throughout the 60's and early 70's that traditionalists like you and Jay see as a misguided direction. (Trust me on this, I've traded tons of e-mails with him about it.) So maybe there is a quasi-mystical aspect to it that comes across as proselytizing but that's only because we're debating something you can't see with your eyes, you have to hear it. Besides, I've certainly been know to call guys like you rock 'n' roll fundamentalists.


Other artists would have likely taken vastly different directions had the massive popularity of the Beatles not pointed the direction for the marketplace.

I know what you're saying but I'm not so sure about that after following Brian Wilson's career. I mean, here's a guy who had total disregard for the Beatles until 1965. So, if you want to see what a thriving 60's pop/rock career would look like without the Beatles you can listen to the Beach Boys up to and including Summer Nights. Some georgeous moments on those records but the difference between them and Pet Sounds is stark. And that was a response to the challenge of Rubber Soul.


And, sorry, but to my tastes, I would have preferred the music stay where these folks had things than where the Beatles took 'em. Its not a judgement against the Beatles or an undermining of their considerable accomplishments...just a personal opinion that I preferred earlier rock and some early Beatles stuff to the direction of later 60s, early 70s music that was shaped largely by the influence of the Beatles. If I'm looking through my records and wanna toss something on...I know which side of that divide the vast majority of my selections are gonna come from. Its just that simple.

No, I understand. You and Jay have a clear understanding of your own positions and he's made it clear to me. It just seems awfully limiting to me. Tragically so. Because, you see, rock 'n' roll is about breaking rules. If you're not supposed to do something then that's the best reason to do it. That's what punk advocates don't understand and prog advocates have forgotten.


I'm not about to unequivicolly state that music without them would have been worse and tend to think maybe it would have been better.

At worst, music would've been the same. Surely it would've gotten better but how much better? How rapidly? Which direction? Hard to say. The Beatles influence ranged far and wide. I can't imagine a Sly Stone without them. And Sly was a bombshell for Stevie Wonder, George Clinton and Maurice White. That's the leading lights of funk right there. See what I mean?

[nobody]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Anytime you start saying things like how beautiful the curve of their progress was or how it’s just something you have to hear...well, we're just getting subjective. I heard. I didn't like. I'm fine with that. I accept your opinion and preferences as your own. Just allow me the same, please.

I understand the historical facts. They were huge, incredibly influential and they changed the music world forever. Those are the historical facts. I understand those. Whether I liked those changes or whether I liked their music, especially as it progressed over the years is where the subjective part comes in.

The progression is only beautiful if you like where the progress goes. I'm not a fundamentalist. In many cases I like seeing how things progress. Roy Orbison, who I mentioned earlier, is a great example of a guy who stretched rock music and I'm a big fan of his. I absolutely prefer his more orchestrated stuff that really was taking rock to new places over his earlier straight rockabilly stuff.

I also think drawing a straight line from the Beatles to Sly Stone is stretching things a bit, but yeah, the Beatles were so huge that just about everyone took something from them. They were engrained into pop culture to such an extent that it would be hard to have been involved in music at any level during that time and not have some of their music in your head from time to time.

And its really not limiting at all to not be a huge fan of a particular time when the Beatles made their music and lots of other people came in with music I'm not really too fond of, mostly the rock stuff from the later 60s into the mid 70s or so. (not saying there ain't stuff from then I liked, but its fairly slim pickens for me compared to some other eras) That's a pretty short period really to only be ho hum about. Toss in being free to graze over a wide variety of genres and any limitation by not being a big fan of that particular time period is pretty easy to get around and still listen to a ton of vastly different music.

I can go right now and listen to some old rock 'n' roll...switch to a hip hop album, grab some jazz, listen to something from the experimental fringe, put on some electronic music, throw on a punk album, maybe grab some big band records, a little bluegrass...you get the picture. If that's too limited...then call me guilty. But, I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone out there that doesn't have at least one of two spots either in time, place or genre where their tastes ain't all that extensive. Mine just happens to coincide with something you feel is beyond reproach.

And oh yeah...while J and I agree on a lot, I don't share the Brian Wilson love. I think Smile was a big pile of crap...drugged and deluded. Hell...I'd take some Jan & Dean over the Beach Boys responses to the Beatles. Great...now I'm gonna get hit over the head with a few pages for that...but at least it will keep the thread going.

