PDA

View Full Version : What's the deal with the Beatles?


Scabrous Birdseed
10-07-2004, 19:55:45
They're ghastly.

All their songs seem to be about chirpy raccoons and monkeys and colourful fucking submarines.

What am I missing?

*End Is Forever*
10-07-2004, 20:51:53
...a music taste?

Stefu X
10-07-2004, 21:45:35
Snapcase doesn't need a taste in music! He has opinions that are both d33p and 3dgy!

Foetus
10-07-2004, 22:20:55
I'm with the Scabby one. They have a handful of wonderful songs and an awful lot of dross. All of which does not warrant their deification IMO.

Provost Harrison
11-07-2004, 00:45:33
The LSD...that is why they sung sounds about chirpy raccoons and monkeys and colourful fucking submarines.

protein
11-07-2004, 01:13:39
Have you ever taken LSD?

Actually, I always liked the Beatles, even before I took LSD. I don't really like the early rock and roll stuff, I prefer the contemporary stuff. I think the lyrics tickle the more bizarre creative part of my brain - even though I'm not really a lyric person - and musically they kind of set all the standards of modern music. It may sound like you've heard it all before but that's because everyone now has either directly or indirectly been influenced by them.

Having said that, I'm not one of these people who thinks you should listen to influential people out of some sort of moral obligation. I'm sure some of the bands/artists I like now were influenced by the Rolling Stones or Elvis Presley or Lou Reed - but I can't stand listening to any of them for more than a couple of minutes.

BTW I agree about the fucking raccoon and submarine songs, they are shite.

Tracks to listen to:
Day Tripper, Strawberry Fields, Dear Prudence, Come Together, Here Comes the Sun, I am the Walrus, I'm So Tired, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Magical Mystery Tour, Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (the whole damn album except When I'm Sixty Four), Taxman, The Fool on the Hill etc etc

Tracks to avoid:
Can't Buy Me Love, Hippy Hippy Shake, Johnny B Goode, Love Me Do, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Rocky Raccoon, Twist and Shout etc etc

Vincent
11-07-2004, 06:23:29
The curses of the beatles are:
1. McCartney trying to be an old fashioned vaudeville or kitsch composer
2. Lennon trying to be incredible funny, artsy or sarcastic
3. Not having the blues
4. Being played all day long over 40 years

I don't like Sgt- Pepper because it's TOO clever and has too many gimmicks etc.

I like Let it Be, because the songs are fragments and it's not as overproduced as most of the other stuff. They didn't like the word and had a hostile attitude towards the project (and each other), but it makes the songs on the album almost human.

"Let it be - naked" is the new released raw version, I recommend that one. They removed the terrible strings and choirs from "The long and winding road" for example, and it's a nice jazzy track now

Vincent
11-07-2004, 06:39:56
And above that a good instrumentalist like Billy Preston sure helped

Lazarus and the Gimp
11-07-2004, 07:15:18
I think the acid thing was a myth. Raccoons and monkeys? Where's the songs about huge planet-sized butterfies which turn out on close inspection to be made of millions of naked women tossing their hair around in slow motion. Or looking in the mirror and seeing your face melt?

BigGameHunter
11-07-2004, 07:33:38
Hey, my first acid trip included two "friends" who donned a monkey mask and a vampire mask and chased me around with butcher knives...you can bet your ass there's monkeys in an acid trip.
Never did see that butterfly thing though...sounds like some good acid!

*edit...horrendous spelling errors...I swear I'm starting to add letters due to the Euro influence here...very distressing.

Vincent
11-07-2004, 07:35:29
I don't think it's an LSD question. The problem seems to be you can recycle a lot of Beatles songs straight into the Sesame Street songs without changing a single word (and it has been done). A lot of songs are NOT sexy, subtle, personal, moving. Just "oh well".
That's why I dislike the white album. Fake blues, fake folk, fake country, fake reggae, fake experiments. You never get the feeling of ambitioned or personally involved musicians. It sounds just a bunch of sarcastic rich snobs, "hey, we can do ANYTHING we want and we will". I think Harrison was a little different, at least he tried.

PosterBoy
20-07-2004, 07:21:03
I think McFly* are influenced by The Beatles with their overly catchy twee pop.






*or whoever actually writes their shit songs, but is too embarassed to own up so agrees to get paid 50% of the royalties instead of 100%.

Debaser
20-07-2004, 09:48:57
I think two of McFly's tunes are alright.

