What was so different about the beatles?

workaccount

Just listening to them the last few days. Hey Jude is very good. What was so different about them though?

Is it the way Hey Jude completely changes direction in the middle or what?

Can somebody give me a good example of an older piece of music that really shows how the beatles made a quantum leap?

Cheers.

mike65

The Beatles were different cos they got there first, to be honest.

Pretty much invented the album as we know it, introduced new concepts regarding studio trickery to achive a "substantial" new sound (as opposed to those who played about in bathrooms to get a novelty echo).

Its only possible to really appreciate the difference they (and George Martin) made by listening to typical pop music from before they hit thier creative peak 1965-68 and after it.

Mike.

grumpytrousers

workaccount wrote: »

Can somebody give me a good example of an older piece of music that really shows how the beatles made a quantum leap?

a) Listen to Love Me Do from 1962
b) Listen to Tomorrow Never Knows/Love You To/Eleanor Rigby

Consider that there was only 4 years between the recording of the two.

Consider today that it takes *most* bands that length of time to do the demos for the third album which will *probably* be a retread of the first two.

Factor in that The Beatles toured almost incessantly for 3 of those 4 years as well as managing to make two motion pictures, pick up MBE's, invent Beatlemania and get run out of the Phillipines for cheesing off Imelda Marcos.

egan007

It's the same difference that youtube made to the internet.
IT was just different at a time when people craved difference.
Analysing it with todays 1billion genres of music is harder than it was.

markesmith

+1 for grumpytrousers' post there. I've always thought that, to go from 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' to 'Tomorrow Never Knows' is some jump for 3-4 years.

There was a doc on influential bands recently, and some guy said that the Beatles influenced all guitar music, while Kraftwerk influenced everything else (this is in a Western context). That's pretty much spot on.

'Hey Jude' isn't really representative of the Beatles, you need to listen to a whole album. Try 'Revolver' - great mix of Lennon & McCartney tunes (at this stage they were writing on their own) with some great Harrison stuff in there. Highlights: 'For No-One', 'I'm Only Sleeping', 'Eleanor Rigby' (listen with fresh ears), 'And Your Bird Can Sing', 'Got To Get You Into My Life'...ah hell, the whole album's class. One of the best albums ever, if you believe the critics.

In short, The Beatles wrote the rule-book.

rowlandbrowner

The actual size of The Beatles importance tends to get stretched, they usually get incorrectly credited with musical innovations they didn’t come up with, people will tell you things like they where the first band to use audio feedback, this is untrue, The Monks did it before them.

markesmith

True, true. Think the Who and the Kinks were also there before them with the feedback.

But the Beatles done their stuff in such a way that has pretty much stood the test of time. Now 'Ob-la-di...' and 'Revolution #9', 'Run for your Life' and almost all of Sgt Pepper are very dated today, but still...look for example at the rateyourmusic top albums of all time chart. They've got four albums in the top 20, including the #1 and #2 spot.

Anyone who loves their music has to give the Beatles a serious go. Their songwriting is top-quality, and they innovated in a way that no band has done since...with the possible exception of Kraftwerk.

That's my €0.02! :cool:

Stompbox

In my opinion, it was their ability to transcend genre to the point where it was impossible to categorise their music. How would you categorise 'Happiness Is A Warm Gun'?! Also the chord changes they used were unheard of at that time.

mehfesto2

I agree with most of whats been said here, so far.
They went from Love Me Do to Helter Skelter in about four years. That's like Westlife turning into Muse in as much time, by today's standards! :pac:

The fact that they are accredited with invented things they didn't isn't really important. They didn't invent Heavy Metal nor introduce the world to Indian music in pop. But they did popularise it. They played a lead role in the expansion of popular music to outside it's comfort zone in the mid sixties. When you look at programmes about the 1960's and 'hippies', you get a lot of sitar and beards. Mostly, you could argue, down to the presence of the Beatles' involvement in both toying wih Indian music... and facial hair...:p

They were made of substance too. Where Elvis was all glitz, hip shakin' and sex, the beatles played their own instruments, wrote all their own songs and introduced a wider audience to whole new, niche, ideologies; eg. I am the Walrus hinted at One spiritual being. A concept greatly foreign to the British public at this time. They could have easily rode the gravy boat and produce pish, but they stretched the idea of what was expected of musicians then.

They have so many songs that people know. Watching Paul McCartney live the other night in Liverpool, it's not hard to wonder how many bands would love to have at least one beatles song. They work on so many levels and are contained in so many genres. I have still to meet a person who doesn't like at least one beatles song.

There is VERY few bands that are not indirectly affected by the beatles these days. ..Sure when they auditioned for a label, weren't they told "Guitar bands have had their time"...

