Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What was so different about the beatles?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Cool cool. The Mowtown industry really was amazing.

    Yes, it was a production line with the same backing group playing on a lot of the mowtown artists hits .I love the Mowtown period as much as the british group invasion thing and most of all those had high respect for the mowtown groups .


  • Options
    #63
    BumbleB
    Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭BumbleB


    Bubs101 wrote: »
    But songs like Love me Do are utterly crap. I like some of the later beatles songs but most of their early stuff is pop trash and is only held in such a high regard because their later stuff is so good. The equivalent would be if Busted had written something like Definitely Maybe and then What's the Story after their poppy crap and then, 40 years later What I go to School for was revered as a classic

    Most of the beatles b sides are better than most modern bands a sides .They took songwriting to a new level, individually probably would not have achieved much but the sum of the parts was amazing .A lot of music was the 3 chord trick and they deviated from all that ,In a few years they went from playing "please mr postman" to "I am the walrus" " A day in the life " is monumental song.You have to remember that the beatles were turned down by every record company in England ,they went to Germany hone their talent and the rest is history.


  • Options
    #64
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,556 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    I prefer their earlier stuff. The catchy simplicity. Love Ringos crashing symbols.
    I think what makes them different is their evolution as humans, musicians and composers over a relatively short span. Freshness.


  • Options
    #65
    grumpytrousers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭grumpytrousers


    BumbleB wrote: »
    they went to Germany hone their talent and the rest is history.

    true that. Lots of people kind of get a bit sniffy of 'covers bands' but it's one of the few sure-fire ways of learning 'the rules'. Once you get the hang of it, driving a horse and four thru 'em is the next stop...


  • Options
    #66
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    humberklog wrote: »
    I prefer their earlier stuff. The catchy simplicity. Love Ringos crashing symbols.
    I think what makes them different is their evolution as humans, musicians and composers over a relatively short span. Freshness.

    Thats the thing , you can like their early middle or late beatle stuff or even all 3 and i also think some of their b sides were just as good as the A .

    ' I'll get you ' with it's catchy harmonica and real scouse voice aka paul '' oh yeah oh yeah '' .

    Johns harmonica on the early stuff is quite somthing and he said that listening to ' hey baby ' by Bruce Channel was one reason he took to it although he didn't like ' i remember you ' by frank ifield with it's similar cathy harmonica rift :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    TelePaul wrote: »
    That's why the Ramones pre-date the clash by two years? Come ON!!! Punk was widely loathed as anti-establishment by authorities on both sides of the pond.

    ==>You're making my point for me. Punk didn't become big until it became successful in England- the bands were already there in America- but were ignored.


  • Options
    #68
    Bubs101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101


    BumbleB wrote: »
    Most of the beatles b sides are better than most modern bands a sides .They took songwriting to a new level, individually probably would not have achieved much but the sum of the parts was amazing .A lot of music was the 3 chord trick and they deviated from all that ,In a few years they went from playing "please mr postman" to "I am the walrus" " A day in the life " is monumental song.You have to remember that the beatles were turned down by every record company in England ,they went to Germany hone their talent and the rest is history.

    You can't just compare one of the best bands of the 60's to **** like the ting tings, you have to compare like with like and I can guarantee you that the Beatles' B sides are not better than the A sides of bands like the Artic Monkey's, Radiohead, Wilco et all. I don't see how it is relevant that I remember that they were turned down by every record company in England. If anything, it just reinforces what I was saying about their early stuff being crap


  • Options
    #69
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>You're making my point for me. Punk didn't become big until it became successful in England- the bands were already there in America- but were ignored.

    *Sigh* Another fallacy. Who ignored the New York Dolls? Who ignored the MC5? Malcolm Mclaren returned to England to manage the Sex Pistols because he was so blown away by the early punk scene in New York - The Ramones, Blondie, Patti Smith, Talking Heads.

    I think you're confusing 'successful' with 'controversial' - if anything, Punk was more 'successful' in the US given its ready adoption by a more liberal media.


  • Options
    #70
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    Bubs101 wrote: »
    You can't just compare one of the best bands of the 60's to **** like the ting tings, you have to compare like with like and I can guarantee you that the Beatles' B sides are not better than the A sides of bands like the Artic Monkey's, Radiohead, Wilco et all.

    -I am The Walrus
    -Something
    -Rain
    -Revolution
    -Don't Let Me Down

    All b-sides and all superior to anything the Artic Monkeys have written.What Radiohead A-side is better than I Am The Walrus? I don't think there is any....


  • Options
    #71
    Bubs101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101


    Glassheart wrote: »

    All b-sides and all superior to anything the Artic Monkeys have written.What Radiohead A-side is better than I Am The Walrus? I don't think there is any....

