Posted on 12/22/2004 11:56:06 AM PST by qam1
Greg Hassall and Charles Purcell do battle over the fab four.
FOR
OK, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is the most annoying song ever written. And you won't find Revolution No 9 on too many iPods. But how many bands' dud tracks can you count on one hand? The Beatles deserve their place in the pop pantheon. They revolutionised the way pop music was written, recorded and talked about. They were funny, charismatic, hungry to learn and unafraid of controversy. They matured spectacularly over seven tumultuous years, then quit on a high note with the peerless Abbey Road.
They were a genuine band, in that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. The three writers spurred each other on and checked each other's excesses (McCartney's sentimentality, Lennon's bile and Harrison's cod mysticism). In one throwaway B-side, Rain, they created the template for psychedelic Britpop, a genre lesser bands spend an entire career mining. Their refusal to write the same song twice resulted in a catalogue of breathtaking diversity, while producer George Martin gave the recordings a unique, uncluttered sound that refuses to date. And, as the age of the drum solo dawned, Ringo kept it real, underpinning the Beatles' sound with undemonstrative precision.
Greg Hassall
AGAINST
Pretty much everyone in the '60s must have been on drugs - that's the only reason I can imagine why the Beatles were so popular. They had about three decent songs: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Eleanor Rigby - and that other one, the one that doesn't suck. It's a riddle greater than the pyramids as to why a group of English fops with ridiculous hairstyles could make entire crowds of grown adults faint in awe. John Lennon? A prancing popinjay. Paul McCartney? A ponce. George Harrison? Vanity in the shape of a man. Ringo Starr?
A cool dude - the only one.
OK, so the Beatles recorded on top of a building. Big deal. OK, so they hung out with the Maharishi. Is that supposed to give their dire tunes spiritual worth?
"But they were a major influence in the history of rock'n'roll," some might bleat. Sure they were - but does that mean the baby boomers have to force their boring Beatlemania down our craws year after year, decade after decade?
I'm glad Yoko Ono helped split them up. She's the true heroine of this story. Too bad she's also a lousy artist.
And Wings. Don't get me started on McCartney's sad side project. That's another story.
- Charles Purcell
I agree that Ringo is not exactly the best drummer, but rock drumming just doesn't require the same touch as, say, a jazz drummer. That being the case, his lack of finesse as a drummer doesn't necessarily detract from the Beatles "greatness", such as it is.
I take no offense to your opinion. I'm a musician in a working band (mandolin, guitar, some steel guitar, working on the fiddle a bit - OK, anything with strings), and I completely understand the subjective nature of likes and dislikes when it comes to music. I also understand that the statement "The Beatles suck" really means "I don't like the Beatles".
One of your preferred genres (as you corrected me) owes much of what it is to the groundwork laid by the Beatles. That's no big deal, I get a little bored listening to swing bands, but I love bop.
I study nuclear science, I love my classes
I got a crazy teacher, he wears dark glasses
Things are going great, and they're only getting better
Now that was good music! - not!
It could be. Mojo Nixon did his best to sing this song in that manner and ridiculed the way the Beatles played it.
You may have a point concerning the very early Beatles work, but they were doing covers then as well as original songs.
As for "moving" on, not many of today's rock bands will have the cojones to do that.
Don't misunderstand, I think there are fresh sounds being written today, but then the band or artist generally re-writes that fresh sound over and over until it's stale.
Several years ago I became acquainted with several young English women who were traveling around the world.
In one of our chats, they took a particularly snotty tone toward America. I decided to turn the table and suggested that without America, the Beatles would've never amounted to anything more than a German pub band.
They became so flustered that they were almost unable to speak ... and I had one of the best laughs of my life.
Agreed. Not! LOL... Thanks to the Beatles, music in America became all about how to market sugar-coated garbage to teeny-boppers... The 70s, 80s, and even the 90s all had their "chart-toppers" who were cultivated for that express purpose.
That's one legacy of the "Beatles Invasion" that people ignore - Trite, safe, formulistic music...
They forgot what "love" songs could be, example - I Want You to Love Me by Waters
I just bought Let it Be - Naked, uh, for my wife, yeah, for Christmas.
It will be in her stocking (but before long it'll be in my car)
But were the Stones purely a rock band or a wannabe Chicago blues band as well? Their earliest albums are largely covers and even when they revitalized their career with Beggar's Banquet, they turned in a lot of blues recordings.
The Rolling Stones DO rock more than the Beatles but the Beatles have the more consistent output and better songwriting ability (even if it is not entirely rock and roll either).
In the 1960s, formatted radio was still not absolute so bands had to be able to mesh with all sorts of playlists. Things are very niche today.
They re-released LIB last year without the wall of sound mix. To be honest, I never got around to buying or listening to it. It's still on my list.
Abbey Road still gets PT in my CD player.
Not a Beatles song. Try again.
Golden Slumbers in an old English lullaby. The Beatles had nothing to do with writing it.
Pet Sounds was released before Sgt Peppers. Some might suggest the Beatles (and the Stones with His/Her Satanic Majesties Request) was their effort to keep up with the Beach Boys.
Love Me Do is all Gs and Cs.
Please Please Me is in As with a neat run up to F#m and C#m with an A-B-E bridge.
I Wanna Hold Your Hand has G5s, G6s, D6s, D5s, drops down to an E5 at the verse and stops on a B7, and then breaks into a boxy C-D-G-Em chorus
Can't Buy Me Love is C7s and F7s with drops to Em and A7 in the chorus.
Eight Days a Week is D-E-G with drops to Bm and G in the chorus.
These songs are very different, my friend.
Just about describes any Beatles song I have ever heard. They sold British accents and butts, not much else.
A relative lone voice of reason on this thread! Let's not forget The Temptations, The Miracles, all the fantastic Motown artists, The Chi-Lights, Johnnie Taylor, Booker T & The MG's and all the Stax artists they backed up...
Who needed the Beatles when there was a whole scene going on right here in the States? The British Invasion goons just tried to copy these real blues and R&B acts anyways.
my $0.02
I've got a David Grisman Christmas CD that never is dumb. Same with the Mike Marshall one.
OK, they're both mandolin players.
So basically Beatles=Bobby Sherman=Partridge Family=Bee Gees=Madonna=Britney Spears
Pently of today's rock bands have the cojones to do that. Problem is none of the record producers have the cajones to give them the financial support they need to get radio play and go platinum. Check out some Young Dubliners, Seven Nations, Crispian Mills, Bob Schneider, Stan Ridgeway, A3, Tindersticks. There's a lot of very creative and interesting stuff going on in music today, problem is unless you live in a big city that has a real spectrum of radio stations it's nearly impossible to find, that's why I live off good soundtrack albums, people like David Chase and Martin Scorsese are a Godsend to folks who want to explore new faces in music without having to live in New York City.
Ditto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.