The Beatles

[klr]

Overrated.

Close thread.

More like we had a thread months ago and we're still all Beatled-out.

Almost, but not quite ...

Thanks Kevin

The first time I heard that was back around 1984 direction, when one of my brothers borrowed the White Album from the local record library. A record library? That's a bygone world.

Other songs I first remember being used as signature tunes for programs or whatnot, like this:

[tattuchu]

Beatles

[Posse Comitatus]

The Beatles are alright - 6/10

[tattuchu]

The Beatles are alright - 6/10

*hiss*

The Beatles....are magic. MAGIC.

Let me illustate:




Fucking magic, mate.

[Posse Comitatus]

Magic is also a 6/10

[tattuchu]

Magic

[Feck]

The Beatles are alright - 6/10

Compared to who ? tell us who gets an 8or 9 in your opinion ?

[tattuchu]

Is it just nostalgia? Listening to The Beatlres makes me cry. Listening to Pilot makes me cry

[Posse Comitatus]

The Beatles are alright - 6/10

Compared to who ? tell us who gets an 8or 9 in your opinion ?

Kate Bush is a ten.

[Feck]

The Beatles are alright - 6/10

Compared to who ? tell us who gets an 8or 9 in your opinion ?

Kate Bush is a ten.

meh only a nine she is useless at giving head

[Tero]

They don't bring the kick-assness I expect out of music. Plus my parents like them and my tastes and theirs are like NOMA.

You do not have the historical perspective. Jimi Hendrix, The Who, all your 90s bands, were made possible by them. Before the Beatles we had Pat Boone. And rock was dead, for the time being.

[Posse Comitatus]

...And rock was dead, for the time being.

We had Billy Fury, who is and was far, far better than The Beatles.

Though this is one of his more ballad-y tracks rather than his Rock and Roll.

[RuleBritannia]

I love The Beatles, my favourite is Eleanor Rigby, ironically a song in which none of the band play the intruments.

[devogue]

...And rock was dead, for the time being.

We had Billy Fury, who is and was far, far better than The Beatles.

Though this is one of his more ballad-y tracks rather than his Rock and Roll.

That's like saying Salieri's dog was better than Mozart.

I agree with Seraph's analysis (shock, horror... ) and I get especially annoyed about the lazy writing off of their output pre-Rubber Soul. Just take a look at the UK number ones in the year prior to and following The Beatles emergence - it's a list of syrupy Elvis ballads, and Cliff Richard sugar pop. In that context The Beatles' early output is explosive, vibrant and edgy - of course they had to work within the moral strictures of the time while they got established, and the subject matter of the time for songs was almost exclusively puppy love (although I've always interpreted "Please Please Me" as being about mutual masturbation). The music is incredibly powerful and memorable - the chord progression and brooding bass of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" still holds up today, and "She Loves You" is just brilliant - like 60s punk. What's also important is that even in the early days their music was evolving and changing - it didn't just change overnight. Also, to write them off as a mere "boy band" is ridiculous - they did what they had to do to get noticed and break through; once established they began to change the musical establishment from the inside out.

As for their later stuff, it has been well documented that Lennon & McCartney absorbed much of what was happening in the underground music scene and avant garde, seasoning their own magnificent work with many cultural references of the time. And therein, I think, lies the greatness and majesty of The Beatles: they were absolutely of their time, endlessly hoovering up cutting edge influences and introducing them to the main stream in an unforgettable way, with incredible songcraft and melody-making infused with wit and often profound beauty - but their music hasn't dated yet, and probably never will. And everything they put to record happened in an eight year period. It's absolutely fucking phenomenal - can you imagine a band that appeared in 2002 changing everything by 2010?

[Posse Comitatus]

can you imagine a band that appeared in 2002 changing everything by 2010?

Fortunately I don't have to.


The division of dates into BC and AD is now defunct. In the future the world will be viewed through the lens of pre-A1 and post-A1. 2002 is the new year 0.