'The Beatles were not good because they sounded like the Beatles, but because they innovated continually and sounded like no one else that was around at the time'*.
DiScuss, with reference to why people who allegedly love the Beatles often deride attempts at innovation/playfulness within pop music. Favouring lame worthy wooden 'proper' music, which is about as far from the spirit of the Beatles as Belle and Sebastian are from Slipknot.
*see also the beach boys
Is this a sly dig at Oasis fans?
If so, I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were better than that.
much of a compex?
*compLex
i'm surprised
you think anything at all of me. I wasn't aware you knew I existed.
and no it's not a dig at Oasis fans. Oasis have made some exceptionally good records which i enjoy (though not in the last ten years).
they are not, however, good in same way the beatles were. and it's laughable to compare the two.
I like the beach boys because they sound great
innovation's pretty shit if it doesn't sound good.
As far as other people go - I don't know any so it wouldn't be fair for me to comment.
Mojo man
like Beatles. Beatles old. Beatles GOOD.
Mojo man no like new music. Only old music. And music that sound like old music. Old music good. Beatles good.
Because...
Maybe the reasons they’re so amazing isn’t the same reason why a lot of people like them.
Just because something is innovative doesn’t mean that people like it for that reason. They could like it because it was “what they were looking for” and they’re going to keep trying to look for more of that (avoiding innovative bands because clearly they won't have it). Or not.
I like them because they made good pop songs.
I suppose it has something to do with them being the 'originals'. I wouldn't be surprised if, to an extent, people felt that they should like them because if it wasn't for them, alot of modern bands maybe wouldn't exist.
When it comes down to it though, it's really just a matter of personal taste and opinion. Why would it necessarily be anything more than that?
well..
they clearly did sound like other artists at the time
but they brought various parts of this underground/uncommercial music into a very commercial setting. For which they should be.. somethinged
I quite like the Bealtles
but do wonder about the extent to which we are conditioned to like them i.e. we think they're good because they're commonly held up as an example of what 'good' music should sound like, thus meaning that they by definition sound 'good'. If that makes sense?
bf
I happened to hear 'with a little help from my friends' on the radio this morning, and was genuinely surprised how mediocre it was...don't listen to them...ever, cos I don't like them, but I thought I'd give it a sneaky listen as I was in the privacy of my own shitter, thinking I might be able to admit to myself that there was something there, but its just unlikeable, smug pop/mor
You are right- conditioning has a lot to do with it. If we could somehow be hypnotised to forget who all their songs were by, and had to reassess them thinking they were by The Turtles, Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Tich etc...I bet it would be a different story
I don't think
'with a little help' should be regarded as one of the better beatles songs.
I don't know
I never really paid them much attention and was generally of the opinion they were massively overrated until the Anthology programme came on TV.
Watching that I realised there were a lot of Beatles songs I really liked. I wouldn't have said 'With a Little Help From my Friends' was a particularly great one or for that matter particularly bad, but it's hardly one of the more 'interesting' tracks.
wageman ?
Greatest song-writers ever
an unprecended amount of amazing songs.
*most prolifically great
but there are many equally good songs written by other people. it's only sheer volume of stuff which makes people rave about the Beatles.
Non-commercial
Someone above mentioned that The Beatles brought non-commercial aspects of music to the forefront. I happen to agree with this. Are they the only band to release songs with a sitar? I cannot think of another equally-respected song which included such an instrument.
The whole continual innovative development can be attributed to each Beatle's personality, insofar as they each had a distinct identity and that would transcend into their individual music projects [within The Beatles].
correct
except for the bit about sitars.
I'm glad!
I just had morning block and was unable to think of any other sitar-led pop music. Care to name any?
ravi shankar?
cornershop?
kula shaker?
bishi?
that crap manics song
there must be loads.
beatles were amongst the first in the west to use it though and certainly the most high profile.
Paint It Black
Best use of a sitar in pop music ever.
.
