The Beastles!

Holy fuck...

I just clicked on Root Down which is one of me favourite Beasty Boys songs and it's fucking butchered...if anyone did that to one of my songs, I'd personally go to his house and smack him with a fish. A huge one

 

No thanks. They probably suck as bad as Beatallica (Metallica + the Beatles). Fuck the Beatles anyway.

 

For all that is good and righteous in this world tell me this is a joke.

 

Sorry bout double post, But how can you say fuck The Beatles?

 

No. I joke not. The Beatles did shit for music. They were better at selling records than making music. Sure, their music was good, but it was definatly not up to par with other bands of the time... like Led Zepp or Pink Floyd. The Beatles are the equivelant to today's pop stars/bands like Backstreet Boys or Nsync. The Beatles didnt start any fucking musicial revolution or start anything at all except a British invasion and a lot of horny teenage girls. They may have been the biggest or most popular rock band of the time, but that doesnt mean they were actually good at making music... it means they were good at appealing to a large audience with their pop tunes. People like Brittany Spears, Christina Agulera, and the list goes on for miles do it every day in this country. Since when did today's pop stars do anything significant for music?

Before you start hailing The Beatles, you need to remember and take into account those who were also doing it... Take for example The Rolling Stones, whose first album came out in 1964, one year after The Beatles first album. Do you think in that one year, the Beatles had any effect on the Stones' music? I think not. What about Bob Dylan? He had his shit down years before the Beatles. And the Doors started in 1965, roughly one year after the Beatles landed in America. As you can see, the Beatles may have had a head start as far as getting popular, but they certainly didnt influence anyone at the time. The rock movement of the 60s was inevitable and the Beatles were just another face in the crowd.

 

Could you please explain what constitutes good music? I'm interested to see how The Beatles' work avoids being classified as "good."

By the way, before you speak on behalf of artists like Bob Dylan and The Rolling Stones, you might want to read some of their comments about The Beatles. Like just about every musical artist of the 60s and many of the best respected groups who have emerged since then, both Dylan and The Stones credit The Beatles with inspiring them. Although I would disagree wholeheartedly, I can understand your complaints if they are directed only at the first few Beatles albums. Many of the songs were covers, although it should be noted that The Beatles' versions consistently were much more complex harmonically and memorable melodically. I'm guessing that you haven't had a chance to sit down with Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, or Abbey Road. You probably think that each of those albums is filled with songs like "Help!" Download one ENTIRE album, roll up a J, and listen from beginning to end. If I had to choose, I'd pick either Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, or Magical Mystery Tour. Pay attention to production. Note the wide variety of styles and the incorporation of other instruments and sounds. Remember that NO ONE was doing anything like this at the time the albums were made. All the tape looping that Roger Waters et al. used on Dark Side of the Moon was pioneered by Lennon and McCartney years before. I would go into greater detail about how impressive the songwriting is on each album, but I won't assume that you have any knowledge of music theory.

To put it bluntly (pun intended), The Beatles made popular music an artform. In the years before their rise to prominence, Elvis and Buddy Holly were writing simple pop songs that drove teenagers wild and sold records. Lennon and McCartney took the medium to new heights. Consider this: Brian Wilson, lead singer and writer for the Beach Boys, has been lauded as one of the greatest pop composers in the history of music because he composed Pet Sounds after hearing Rubber Soul. Paul McCartney decided to push back by creating Sgt. Pepper's, the first true concept album ever recorded. Wilson, under intense pressure to respond to The Beatles again, had a nervous breakdown and never returned to his former glory. If someone as revered as Brian Wilson was so overwhelmed by the creativity and talent of the group, can't we at least agree that they deserve some credit?

In my estimation, they are the greatest band that ever existed. I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate the extent to which they combined genuinely creative artistic expression and commercial success. I'm sure that some will disagree, which is fine. I'm only asking that everyone familiarize themselves with the group's music in order that they may appreciate the effect it has had on other musicians over time and on our popular culture in general.

If we were to create a soundtrack for each generation since The Beatles made music, they'd be on every album. How's that for good?

 

Double post. Sorry, guys. I got a little excited at all of the talk about The Beatles. I'm happy that someone finally started a thread about them. I've been frequenting this board for quite a while, yet it seems that metal has always dominated the discussion. I've got nothing against metal, but it's good to see that we can branch out occasionally.