[shokhead]

Smile is crap just like Pet Sounds. I'll help to keep it going. LOL

[BradH]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Anytime you start saying things like how beautiful the curve of their progress was or how it’s just something you have to hear...well, we're just getting subjective. I heard. I didn't like. I'm fine with that. I accept your opinion and preferences as your own. Just allow me the same, please.

I was referring to the curve of the entire era, not just The Beatles.


I understand the historical facts. They were huge, incredibly influential and they changed the music world forever. Those are the historical facts. I understand those.

That's not exactly the historical facts I'm talking about. Yes, you acknowledge their influence and popularity but I think waaaay too much attention has been given to that over the years by fans and music historians. It's definitely there but it overshadows their musicianship and what they did with it.


In many cases I like seeing how things progress. Roy Orbison, who I mentioned earlier, is a great example of a guy who stretched rock music and I'm a big fan of his. I absolutely prefer his more orchestrated stuff that really was taking rock to new places over his earlier straight rockabilly stuff.

The Orbison argument is a pretty good one. He saw a way forward that Buddy Holly apparently didn't see even though he had the same tools. At some point we're going to have to talk about the influence of acid because that's what this debate is really about.


I also think drawing a straight line from the Beatles to Sly Stone is stretching things a bit, but yeah, the Beatles were so huge that just about everyone took something from them.

Put it this way: Without the Beatles, Sly would've combined funk & soul with what exactly? To this day George Clinton cites The Beatles as his favorite rock band because they showed you could be a freak and still survive.


That's a pretty short period really to only be ho hum about.

True, but any heyday in music only lasts a few years.


Toss in being free to graze over a wide variety of genres and any limitation by not being a big fan of that particular time period is pretty easy to get around and still listen to a ton of vastly different music.

You're preaching to the choir on that one. I could spend hours (and have) talking to local guys who knew & worked w/ Buddy Holly and Little Richard and Gene Vincent and, well, everybody from that generation really. I take that music seriously along with a lot of other genres. So, no, I don't think Rick Wakeman's cape was the pinnacle of Western civilization or that prog listeners are somehow more intelligent than anyone else. But prog was damn sure fun while it lasted. Again, it's exciting to break the rules. So, I reject someone like Dave Marsh's view that Rubber Soul killed rock 'n' roll. It's not limiting to listen to all kinds of music, just the opposite. But youth market in the early 60's didn't widely listen to all those genres you listed like jazz, big band and bluegrass much less hip hop, experimental fringe, electronic music or punk. Like I said, that works great for you and me but it's 2006, not 1962.


And oh yeah...while J and I agree on a lot, I don't share the Brian Wilson love. I think Smile was a big pile of crap...drugged and deluded. Hell...I'd take some Jan & Dean over the Beach Boys responses to the Beatles.

Drugged and deluded? I've got a buttload of those Smile sessions that prove he was in total control. A taskmaster, actually. Speaking of Jan & Dean, I saw a documentary where they claimed Jan Berry taught Brian Wilson how to produce. That makes a lot more sense than saying he somehow picked it up by hanging around the studio or messing with Wollensacks in his garage.

As for Jay, I think he's turning into a damned hippie. We need to keep an eye on him.

[BradH]

At some point we're going to have to talk about the influence of acid because that's what this debate is really about.

On the other hand, Zappa shreds that whole idea.

[nobody]

Wanna talk about how much I can't stand Jimi Hendrix next?

[3-LockBox]

Just wait a few weeks, his turn in the barrel is coming.

[shokhead]

I'll be the first at the highly over hyped Stones.

[Resident Loser]

I'll be the first at the highly over hyped Stones.

...as I recall they didn't make the list...probably the most influenced but not really all that influential...mostly a good cover band that did well...

jimHJJ(...I still liked 'em and their R&B roots more than the Fab Four in the early days...)

[BradH]

Wanna talk about how much I can't stand Jimi Hendrix next?

Hendrix. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Didn't he work for Little Richard?

Hey, check out this cool comp I'm working on.

It's called Best Of The Post-Retro Malaysian Dub Aggro-Chill Movement Volume Twelve.

Awesome, huh? Lemme know if you want one.

[GMichael]

I'll be the first at the highly over hyped Stones.