    The first one, Creep

    Just
    Street Spirit
    High and Dry
    Karma Police
    Paranoid Android
    Idioteque

    and I don't even particularly like Radiohead. You're viewing the Beatles through rose tinted glasses


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    Bubs101 wrote: »
    The first one, Creep

    Just
    Street Spirit
    High and Dry
    Karma Police
    Paranoid Android
    Idioteque

    and I don't even particularly like Radiohead. You're viewing the Beatles through rose tinted glasses

    I'm usually a lot more liberal than this...

    If you believe Idioteque is better than I am the Walrus then you don't deserve ears.That's an awful song.
    I appreciate the fact you don't like Radiohead but it doesn't make your argument any stronger.

    I think my view of The Beatles is very realistic.They were an outstanding band.


  • Options
    #73
    Bubs101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101


    Glassheart wrote: »
    I'm usually a lot more liberal than this...

    If you believe Idioteque is better than I am the Walrus then you don't deserve ears.That's an awful song.
    I appreciate the fact you don't like Radiohead but it doesn't make your argument any stronger.

    I think my view of The Beatles is very realistic.They were an outstanding band.

    Honestly, if we are talking about B-sides that are better than I am the Walrus I would certainly plum for a large amount of the songs on the Masterplan. Acquiese, the title track and even the live cover are all more powerful songs to me but of course, alot of this comes down to personal taste


  • Options
    #74
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    I think you're confusing 'successful' with 'controversial' - if anything, Punk was more 'successful' in the US given its ready adoption by a more liberal media.[/quote]

    ==>So you think the media in America are more liberal?


  • Options
    #75
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    I think my view of The Beatles is very realistic.They were an outstanding band.[/quote]

    ==>They were more than outshone by bands that followed.


  • Options
    #76
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    I think my view of The Beatles is very realistic.They were an outstanding band.

    ==>They were more than outshone by bands that followed.[/quote]

    Maybe by U2...;)


  • Options
    #77
    grumpytrousers
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭grumpytrousers


    I think my view of The Beatles is very realistic.They were an outstanding band.

    ==>They were more than outshone by bands that followed.[/QUOTE]

    i've given up on responding to your 'opinions' but can't you use the quote button properly? what's with the ==> stuff? it's not rocket science. I reckon even 'completely talentless Paul McCartney' would have managed it by now, like...


  • Options
    #78
    guinnessdrinker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭guinnessdrinker


    I went through a Beatles phase while I was in school. I do think they were a great band and produced some great songs but in saying that I still feel they are a bit overrated in my opinion. I like some of their solo stuff better, especially John in angry mode!


  • Options
    #79
    Stompbox
    Registered Users Posts: 1,811 ✭✭✭Stompbox


    ZakAttak wrote: »

    ==>They were more than outshone by bands that followed.

    By who?!


  • Options
    #80
    gucci
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭gucci


    Glassheart wrote: »
    ==>They were more than outshone by bands that followed.

    Maybe by U2...;)[/QUOTE]

    haahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha :D

    aaahh thats just what i needed this morning, a good ould healthy laugh!


  • Options
    #81
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Sweet wrote: »
    By who?!

    ==>Pink Floyd. Better Musicians, better albums, better lyircs- they did what the Beatles tried to do, but the Beatles didn't have the talent, the Beatles were too busy making sure everything had a catchy chorus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    [can't you use the quote button properly? what's with the ==> stuff?

    ==>Yeah, but it p1sses you off- thats whats important.


  • Options
    #83
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>Pink Floyd. Better Musicians, better albums, better lyircs- they did what the Beatles tried to do, but the Beatles didn't have the talent, the Beatles were too busy making sure everything had a catchy chorus.

    "the Beatles were too busy making sure everything had a catchy chorus"

    You generalise too much in your arguments.It's like me saying Pink Floyd were too busy writing 5 minute guitar solos because they didn't have the ability to craft a decent tune.

    Speaking strictly about musicianship:
    David Gilmour was amazing and the other 3 did what was needed of them.
    Paul McCartney was amazing and the other 3 did was needed of them.

    What did the Beatles 'try' to do? They had no point of reference when they were making Strawberry Fields or Tomorrow Never Knows.You can't reach for something that isn't there...They just did it and worked out rather well.:)


  • Options
    #84
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Speaking strictly about musicianship:
    David Gilmour was amazing and the other 3 did what was needed of them.
    Paul McCartney was amazing and the other 3 did was needed of them.