*hangs head in shame*

Funkodrom
20-07-2004, 10:28:24
I thought one was pretty catchy but I've only heard 2 of their songs.

Chris
20-07-2004, 12:11:07
Not a big fan of the White album, but I always loved Sgt pepper's.

I also liked a lot of the cute little songs they started with, mainly because they are so different from what everyone else was doing back then,

Gramercy Riffs
20-07-2004, 12:18:46
Their "pot phase" was the most productive IMO.

Rubber Soul has some great early pyschedelic tracks like I'm Looking Through You and If You Wont See Me.

As for Revolver, well, its all already been said.

Funkodrom
20-07-2004, 12:22:09
Revolver's my favourite Beatles album.

Chris
20-07-2004, 12:22:28
I should also mention I liked Abby Road also.

Provost Harrison
21-07-2004, 16:26:28
I've never heard anything by McFly, and I have not been overly upset about this fact :lol:

The Beatles...hmmm...you'll probably call me an iconoclast but I always thought the Rolling Stones were better. My mother thought the same. But that is just my opinion.

Funkodrom
21-07-2004, 16:30:52
You'd like McFly, it's like all that punk stuff you like.

Chris
22-07-2004, 11:04:29
Everybody liked McFly in back to the future.

Funkodrom
22-07-2004, 11:13:29
Calvin Klein you mean. ;)

Provost Harrison
22-07-2004, 15:44:56
Originally posted by Funkodrom
You'd like McFly, it's like all that punk stuff you like.

Are they like Busted? :hmm:

Funkodrom
22-07-2004, 15:49:13
It's hard to tell the difference.

Provost Harrison
22-07-2004, 15:55:06
Iain'll love 'em then :D

*End Is Forever*
22-07-2004, 16:19:04
Their single about the girl with stupid dyed hair is catchy guitar-pop. I've heard a couple of other songs and they're cringeworthy.

Provost Harrison
22-07-2004, 18:36:12
See, I told you!

RedFred
22-07-2004, 22:09:54
The deal with the Beatles is that they were hugely popular and influential in their day.

Just like Jim Morrison, Jimi, Janice & Elvis the whole dying before your time, particularly in the violent way that Lennon did, adds to their fame. Just like Led Zep, splitting up before they were old and tired probably helped their appeal as well.

But it has been years since I felt like playing any of their albums.

The Mad Monk
27-07-2004, 06:30:14
Abbey Road is my all time favorite Beatles' album. I have it in my truck, and with a lot of the songs I won't get out until until it's done.

Scabrous Birdseed
27-07-2004, 07:24:36
Of course they were popular and influential. Is that a reason by itself to like their music?

The Mad Monk
27-07-2004, 07:40:17
No, I like their music because I think it's good.

The Mad Monk
04-08-2004, 08:54:15
It seems to me that the Beatles were very tight and polished in their recordings, especially compared to other groups of the day; every part was dead on where it was supposed to be, and there was very little in the way of improvision. Unlike, say, the Rolling Stones, who were/are much freer in their style of play.

Vincent
08-08-2004, 05:52:14
The first prog rock band?

jsorense
08-08-2004, 16:59:15
I no long am able to listen to a Beatles, or Wings, song through. When one starts on a "classic rock" station I immediately switch the channel.:rolleyes:

*End Is Forever*
08-08-2004, 17:14:38
Serves you right for listening to a "classic rock" station.

Vincent
09-08-2004, 08:35:44
But he only wanted to listen to "Stairway to Heaven" and Jon Miles' "Music" ...

Scabrous Birdseed
09-08-2004, 08:40:32
I want to listen to Whitesnake. :(

jsorense
09-08-2004, 21:14:48
Originally posted by Vincent
But he only wanted to listen to "Stairway to Heaven" and Jon Miles' "Music" ... Close, you got it half right.:coolgrin:

Resource Consumer
09-08-2004, 22:19:48
That song "Music" is like listening to someone wanking and to convey that image on a crummy old car radio is some talent.

