Oh, c'mon! At this time of year, much more annoying songs abound! "Jingle Bell Rock", "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer", "I saw Mama Kissing Santa Claus"....
FMCDH(BITS)
Unlike most of the formulaic "rock" bands of today who are required to write the same drivel over and over ad infinitum.
One Nickelback song sounds like every other Nickelback song. The chord changes might differ somewhat from song to song, but stylistically, tonally, they are all nearly identical. Ditto U2, REM, Creed, Nirvana, and especially RAP by any RAP "artist".
Even when some groups do covers, they sound the same: GnR's covers of Knockin' on Heaven's Door and Live and Let Die, for example.
No one can claim that Eleanor Rigby sounds like Why Don't We Do It In The Road, nor that Helter Skelter sounds like Here, There, and Everywhere.
(flame suit on to protect from those whose favorite ox has just been gored)
Like any other entertainment genre.... They do fine when they "shut up and sing" I liked the beatles music. When they started their anti-war retoric and other political nonsense they wore out their welcome.
After the tears came the music
Finally, it's over. It appears we're now done drowning ourselves in memories of President Kennedy's assassination. At least for the time being.
Thirty years is a long time. Dwelling on what happened on November 22, 1963 brings sadness to aging baby boomers. The murder of the President was dreadful enough. When you combine that with the passing of time, it heightens our awareness of the many changes, both as a nation and as individuals, we've been through.
Only a few months after JFK's death a revolution swept through America. The weapons used in this revolution weren't guns or bombs, but guitars and drums.
For years popular music had been dominated by King Elvis. Gene Pitney, Bobby Vee, Neil Sedaka, the Four Seasons and the Everly Brothers were often in the Top 10. Then the British invasion began.
First came the Beatles. John, Paul, George and Ringo. Last names weren't necessary; within a few weeks everyone knew who you were talking about. On the radio, "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" played incessantly.
Their lyrics may have been trite and their music usually consisted of the same three or four chords, but it made no difference. They had the big beat, a vibrancy and energy that made you happy when you heard it. Many American young people became instant Beatlemaniacs.
The Beatles had distinct haircuts, distinct clothes, distinct language. Or so it seemed. Mom pointed out the same haircut was sported in the 1940s by Ish Kabbible of Kay Kyser's band. Since then I've seen a couple of Kay Kyser's films and Mr. Kabibble (real name: Merwyn Bogue) did indeed have the look.
A peculiarity was how the Beatles sang without accents, but when they spoke it was hard to make out what they said. We were able to understand, however, that good things are always fab or gear.
Fans couldn't get enough of their songs or enough information on the Liverpool four. What were their favorite foods, their favorite colors, their favorite cars? Separate fan groups developed for each Beatle. John was the smart one; Paul the cute one; George the serious one and Ringo the happy (some thought dumb) one.
The only unhappy one was Pete Best, the Beatles' drummer since the group formed in 1960. He was dropped in favor of Ringo in 1962. That's what I call more than bad luck.
Some adults, particularly parents, found the Beatles objectionable. There was nothing new about that. Earlier generations of parents warned their children about Rudy Vallee, Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. Some objections have more validity than others, but young people rarely listen. Challenging authority comes naturally for teenagers.
Following the Beatles' American triumph, the country was inundated with other English groups. The Dave Clark Five, the Rolling Stones, Herman's Hermits, the Searchers, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Gerry and the Pacemakers, Freddie and the Dreamers, the Animals, the Yardbirds, the Kinks, the Moody Blues, the Spencer Davis Group, the Zombies . . .
There were indeed a lot and they provided some terrific music. None of them, though, had the impact of the Beatles.
When John Lennon got involved in the peace movement, so did millions of his fans. When Beatles scoffed at drug laws, so did many of their fans. When the Beatles turned to the transcendental meditation of a fraud, some of their fans discarded traditional religious beliefs.
How much was attributable to the Beatles? What would have happened had they stayed in Liverpool? It's impossible to say. One thing is certain: They had a major impact on the culture and the lives of an entire generation.
Yesterday marked another event baby boomers remember. It was 13 years since John Lennon was killed. The smart Beatle wasn't so smart. Drugs damaged him to the point where he'd stare out a window for hours at a time and not speak for days.