    ==>Roger Waters was a very good bassist, and he wrote alot of their lyrics. And although I'm not the biggest beatles fan- surely harrison was the best musician of them? He may not have had the songwriting abilities as they (McC/Len.) did, but on a technical level I would have said he was the best of them.

    No doubt about one thing- yes, Pink Floyd overdid it sometimes, but at least they got it right a good few times; The Beatles didn't have the ability to do it, although they tried.

    Look, trying to ignore the Beatles' influence is like trying to ignore the influence of Shakespeare on writers- theres no doubting their impact. But if you ask young lads listening to music these days which old bands they like best, they're probably more likely to say Led Zeppelin than the Beatles. I think this is because, ultimately, the Beatles were limited- and Lennon's lyrics have not been treated well by time. These days they seem a bit pompous and over-sentimental.


  • Options
    #85
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    Speaking strictly about musicianship:
    David Gilmour was amazing and the other 3 did what was needed of them.
    Paul McCartney was amazing and the other 3 did was needed of them.

    ==>Roger Waters was a very good bassist, and he wrote alot of their lyrics. And although I'm not the biggest beatles fan- surely harrison was the best musician of them? He may not have had the songwriting abilities as they (McC/Len.) did, but on a technical level I would have said he was the best of them.

    No doubt about one thing- yes, Pink Floyd overdid it sometimes, but at least they got it right a good few times; The Beatles didn't have the ability to do it, although they tried.

    Look, trying to ignore the Beatles' influence is like trying to ignore the influence of Shakespeare on writers- theres no doubting their impact. But if you ask young lads listening to music these days which old bands they like best, they're probably more likely to say Led Zeppelin than the Beatles. I think this is because, ultimately, the Beatles were limited- and Lennon's lyrics have not been treated well by time. These days they seem a bit pompous and over-sentimental.

    In reference to your last point... Maybe that's why music these days is so crap? Robert Plant was a terrible lyricist and a lot more sentimental than Lennon.

    They're are too many angles to Lennon anyway...All You Need Is Love/Lucy In The Sky/Happiness is a warm gun.It's like 3 different personalities fighting for the one space.
    The Lennon you are refering to is the one Yoko has worked very hard to promote since his death.I don't care for that one myself...

    McCartney was a better bassist than Waters and a better keyboard player than Wright.
    If you ever hear a great guitar part on a beatles record from 1966 on it's most likely Paul.


  • Options
    #86
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Glassheart wrote: »
    In reference to your last point... Maybe that's why music these days is so crap? Robert Plant was a terrible lyricist and a lot more sentimental than Lennon.

    ==>Plant was a crap lyricist,but it didn't matter cos he could sing so well-and besides, its not as though every lyric the beatles wrote was a piece of genius.Music isn't crap these days, its just different.


    McCartney was a better bassist than Waters and a better keyboard player than Wright.
    If you ever hear a great guitar part on a beatles record from 1966 on it's most likely Paul.

    ==>he wasn't a better musician, but he was a better songwriter.


  • Options
    #87
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Maybe by U2...;)[/quote]

    ==>Ha,ha- Bono probably thinks so.


  • Options
    #88
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>he wasn't a better musician, but he was a better songwriter.

    Who's better than who?


  • Options
    #89
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Glassheart wrote: »
    Who's better than who?

    ==>McCartney- I think he was a good songwriter, but not as good a musician as others.


  • Options
    #90
    markesmith
    Registered Users Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭markesmith


    tbh I always thought of Pink Floyd and Led Zep as 'sacred cows', much more so than the Beatles. Just meandering, mindless guitar w*nk.

    There are very few bands who are up there with the Beatles, to my mind. I'd say the Stones, but even they didn't have the innovation and melodies of the Beatles.

    The Kinks? Too pastoral and English.
    The Who? Nowhere near as innovative.
    Pink Floyd? Too virtuoso, no real passion, introverted lyricism.
    Led Zeppelin? Too many songs about Orcs and mythical battles. Plus I couldn't stand the singer going on about his "whole lotta love". Like he was trying to convince everyone.
    Beach Boys? Only one really good album.

    The only band that to my mind compares with the Beatles is Kraftwerk. And maybe the Clash. On the solo front, Bowie (Hunky Dory, Ziggy, Station to Station, Low, Heroes, Scary Monsters). Anyone that threw out albums that consistently surprised and upped the ante.

    But listen to Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album and Abbey Road, and tell me that another band topped that. Listen to Strawberry Fields.

    Let the flaming begin!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Glassheart
    Closed Accounts Posts: 501 ✭✭✭Glassheart


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>McCartney- I think he was a good songwriter, but not as good a musician as others.

    You've got it all wrong!
    A lot of nifty guitar/keyboard/bass work on the later records are McCartney.


Advertisement