Beatles-Yes or No

[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.

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.

[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

[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

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.