Too late. See post number two.

[nobody]

Hendrix. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Didn't he work for Little Richard?

Hey, check out this cool comp I'm working on.

It's called Best Of The Post-Retro Malaysian Dub Aggro-Chill Movement Volume Twelve.

Awesome, huh? Lemme know if you want one.

Does this mean you forgot about me for volume 1?

[Resident Loser]

...as I recall they didn't make the list...probably the most influenced but not really all that influential...mostly a good cover band that did well...

jimHJJ(...I still liked 'em and their R&B roots more than the Fab Four in the early days...)

...'n'crackers...?????????I gotta' try to keep track of these threads...

jimHJJ(...I think I need rest...)

[ForeverAutumn]

So, it took me 40 years, but I finally bought and listened to my first Beatles album.

On the good advice of the folks here, I picked up Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul yesterday. I listened to them both today. I really listened to them. It was a completely different experience than just hearing them in the supermarket. I really enjoyed both albums.

I was surprised at how many songs on Rubber Soul I had never heard before. And I was reminded of how much I love the song Norwegian Wood.

Bernd, I know that this isn't what you had in mind when you started this thread but, thanks for being the catalyst that introduced me to this band in a whole new way. If it makes you feel any better...I'll never like the song Hey Jude. ;)

[MindGoneHaywire]

FA--if you liked 'em enough to venture further, I'd offer a strong recommendation for the White Album...but knowing you are at least somewhat a fan of prog, Abbey Road is probably something that would appeal to you as well.

I am glad to read this post, because it helps me to think that I'm not just blowing smoke to those who are either anti-Beatles, or indifferent at best. There are things going on there I feel are worth sharing, but the steady bombardment of the hits, the Muzak supermarket cheeze, and the various annoyances such as Octopus' Garden, et al, can be a difficult scale to climb. For people who don't like them or just don't care, there can be a lot to like...if you're willing to at least give certain things a focused listen...and ignore certain other things, as well as the hype.

I prefer the American Rubber Soul, but that's another story in itself. Sgt. Pepper is, yes, overhyped, and has not aged well, but as an overall listen there are certainly worthwhile musical moments...even if some of us find the pedestal it's placed on by some to be too high, way too high, especially given the backlash.

The flipside of what they did is rarely spoken of--they rocked like hell, most notably on Live At The BBC, and the various Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and Larry Williams covers, as well as B-sides like I'm Down & She's A Woman. I feel like I've posted this already. Let's just say they were a bigger influence on punk rock than Johnny Rotten ever wanted to acknowledge, which was why he fired Glen Matlock, who was probably the most accomplished songwriter in the Sex Pistols. Oh, well, I'm not looking to claim they invented punk or anything (though some might take up that argument), only to state that it's often lost in this how aggressive they were in the early 60s. Comparing what bands did, from the Who to the Sonics to the Kinks, after the Beatles had a few kick-a$$ rock sides waxed, is instructive as well.

In any case, glad you enjoyed the recs.

[JoeE SP9]

Never liked the Beatles that much. There are only two of their CD/LP's in my collection Abbey Road and Sergeant Pepper's.:shocked:

FWIW I have never liked Hendrix at all. As a bass player I always thought he made more noise than music. But then, I've never liked any kind of gadget. To me fuzz boxes, wawa pedals and other boxes were crutches for the less talented.:ciappa:

[shokhead]

FA--if you liked 'em enough to venture further, I'd offer a strong recommendation for the White Album...but knowing you are at least somewhat a fan of prog, Abbey Road is probably something that would appeal to you as well.

I am glad to read this post, because it helps me to think that I'm not just blowing smoke to those who are either anti-Beatles, or indifferent at best. There are things going on there I feel are worth sharing, but the steady bombardment of the hits, the Muzak supermarket cheeze, and the various annoyances such as Octopus' Garden, et al, can be a difficult scale to climb. For people who don't like them or just don't care, there can be a lot to like...if you're willing to at least give certain things a focused listen...and ignore certain other things, as well as the hype.

I prefer the American Rubber Soul, but that's another story in itself. Sgt. Pepper is, yes, overhyped, and has not aged well, but as an overall listen there are certainly worthwhile musical moments...even if some of us find the pedestal it's placed on by some to be too high, way too high, especially given the backlash.

