Beatles-Yes or No

[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.

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

[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

[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.