Went on a bit there. Aplologies!

Nolanger

They made some good movies.

Latchy

Listen to early songs like ' i'll get you ,i saw her standing there ,not a second time ,there's a place ,i'll be back -onto - ' good day sunshine ,for no one ,i'm only sleeping ,dr robert , such crisp pop tunes chord tunes, and lyrics and then onto later stuff like ,girl, nowere man ,norweigian wood ,penny lane ,hello goodbye ,mean mr mustard ,polythene pam ,give me your money ,the end, here comes the sun ,get back .

The diversity of their stuff is magical and some people like me have a hard time picking favorites cuz there are so many to choose from .If lennon had not met Mc cartney when he did, there is no doubt they would have surficed in some other bands ,two very talented individuals yet also so different in there musical writing, that they perfetly comlimented each other . You have to somtimes think it was in the master plan that they were ment to meet up with each other when they did , like laural meeting hardy

They were the yardstick for many many bands to come in later years

Nolanger wrote: »

They made some good movies.

John lennon is quoted as saying the beatlemaina scenes in hards days night (were they were chased and mobbed) were actually what happened in Dublin 63

Help was what the monkess tv series was based on .Four lads fooling and goofing around inbetween there music .

JerryHandbag

Listen to the White Album, unbelievable for its time in terms of the eclectic mix of genres....Ob-La-Di practically invented reggae, Happiness Is A Warm Gun is about 4 songs mixed together into a few minutes.....and wasn't it Helter Skelter that convinced Charles Manson to be a very bad man

JimiTime

workaccount wrote: »

What was so different about the beatles?

They wrote great songs consistantly for 12 albums (not counting yellow submarine, though 'hey bulldog' deserves a mention). Innovation aside, the quality of the songs were amazing. Rather than self indulgence, or stuff only certain ears would 'get', they were always loyal to the most important thing 'A great song'. No other band 'ever' has performed so consistantly IMO.

ZakAttak

I quite like the beatles but think this is worth mentioning:

The Beatles were white men playing music which they copied from black artists. This meant it was easier for fat ignorant Americans to listen to them without feeling misgivings about their skin colour. If you think this ignorance doesn't exist anymore you need only look at this comment which someone left on this thread:

JerryHandbag wrote: »

Listen to the White Album, unbelievable for its time in terms of the eclectic mix of genres....Ob-La-Di practically invented reggae,

Indeed, silly old me thinking it was the unique culture of the carribean coupled with their turbulent history which brought about the great sound of reggae- of course it was 4 white scousers that did it. Ob-la-di was an awful song, it was an embarrasment- I think even they might have felt this later on, especially when considering the fact that they never attempted anything else like this again.

Lennon was a great lyrics writer, he may have been full of sh1t but he knew how to make it sound good.

McCartney's solo career demonstrates how completely talentless he actually was.

grumpytrousers

ZakAttak wrote: »

McCartney's solo career demonstrates how completely talentless he actually was.

Agree totally with you on the Reggae comment, but jesus, you let yourself down *completely* with the mindless inanity exhibited here.

Yes, you're entitled to your opinion and that's all fine, but a sweeping generalisation like that? Take a listen to

Here There and Everywhere
Side two of Abbey Road
Drive My Car
Helter Skelter
Penny Lane
Middle bit of Day in the Life
The Sgt Pepper concept
I Saw her Standing There

and re-think your position. It's quite simply lazy clichéd drivel to say 'oh paul was talentless...' and then (presumably get ready to) mention something about Frog Chorus' or Mull of Kintyre.

Sure, McCartney always had one eye on what he reckoned milkmen should be whistling as they went about their daily jobs, but here's the thing...

THAT'S THE JOB OF POP MUSICIANS...

JerryHandbag

ZakAttak wrote: »

I quite like the beatles but think this is worth mentioning:

The Beatles were white men playing music which they copied from black artists. This meant it was easier for fat ignorant Americans to listen to them without feeling misgivings about their skin colour. If you think this ignorance doesn't exist anymore you need only look at this comment which someone left on this thread:

JerryHandbag wrote: »

Listen to the White Album, unbelievable for its time in terms of the eclectic mix of genres....Ob-La-Di practically invented reggae,

Indeed, silly old me thinking it was the unique culture of the carribean coupled with their turbulent history which brought about the great sound of reggae- of course it was 4 white scousers that did it. Ob-la-di was an awful song, it was an embarrasment- I think even they might have felt this later on, especially when considering the fact that they never attempted anything else like this again.

Lennon was a great lyrics writer, he may have been full of sh1t but he knew how to make it sound good.

McCartney's solo career demonstrates how completely talentless he actually was.