The flipside of what they did is rarely spoken of--they rocked like hell, most notably on Live At The BBC, and the various Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and Larry Williams covers, as well as B-sides like I'm Down & She's A Woman. I feel like I've posted this already. Let's just say they were a bigger influence on punk rock than Johnny Rotten ever wanted to acknowledge, which was why he fired Glen Matlock, who was probably the most accomplished songwriter in the Sex Pistols. Oh, well, I'm not looking to claim they invented punk or anything (though some might take up that argument), only to state that it's often lost in this how aggressive they were in the early 60s. Comparing what bands did, from the Who to the Sonics to the Kinks, after the Beatles had a few kick-a$$ rock sides waxed, is instructive as well.

In any case, glad you enjoyed the recs.

Read that G Martin and his son are doing some Beatle songs in surround next month in London to be released and Apple gave them the ok.

[Bernd]

Bernd, I know that this isn't what you had in mind when you started this thread but, thanks for being the catalyst that introduced me to this band in a whole new way. If it makes you feel any better...I'll never like the song Hey Jude. ;)

FA, That's how a thread should go I believe. Let it develop. And if on the strengths of the posts you are left with a positive musical addition, that's great.
I bought "Let it be.....Naked" ,on my wifes request, on Saturday and shall give it a spin tonight.

Peace

Bernd:16:

[ForeverAutumn]

FA--if you liked 'em enough to venture further, I'd offer a strong recommendation for the White Album...but knowing you are at least somewhat a fan of prog, Abbey Road is probably something that would appeal to you as well.

There's a very strong change that I'll end up with both of those CDs at some point in the not-so-far future. I'm very interested in exploring the rest of this catalogue now. I had Let It Be and Abbey Road in my hand on Saturday as well, but ended up putting them back on the shelf in favour of some more recent releases that appealed to me. The wallet could only be stretched so far this week.


I am glad to read this post, because it helps me to think that I'm not just blowing smoke to those who are either anti-Beatles, or indifferent at best. There are things going on there I feel are worth sharing, but the steady bombardment of the hits, the Muzak supermarket cheeze, and the various annoyances such as Octopus' Garden, et al, can be a difficult scale to climb.

The supermarket bombardment and cheesey songs were definately what kept me from exploring the Beatles in the past. My attitude was always that I had heard everything that warranted being heard so many times that if I heard Strawberry Fields one more time I was gonna pummel the kid in the produce section with every strawberry that the store had. Turns out that I was wrong. So keep blowing your smoke at people. Although not everyone will be as open minded as I am.

[ForeverAutumn]

FA, That's how a thread should go I believe. Let it develop. And if on the strengths of the posts you are left with a positive musical addition, that's great.
I bought "Let it be.....Naked" ,on my wifes request, on Saturday and shall give it a spin tonight.

Peace

Bernd:16:

The kid in the record store recommended Let It Be...Naked to me. But I want to pick up the original version first.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Naked is a better record all around, but it might only sound better since we heard the other version of it for more than 30 years. It's the weakest Beatles album, I'd say, perhaps outside of Magical Mystery Tour, which isn't really an album, but 6 songs that were issued on 2 EPs in Britain, and fleshed out to a full album in the States with singles & B-sides. If you did the Pepper-era psychedelic stuff, then it's for you in spite of this; I Am The Walrus is the standout as far as the material that was actually produced for it.

When the Beatles did Let It Be, it was McCartney's idea to get the band back where he felt it should've been after the White Album, where there was little in the way of collaboration in the creative process & three members of the band generally supported the fourth on whatever song the session revolved around. I'm not sure why in the progression of the band that should've been viewed as a bad idea, as it's pretty easy to tell, since Revolver two years before that, how they were growing in different directions as songwriters. The idea was to film the Beatles making an album. The results were subpar, and the band didn't take well to filming schedules & a bastardization of the recording process for the sake of cameras. They were left with miles of crappy tape, but managed to fire off a rooftop concert at their London headquarters that ran for a few songs until they were shut down by police who'd been called by local businesspeople whose work was allegedly being interrupted. This was in the middle of winter, outdoors, so one wonders how they kept their hands in shape to play properly; cold weather isn't conducive to being able to apply proper pressure to a fretboard. In any case, it's a great concert, albeit brief. But overall the tapes kinda sucked, and they sat there for months while unpleasant business details were being dealt with. The band was well on their way to breaking up, but they agreed to make one last album, which for George Martin would only happen if they could return to their previous modus operandi. They did, and Abbey Road was the result. Let It Be, recorded in January 1969, saw Abbey Road recorded & released later that year before Phil Spector was brought in to salvage the project, which ended up coming out in the spring of 1970.