Angelhorns
20-08-2004, 23:05:15
I went through a massive Beatles/60's phase when I was 16, when compared to grunge they seemed amazing and refreshingly melodic (not hard). While I still love some of their songs (In My Life, Twist and Shout, Day in the Life, Come Together, Let it Be, Hey Jude, Drive my Car, Get Back, Here Comes the Sun, I've Just seen a face, She's a Woman, etc etc) I find it almost impossible to listen to their earlier 'love me do' stuff, their LSD stuff, and what the fucking hell is Octopus' Garden all about????! My Fave album now is Abbey Road, which is more reflective and grown up than their early or mid-phase stuff, and I think more listenable to a modern ear.
I think the reason they are so revered today is that a) They experimented with sounds and effects and uses of instruments that had never been heard before and so were revolutionary in their time, b) they used the art form of songs in a way that hadn't been done before- exploring other cultures, popular culture, counter culture, splicing songs to each other, producing 'concept albums', twisting the genre of pop into something much more multifaceted than the twee boy band they originated from and taking it back to its more soulful rock roots, representing an evolution over time and c) they've just been around so bloody long everyone has a memory or a moment thats been enhanced by a Beatles recording and most of our parents grew up with them in a time when pop culture wasn't as factionalised as it is now.

Personally I think the Stones stuff still sounds fresh and exciting and listenable today- Sympathy for the Devil wipes the floor with anything thats been in the charts for the last ten years, but the reason the Beatles stuff now sounds dated in comparison IMHO is that it was so experimental and ground breaking in its time and has been much imitated since, whereas the Stones were never that original. Listening to the Beatles is like looking back at the map to see where you've been, whereas most music is just a pretty postcard.

I think like Marilyn Monroe and Elvis, The Beatles are somehow more than the sum of their parts

BTW Protein, Twist & Shout is one of THE great rock recordings you philistine!!

*End Is Forever*
21-08-2004, 10:30:07
I think the Stones sound dated.

People forget how influential the Beatles were. They were the first to do a whole host of things that musicians today take for granted. The first band to fade a song in. The first band to fade a song out. The first band to use artificial double-tracking (the term "flanging" is itself a Lennonism). They managed hideously complex recordings on four-track tapes. The list goes on and on...

If it wasn't for the Beatles, there were never have been a Stones, certainly not as we know them.

*End Is Forever*
21-08-2004, 10:32:29
If you can get hold of a copy of this book (http://www.mcbeatle.de/beatles/books/recording_sessions.html), read it and be amazed...

Angelhorns
21-08-2004, 19:37:10
yes the STones were a reaction to the Beatles, but I still think their stuff has held up better on the whole than the Beatles.

*End Is Forever*
21-08-2004, 20:00:51
Fair enough. That's a matter of opinion. :)

What I don't like are the people that try to airbrush what the Beatles actually did for music out. I don't care if people don't like the music...

Angelhorns
21-08-2004, 23:38:16
on that level, I think the only comparable talents are Elvis, Bowie, and the Sex Pistols (I'm reserving judgement on Nirvana for a few years). In pop/chart terms at least.

again, probably a matter of opinion :)

*End Is Forever*
22-08-2004, 10:01:10
Nirvana are one of my pet hates. Ridiculously overrated, it's three-chord thrash but without the melody or decipherable vocals. I respect their influence, but despise the kiddies in "RIP Kurt" hoodies who were barely fucking born when he died.

Debaser
22-08-2004, 10:41:43
Originally posted by Angelhorns
yes the STones were a reaction to the Beatles, but I still think their stuff has held up better on the whole than the Beatles.

No they weren't, they were just another American influenced RnB group. They weren't special or unique in any way. They just happened to be better dressed or better looking or be in the right place at the right time. There are probably a hundred bands from that era with songs as good as the Stones (sure they have a handful of real classics, but they've never written a really amazing album, and don't give me any of this shit about Exile on Main St or whatever, I've got all those albums and they're good, but in the way GP by Gram Parsons is good, or
Disrali Gears by Creem is good, ie: a good collection of songs, but nothing to indicate that the sum is greater than it's parts. They've never come close to writing a Sergant Pepper or a Pet Sounds). I'm not saying they're bad, but if they'd stopped in the 70's they wouldn't be regarded as highly as the Who or the Faces or the Kinks. They owe their massive popularity to their rivalry with the Beatles, end of story.

Scabrous Birdseed
22-08-2004, 11:20:35
Bollocks.

Angelhorns
22-08-2004, 11:49:24
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Nirvana are one of my pet hates. Ridiculously overrated, it's three-chord thrash but without the melody or decipherable vocals. I respect their influence, but despise the kiddies in "RIP Kurt" hoodies who were barely fucking born when he died.

I agree totally, I'm just thinking in terms of influence. I can barely make it through one song of theirs.