Ok so my choice of words was wrong, but i did use the word "practically", I think I know enough about music to know that "4 White Scousers" didnt invent reggae...what i meant was they were having a stab at something that no other band at the time was trying....never thought a few simple words would provoke a comment about skin colour in america.

Music4life

4 pop musicians from liverpool mixed with george martins classical backround

ZakAttak

Sure, McCartney always had one eye on what he reckoned milkmen should be whistling as they went about their daily jobs, but here's the thing...

THAT'S THE JOB OF POP MUSICIANS...[/quote]

All those songs you mentioned- they were all written with Lennon, I don't think McCartney had anything going for him unless he had Lennon by his side to advise him.

Whats all this stuff about what pop musicians should and shouldn't be doing- I never said anything about that. Milkmen can whistle good songs as well- there are good pop songs out there, but McCartney never wrote any of them on his own.

I don't think any of the Beatles had any high level of individual skill (Lennon as a lyricist maybe)- it was only when they were together that they could produce good music.

Why did you list loads of songs? Do you think I haven't heard their music, cos I've got tonnes of their stuff- I just happen to think that they weren't the best thing since sliced pan.

grumpytrousers

And i'm not saying they're the best thing since sliced pan *either*. I am, however, attacking your rather puerile and deluded point that McCartney was, and i quote you "completely talentless". Only the most cloth-eared of dullards would steadfastly maintain such a patently ludicrous position.

Lennon and McCartney had stopped writing songs together by around 1965. An idea or a line or two was as much as was swopped between them, but for the most part, John and Paul came into studio with 95% of a song 'down'.

My point about milkmen, and possibly rather clumsily made, was that McCartney was, and is, an unabashed writer of popular, singalong tunes that are almost instantly hummable. Frank Zappa wasn't suffering many sleepless nights due to Macca tossing out little belters like 'Lady Madonna'. that's all.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. However, in a thread called "what was so different about the Beatles", your 'assertions' aren't particularly adding to the discussion. It'd be like going over to the 'Best Zeppelin album' thread at Rock&Metal and saying "They were no Peter Paul and Mary, though were they". Again, that's quite a valid assertion (LZ were certainly no Peter Paul and Mary, but it's a non-sequiter in the context of the discussion)

I listed the stuff I did in that it exhibited a pretty wide and varied list from early, middle and later years of pretty much solo McCartney stuff (altho' obv Side 2 of Abbey road is a bit of an exception - the symphonic thing was his idea...)

TelePaul

ZakAttak wrote: »

I quite like the beatles but think this is worth mentioning:

The Beatles were white men playing music which they copied from black artists. This meant it was easier for fat ignorant Americans to listen to them without feeling misgivings about their skin colour. If you think this ignorance doesn't exist anymore you need only look at this comment which someone left on this thread.

In your first statement you've just described rock 'n' roll as a genre; when it comes to white men ripping off black artists, the Beatles are far less guilty than Zep and the Stones. As for the 'fat ignorant Americans' statement, it's not really relevant to anything in this thread.

Anyways. Why are the Beatles so good? Well, how many times have you heard a Beatles song and turned it off because you were sick of it? There are very few bands whos music you can listen to again and again and again. Their songs sound good each and every time.

ZakAttak

TelePaul wrote: »

In your first statement you've just described rock 'n' roll as a genre; when it comes to white men ripping off black artists, the Beatles are far less guilty than Zep and the Stones. As for the 'fat ignorant Americans' statement, it's not really relevant to anything.

==>What makes the Beatles a bit more guilty of it is that they were doing it before the other bands you mentioned.

Anyways. Why are the Beatles so good? Well, how many times have you heard a Beatles song and turned it off because you were sick of it? There are very few bands whos music you can listen to again and again and again. It sounds good each and every time.

==>I never said it didn't.

==>Fat ignorant americans is what the music industry is built upon. Elvis couldn't write his own songs but is seen as the 'King of Rock n' Roll'- Wanna know why? Fat ignorant Americans.

ZakAttak

grumpytrousers wrote: »

And i'm not saying they're the best thing since sliced pan *either*. I am, however, attacking your rather puerile and deluded point that McCartney was, and i quote you "completely talentless". Only the most cloth-eared of dullards would steadfastly maintain such a patently ludicrous position.

==> There were other artists who had a lot more talent than him, and if placed on a grand scale you could say he had no talent ('cos he'd be right down the bottom next to Damien Rice).

Lennon and McCartney had stopped writing songs together by around 1965. An idea or a line or two was as much as was swopped between them, but for the most part, John and Paul came into studio with 95% of a song 'down'.