I prefer to remember the John Lennon of 1964, when he and the other Beatles helped ease the pain of a national tragedy. Those were happy times and their music still sounds good. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
December 9, 1993
Greater than the sum of their parts. George Martin deserves credit for reigning them in.
The band disentigrated before their pet projects overtook the legacy of the band. Nothing that they have done in the decades since has matched the merit of the "group's" works.
That legacy is what kept them from mucking about with ANY thought to reunions (with or without John). I can accept that they reunited for Linda's funeral and I am glad that was not filmed and released to the networks for round the clock coverage.
If the Beatles had remained a band, we could have expected more 2 record sets like The White Album with essentially a side of cuts from each member (they all wanted to have "their" songs represented on the albums).
The 70s sucked anyway. Better for them to snuff out as a band on the eve of that decade than to go disco, country, singer/songwriter, party band, or prog.
There will never be another "Beatles" for better or for worse. There may be the same amount of hype for a performer for 2 years but the music won't have the same worth and few artists release that many original songs in a year (there are some but they don't get radio/tv exposure). Any more, it seems to be 2-5 years between albums. The Beatles would never have lasted long enough to put out all their albums at that rate; imagine only hearing every 3rd Beatles album and trying to figure out how they got from A Hard Day's Night to Sgt. Pepper's? This is the way it is today with some bands (local and national) who find album after album shelved (because of delays at the label or changes in band lineup) meaning that much of the evolution of the band's sound is not "documented" leaving the casual listener unable to accept the change in a performer's sound.
Ping
Sitting here listening to the Brecker Brothers and wearing most amused expression at the flames; I might've liked the Beatles if one of them sang like David Ruffin or Otis Redding or Dennis Edwards or.....
The Beatles were really before my time but I do like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer".
Of course, I'd like most songs that promote random violence.
The Beatles were a good band yet horribly over rated.
hmm, almost 250 replies.. this is turning out to be a good thread!
I would never dispute the Beatles as being true pioneers of modern music. Yeah, they had their duds, but most of their output was well crafted music.
What I admire most was that they were able to produce music that could be appreciated by a wide audience. They appealed to teeny-boppers and adults alike; it was not uncommon for a pop radio station from the mid 60's to transition from a Dean Martin song to a current Beatles hit.
Today's music (IMHO) seems to be TOO categorized. Radio stations pigeonhole certain genres, and NEVER stray from that particular format. Classic rock stations play everything that came after "Sgt Pepper", and totally ignore the pre-album rock that the Beatles made between 1962-1967. Ditto with the Stones - if it was recorded before "Let It Bleed" (excellent album!), it's considered TOO Top 40 for the classic rock playlist.
I also think it's sad that 'oldies' are now considered to be anything recorded after 1964 (Beatles/British Invasion). There's a whole decade (1954-1964) that is now completely absent from the airwaves - say what you want about some of the corniness that came out of that decade, but there were ample gems from rock's early pioneers.
The Beatles broke up at the hight of their popularity. Right after signing a contract with EMI for 2 albums a year through 1976.
Brilliant timing.
The Clash
... which means we'll see a revival soon. So save your old stuff.
Too many posts by now so sorry, I haven't caught up on the general opinions here.
My own - overrated. Not bad, just overrated.
Personally I liked the initial Beatles, who were just another set of guys making some good rock songs (honest rock, not "cross-over to some other unnamed music segment" "rock"). Their later stuff was the latter type. Psychedelic, hippie, whatever. Largely it was stupid and gooney sounding; I mean really, come on! All that "aaa-eeeeehh" whining in majorly nasal high pitch. It's STUPID! It sounds "gay" (for lack of a better term)! Never mind how some were supposed to be preachy (altho you can't be sure cuz it's mostly a bunch of nonsensical yap).
So on balance, I think they were OK. Some of the latter-age songs were good (purely in musical terms), but most I'm just as happy to turn off.
Taken in pieces - the original Beatles stuff is good, the "socially conscious" stuff is bad.
The Beatles rocked. I'm qualified to say that. I've been a music fan since the late '50's.......and a rock guitarist since the late '60's. Their musicianship was sometimes........questionable..........but their vocals?? Their songwriting skills? Their pure craftsmanship?
Unequalled.