John Lennon wanted the tapes released as they were, to make the point that the Beatles was no longer any fun, nor was it a situation that was going to produce much in the way of great music. If there's a 'Naked' version of that record, it's the raw tapes. McCartney hated what the revered Spector did to the tapes, especially the strings on The Long And Winding Road, which changed the nature of that song significantly. Lennon thought he did a decent job with what he'd been given to work with. It doesn't sound all that bad, though if you do hear a boot, the difference is rather odd. Let It Be...Naked is McCartney's vision of the album, which to my ears is superior to what Spector presented them with, but even so, it's still one of the last I'd bother with. Unless you're just not interested in the earlier rock and roll stuff from Please Please Me and With The Beatles...but at the very least I'd recommend the White Album first, and also Revolver, before any version of Let It Be. That said, what was once a very, very iffy record is at least worthy of the Beatles name at this point.

[BradH]

If it makes you feel any better...I'll never like the song Hey Jude. ;)

Same here. I don't know why but it's always been a blind spot for me.

Let It Be is a disaster, imo. I've also got the unreleased original Glyn Johns mix when the album was going to be called Get Back. It sounds better than the Lennon/Klein/Specter Axis of Suction version but it's just a weak project overall. It's got a couple of great spots but it should've been an ep or something. I haven't heard Naked but I didn't like it with its clothes on. It just makes the follow up Abbey Road all that more brilliant.

Of course, some other Beatles fans differ and YMMV.

[Bernd]

Well I had a good listen to "Let it be....Naked" last night and enjoyed it. For once it didn't sound like it was recorded in some tincan with a two track. As we also have the original "Let it be" we compared the two and I prefer the Naked version. Stood up well I thought, and will get an outing again I am sure.
But then Susan had to spoil it and we had to go overkill and just must listen to this one and this one. I just can't get to grips with the earlier stuff.

And yes "Hey Jude" is some foul song. But the songs that iritate me the most is stuff like "Back in the USSR",etc.
It was fun never the less.
Peace

Bernd:16:

[ForeverAutumn]

So, it sounds like I should skip the original Let It Be and just go straight for the naked version.

[nobody]

Always go straight for the naked version.

[ForeverAutumn]

Spoken like a real man. :ihih:

[Dusty Chalk]

So, it sounds like I should skip the original Let It Be and just go straight for the naked version.Well -- I'll be the lone voice of dissent...YET AGAIN. I prefer Let It Be clothed. George Martin was a genius.

[GMichael]

Well -- I'll be the lone voice of dissent...YET AGAIN. I prefer Let It Be clothed. George Martin was a genius.

What do you have against naked?

[Dusty Chalk]

The same thing I have against Blade Runner, Director's Cut -- there's just something not right about it.

[shokhead]

I just dont like the album either way.

[Resident Loser]

...the original album was mixed with all the participants present, therefore it should be considered in toto...You can strip it down after the fact, slice it, dice it or turn it into background audio for Cirque du Soleil (BTW GM and son are doing just that), but IMHO the original intent (flawed or otherwise) is the one that should be judged...

jimHJJ(...and FA, get Revolver...)

[3-LockBox]

Well -- I'll be the lone voice of dissent...YET AGAIN. I prefer Let It Be clothed. George Martin was a genius.

But George Martin's original production was trampled by Phil Spector, thus the reason for the reissue. George Martin was fired and replaced by Spector before the release and Spector was the one who put in all the orchestral flourishes, after most of the tracks had already been finished.

Let It Be - Naked was supposed to be the most representative of Martin's production, although, when I compared some of the songs from Naked to my Past Masters CD, I think the definative versions of a lot of those songs are on the Past Masters CD, such as Don't Bring Me Down and Across the Universe.

George Martin himself said, "I produced 'Let It Be', and Phil Spector over-produced it".

In fact, I'm going to listen to Naked right now...and revell in its understated glory.