==>You've never played in a band have you? Nobody has a song until its been jammed out in a studio, thankfully Lennon was their to steer those songs in the right direction.

My point about milkmen, and possibly rather clumsily made, was that McCartney was, and is, an unabashed writer of popular, singalong tunes that are almost instantly hummable. Frank Zappa wasn't suffering many sleepless nights due to Macca tossing out little belters like 'Lady Madonna'. that's all.

==>Zappa wrote annoyingly catchy pop songs as well, he did it just to show anyone could do it.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. However, in a thread called "what was so different about the Beatles", your 'assertions' aren't particularly adding to the discussion. It'd be like going over to the 'Best Zeppelin album' thread at Rock&Metal and saying "They were no Peter Paul and Mary, though were they". Again, that's quite a valid assertion (LZ were certainly no Peter Paul and Mary, but it's a non-sequiter in the context of the discussion)

==> I don't understand what you're saying here.

I listed the stuff I did in that it exhibited a pretty wide and varied list from early, middle and later years of pretty much solo McCartney stuff (altho' obv Side 2 of Abbey road is a bit of an exception - the symphonic thing was his idea...)

==>And I've heard them all, like I said- I know most of their stuff.

TelePaul

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Fat ignorant americans is what the music industry is built upon. Elvis couldn't write his own songs but is seen as the 'King of Rock n' Roll'- Wanna know why? Fat ignorant Americans.

That is, frankly, ridiculous.

ZakAttak

TelePaul wrote: »

That is, frankly, ridiculous.

Explain country n' western then.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSWuA-RttGU

TelePaul

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Fat ignorant americans is what the music industry is built upon. Elvis couldn't write his own songs but is seen as the 'King of Rock n' Roll'- Wanna know why? Fat ignorant Americans.

And the Beatles weren't ripping off/augmenting R n B before Elvis, Carl Perkins, Hank Williams, Bill Haley and Johnny Cash. They just did a better job of it, and were arguably the first British band to do it (although '62 also marked the year in which the Rolling Stones founded themselves)

But this is really only applicable to the Hamburg sessions; to say that the Beatle's success was based on the exploitation of the blues genre pioneered by black Americans is the equivalent of saying that Dylan's success can be attributed solely to the influence of Woody Guthrie.

TelePaul

ZakAttak wrote: »

Explain country n' western then.

Explain country and western music? It's rooted in folk and celtic traditions, with most of the early instruments coming from European stellers to the Appalachian region of America....

ZakAttak

TelePaul wrote: »

And the Beatles weren't ripping off/augmenting R n B before Elvis, Carl Perkins, Hank Williams, Bill Haley and Johnny Cash. They just did a better job of it, and were arguably the first British band to do it (although '62 also marked the year in which the Rolling Stones founded themselves)

==>I'm sure they were.

But this is really only applicable to the Hamburg sessions; to say that the Beatle's success was based on the exploitation of the blues genre pioneered by black Americans is the equivalent of saying that Dylan's success can be attributed solely to the influence of Woody Guthrie.

==>Difference is that they became popular when many of the big american radio stations would not play music because of the musicians ethnic background- it wasn't a level playing field.

TelePaul

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Difference is that they became popular when many of the big american radio stations would not play music because of the musicians ethnic background- it wasn't a level playing field.

You're 'sure they were' what? Ripping off American R n B before the artists I listed? You're either factually incorrect or I have no idea what you're referencing.

Even if the latter part of your statement were true - which it's not, Billboard published 'Race Records' charts as early as 1945, and look at Fats Domino for christ's sake - it has NOTHING to do with what's different about the Beatles. This thread is getting a little too political.

ZakAttak

TelePaul wrote: »

You're 'sure they were' what? Ripping off American R n B before the artists I listed? You're either factually incorrect or I have no idea what you're referencing.

Even if the latter part of your statement were true - which it's not, Billboard published 'Race Records' charts as early as 1945, and look at Fats Domino for christ's sake - it has NOTHING to do with what's different about the Beatles. This thread is getting a little too political.

==>So you're saying white people invented r n' b and that there was no discrimination against black people in america during the 50s and 60s- you've got a great grasp of history there.

Glassheart

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Difference is that they became popular when many of the big american radio stations would not play music because of the musicians ethnic background- it wasn't a level playing field.

Ahh I don't know about that man...

Motown was in full swing by the time The Beatles arrived in America and continued to dominate mainstream radio throughout the decade.

I don't think there is a great deal of similarity between early Beatle music and R&B apart from the rythem and intrumentation.
For example, She Loves You and I want To Hold Your Hand have some very unusual chord changes and harmonies.

Personally i think Rock n Roll got really interesting when the Brits got their hands on it...