Angelhorns
22-08-2004, 11:58:37
Originally posted by Debaser
No they weren't, they were just another American influenced RnB group. They weren't special or unique in any way. They just happened to be better dressed or better looking or be in the right place at the right time. There are probably a hundred bands from that era with songs as good as the Stones (sure they have a handful of real classics, but they've never written a really amazing album, and don't give me any of this shit about Exile on Main St or whatever, I've got all those albums and they're good, but in the way GP by Gram Parsons is good, or
Disrali Gears by Creem is good, ie: a good collection of songs, but nothing to indicate that the sum is greater than it's parts. They've never come close to writing a Sergant Pepper or a Pet Sounds). I'm not saying they're bad, but if they'd stopped in the 70's they wouldn't be regarded as highly as the Who or the Faces or the Kinks. They owe their massive popularity to their rivalry with the Beatles, end of story.

Someone get out of bed the wrong side today???

I disagree: I think the Stones have some wicked songs/albums which aren't as original as the Beatles, but they sound better today. I think its the Beatles originality which dates them so badly. There's very few of their songs which don't scream '60's!!' in what now seems a horribly twee way. The Stones songs are more timeless to my mind, perhaps because they lacked all that gimmickry. If you look at long term influence too, I bet more modern musicians would now give more influential credit to The STones, Hendrix (ahhh, Hendrix...) and other rock bands of the 60's/70's than the Beatles (except Oasis of course). I think most people respect the Beatles now but dont really want to sound like them, despite their undeniable early influence on pop.
And the Rolling STones were very much a reaction to the tweeness of the Beatles, and marketed as such. It was the proto-Wham/Duran Duran conflict !!!

Debaser
22-08-2004, 12:34:10
Originally posted by Angelhorns
And the Rolling STones were very much a reaction to the tweeness of the Beatles, and marketed as such. [/B]

Yes, I totally agree that their popularity was/is lifestyle driven rather than music driven.

Originally posted by Angelhorns
If you look at long term influence too, I bet more modern musicians would now give more influential credit to The Stones... [/B]

Their haircuts and attitute maybe, but not their music, purely because there is absolutelty nothing about it that is uniquely theirs. They were just another band, playing above average tunes in a very conventional way.

I'm not saying they are bad, I've got loads of their albums and like them a lot, but they are always going to lose out when compared to the Beatles because the Beatles defined an era and the Stones just played some songs.

Angelhorns
22-08-2004, 23:30:32
I'm not sure that defining an era means that your music stands up 40 years later though. I think you underrate the STones too, I wouldnt say they just another band, they were the pinnacle of the rock thing, as opposed to pop.

Funkodrom
23-08-2004, 09:58:53
I agree with Debaser.

Angelhorns
23-08-2004, 18:24:05
then you're both wrong :D

Provost Harrison
24-08-2004, 21:14:09
Despite me being the right age to have got into Nirvana, I never really did get them...never saw the appeal. I would probably be more open to them now than in my earlier years but they just never really grabbed me.

Angelhorns
24-08-2004, 23:28:40
I liked a few of their songs but I always thought it was just noise. Its not pleasant to listen to. I'd prefer a bit of Ella Fitzgerald or even Busted come to that.

zmama
24-08-2004, 23:33:29
Despite me being the wrong age to have got into Nirvana, I really did get them...saw the appeal.
It was noise but it was noise with great passion.

Funkodrom
25-08-2004, 08:49:21
Yes. There's amazing amounts of raw emotion in their music. Guess that's why they are still getting popular with new kids all the time.

Nills Lagerbaak
25-08-2004, 09:21:33
That's it, I could never quite put down why I didn't like Nirvana, but now I know why - it's just noise. (This coming from someone who likes sepultura and carcass)
But with Nirvana I never saw the appeal at all, mindless chords blending into each other with maybe the odd quiet bit, nothing to capture the imagination or spark off any cool mental images. Couldn't stand all Kurts catawalling either

Ho ho, I never knew about this....
http://www.justiceforkurt.com/

Funkodrom
25-08-2004, 09:22:49
I thought everyone liked Nirvana. Bunch of weirdos.

*End Is Forever*
25-08-2004, 12:40:54
They make Blink-182 sound like consumate professional live musicians.

Angelhorns
25-08-2004, 22:55:11
I think Nirvana had some inspired moments but when you listen to their stuff overall its just so harsh on the ears, and Kurt is only marginally less horrible to listen to than Thom Yorke. I get what they were doing and I like that they deconstructed rock as a concept, I just can't listen to it!! I'm not a big fan of guitar based music tho really, my niche is jazz and lounge which is probably the polar opposite of Nirvana.