The Beatles early LPs (pre-Rubber Soul) are exceptional examples of classic pop songs. They were not particularly innovative, and were heavily influenced by people such as Everley Brothers and Buddy Holly; however, the song-writing ability of both McCartney and Lennon (not necessarily the lyrics) was vastly superior to any other band ever.
The fact that they then moved on to experimentation is a combination of their skill and the fact that, financially, they could do whatever they wanted.
It's the same Beatles that wrote 'Can't Buy Me Love' who made 'Sg. Pepper's' - the same skill, ability, inspiration and intelligence.
Other popular artists have eschewed repetition, such as David Bowie, but, again, his abilty to be able to do that successfully was evident in his early folky recordings (Laughing Gnome aside).
Those successful artists who have not progressed musically, Oasis, U2, etc. have not done so because they are incapable of doing so and are able only to reproduce what has worked for them before or copy other people. But, it is possible to be successful and interesting: Bjork and Radiohead are good examples.
lés beatles
no one has bettered them at popular music- Rick Rubin was aksed what he thought his gratest contribution to music was and he replied "introducing the chorus" because of his love of Lennon and McCartney- so they continue to influence- Paul McCartney had/has the same ability to generate a melody as Keith Richards has with riff's- they are so deeply permeated (sic?) within the membrane of pop music that their influence is hard to judge- and because versions of their songs are played on tv/radio it's easy to forget how good the originals are. They also helped popularise sampling/loops and even though they weren't pioneers in this field they did a whole lot more than others to bring this to the fore and also genres/ideas are never singlehandedly invented but gradualy changed or imporved upon for me they are as important as Darwin- he didn't come up with his theory but he certainly developed it. I could go on- Andy- obviously I am a big fan.
More Lés Beatles
also I've missed the point of this discussion and just wrote about the beatles haven't I?
withy regards to the discussion- people are stupid- also there's not much experimentation going on in pop accept in RnB. Alot of bands claiming to be experimental at the moment will just add a synth for that 'elecro' element- I liked the Beatles because they were a popular and trendy band who did music hall numbers or 'granny music' as John Lennon called it- and that's what I love about them- fearless steps into the future and past of music with a real knowledge of what had gone before, unlike alot of bands like Oasis who as far as I can tell just listen to Neil Young, sex pistols and the Beatles- maybe that#'s why the beatles were good- they didn;t listen to themselves? Is that where I'm going wrong?
hah
I know who you are. fancy seeing you here!
I'm not a Beatles fan as such. But I'll always laugh in the face of anyone who attempts to say they're shit.
their music's almost too perfect for me to ever feel like putting it on.
I agree
and I'm glad we know who each other is/are
bf
some stupid things written in this thread:
"Greatest song-writers ever an unprecended amount of amazing songs."
"Someone above mentioned that The Beatles brought non-commercial aspects of music to the forefront. I happen to agree with this. Are they the only band to release songs with a sitar? I cannot think of another equally-respected song which included such an instrument"
"however, the song-writing ability of both McCartney and Lennon (not necessarily the lyrics) was vastly superior to any other band ever."
hehehe...what a load of mouldly old rubbish.
Someone sometime said something along the lines of- the more you learn, the more you realise you don't know.
Apply this to music people! Don't give me this shit about The Beatles being the best this and that, and innovating, etc...
I dare say I know more sixties singles/lps that most if not all people on this forum, and there is still TONNES of great stuff I've never heard, and I still find records secondhand that I've never heard of for fifty pence, that sold pitifully at the time that blow me away. There is so much great stuff out there, and I'm really genuinely surprised that someone like Traynor- for example, who is such a champion of the wilfully obscure modern stuff, could come out with shit like The Beatles being the best songwriters ever (even with that little proviso about their pony lyrics), without even knowing the music of their lesser known contempories.
All the Beatles were is a beat group that had 100000 times more funding and attention given to them than most, and I reckon just about any group - Four Just Men, Keith Powell and the Valets, The Cheetahs etc- who were writing their own material, would have had the same career as the Beatles with the same funding/management