[BradH]

...the original album was mixed with all the participants present, therefore it should be considered in toto...You can strip it down after the fact, slice it, dice it or turn it into background audio for Cirque du Soleil (BTW GM and son are doing just that), but IMHO the original intent (flawed or otherwise) is the one that should be judged...

jimHJJ(...and FA, get Revolver...)

I think there's some confusion about this record.

The original intent was never released. That's the Glyn Johns mix I have that was done for George Martin. When McCartney, Harrison & Starr heard it they thought the album sucked so bad they didn't want it released. So it was shelved. Then they did Abbey Road almost immediately. After that, Lennon convinced Harrison & Starr to let Specter screw up Let It Be even more. That was done without the knowledge of McCartney and almost surely with little input from Harrison & Starr. So, the record you're talking about, the first release of the album, was not mixed down with all the participants presents nor was it given the unanimous thumbs up that was given to all previous Beatles releases.

It's a failed, posthumously released project in every way. I used to think of it in terms of what Douglas did to Hendrix on Midnight Lightning and Crash Landing but that's probably an exaggeration.

I still like "I've Got A Feeling".

[Dusty Chalk]

Okay, then Phil Spector was the genius.

[GMichael]

I just like the sound of the word naked. :ihih:

[BradH]

I just like the sound of the word naked. :ihih:

I like "nekkid" better.

[GMichael]

I like "nekkid" better.

Where do I put my dollar?

[BradH]

Where do I put my dollar?

Dollar, you say? DOLLAR??

Save it for the change maker at the car wash.

[GMichael]

Dollar, you say? DOLLAR??

Save it for the change maker at the car wash.

Did you think it would be a 50? Turn around. I'll give you the quarters.

[BradH]

Okay, then Phil Spector was the genius.

It was basically a way for Lennon to screw over McCartney and try to get him to push back the release of McCartney. Real stupid divorce stuff.

[BradH]

Did you think it would be a 50? Turn around. I'll give you the quarters.

Sorry, they gotta be wrapped.

[GMichael]

Sorry, they gotta be wrapped.

One roll, coming up.

[BradH]

One roll, coming up.

Yes, that would explain the "bear" avatar.

[MindGoneHaywire]

I think the definative versions of a lot of those songs are on the Past Masters CD, such as Don't Bring Me Down and Across the Universe.



Don't Bring Me Down was a B-side, and seems to work more as that than as an album track on the album for some reason. Across The Universe was originally done for the World Wildlife Foundation or something like that & the original version of it is way different. It's on the British version of the Rarities LP. There are sounds of birds & backup vocals that weren't on the LP version. Don't know if that's the one on Past Masters, but it's an entirely different recording.

[GMichael]

Yes, that would explain the "bear" avatar.

Yes, that's the reason. But a trip to the off topic section may bring even more light to that. Look for the close encounters thread.

[BradH]

Yes, that's the reason. But a trip to the off topic section may bring even more light to that. Look for the close encounters thread.

Nah, I don't have extra time for your bullsh!t.

[GMichael]

Nah, I don't have extra time for your bullsh!t.


Ouch man. Feelings here ya know.

[3-LockBox]

Don't Bring Me Down was a B-side, and seems to work more as that than as an album track on the album for some reason. Across The Universe was originally done for the World Wildlife Foundation or something like that & the original version of it is way different. It's on the British version of the Rarities LP. There are sounds of birds & backup vocals that weren't on the LP version. Don't know if that's the one on Past Masters, but it's an entirely different recording.

Yeah, the wildlife thing is the one on the Past Masters CD, as is the better version of Don't Bring Me Down, which has a way better mixdown of Billy Preston's sumptuous organ (keyboards that is).

[3-LockBox]

I like "nekkid" better.

Yes, me too...'naked' is just a state of being disrobed, but 'nekkid' means the same while implying intent...its just naughtier :ihih:

[musicman1999]

the beatles get a strong yes from me,i have always been a fan,but i am in my late forties so i grew up listening to them.They have been a great influence on pop and rock music ever since.A fact i was not aware of until recently is that they produced only about 10 hours of recorded music.I have about 10 cd's and enjoy them all,White Album is my favorite however.
We can only wonder what they would have produced had they lasted another 8-10 years,alas we will never know.

bill