 

I dont know about you, but I would say that early Pink Floyd (with Syd Barret) and Sgt. Pepper's are in the same boat... or pretty close to it. However, I dont see them playing off of eachother at all. I can understand where you are coming from, and you definatly have valid points. A lot of the bands from the time made some kind of mark. Let me use Pink Floyd as my leverage since I believe they had the most going for them. The thing about Pink Floyd was that they were complex in their simplicity. I mean, they had no technically dazzling instrument parts, everything complimented each other. The instruments actually play off of each other, they work together. Its not just a bunch of instruments making music and throwing together simple mellodies. Every instrument leads and backs every other instrument. For example, the easiest to look at is the guitar and drums. There are tons of songs in their prime where those two instruments work together perfectly. They arent just playing music, they are working the music so that every instrument plays with the rest of instruments. All the layers of sound, from the solid rhythm section, to Gilmour's emotional solo work, and the symphonic effects that were a staple of Rogers-led Pink Floyd, everything came together into a perfect sound. The finest days of Pink Floyd lie between the Atom Heart Mother and The Final Cut albums. I'd venture to say that Roger Waters is the man who made Pink Floyd "Pink Floyd', his visions created masterpieces like Dark Side Of The Moon, Animals, The Wall, and The Final Cut. I believe every single lyric on all four of these albums were from him, not to mention the majority of songwriting he did. The vocal combination of this band was, in my opinion, the best by any band ever. Waters' depressing and dark vocals mixed with Gilmour's more smooth and melodic approach; yet another layer added into the mix. These guys had it all figured out, but it did take them alot of experimenting to get there. The Syd Barret era, although alot of good music came from it, alot of not so good stuff did as well, especially compared to what Pink Floyd would do in the future. The thing about Syd is that his influence carried on even when he left, with Roger inking lyrics regarding insanity and the like that were quite obviously influenced by Syd. Much of Dark Side Of The Moon, Shine On You Crazy Diamond from Wish You Were Here, perhaps even parts of The Wall.

Sorry, got a little off course. I have indeed taken apart Sgt Peppers, Rubber Soul, and Abbey Road. I dont know if its just me or what, but I dont see the kind of musical artistry that you speak of compared to what I see in an album like Saucerful of Secrets or Wish You Were Here.

 

Not to mention rap and punk.

 

What are you talking about? I read your post and all I see is you talking about pink floyd discography. Do you really feel that early Pink Floyd while Syd Barret in it produced music similar to the Beatles at all? Early Pink Floyd didn't have close to as much as musical thought as alot of the Beatles albums (Sgt peppers).

Both bands were pioneers in their styles of music. But Pink Floyd's rock is not evan in the same category as Beatles.

Listen to earlier Pink Floyd. Their full musical potential really didnt start flourishing until Meddle (Nov, 1971) When the Beatles were releasing instant classics with Rubbe Soul
(Dec, 1965)


I Don't mean for this post to make me look like I dont like Pink Floyd. I am a fan of both bands musics. I do not mean to discredit Pink Floyd or The Beatles for their music. They are both great.

 

I guess I hold Pink Floyd on a higher level then the Beatles than most people. I just dont see anything very appealing or great in the Beatles. It seems all too simplisitc.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Beatles, but I have to respect their role in the history of rock 'n' roll. They certainly don't make bad music, I like a few songs, but their music just isn't my style. Pink Floyd, as innovative as they were, were fans of the Beatles. Where do you think they got the lyrics, "For there revealed in flowing robes was Lucy in the sky"?

 

I agree~how could you say that about the Beatles?!

Crazy stuff is going down. crazzzzy stuff

~~XoxOkristenXoxO~~

 

Oh by the way...

Music is art

and what is art to one person is trash to another!

example the famous "urinal piece"! some people like it... some people dont (sorry my friends were telling me about the movie constantine)

xOXoKristenXoxO

 

I won't be as longwinded as last time. Promise.

In response to the comments about the instruments "working together" and providing "complexity within simplicity," I submit that The Beatles were the first band to incorporate such a wide variety of different sounds from various genres of music in tightly structured, simple pop song formats. The reason that musicians praise The Beatles so vociferously is precisely because they made incredibly complex music while maintaining the pop music framework that made their music more easily digestible to the average listener. Anyone who thinks that the construction of songs on Sgt. Pepper's or Revolver are simplistic needs to revisit those albums and pay attention to harmony. Unlike Phil Spector and The Beach Boys, The Beatles did not employ the "Wall of Sound" technique, simplifying the music harmonically by requiring that all the instruments involved in the arrangement play the same chord progressions and melodies in the same octaves. Instead, The Beatles were much more concerned with creating arching soundscapes that allowed each instrument to play within its most natural range. When one considers the string arrangements of which McCartney in particular was exceedingly fond, the similarities between orchestral arrangement and The Beatles' songwriting style become quite apparent.

I should point out that I am a fan of both bands. Obviously, Waters and Barrett were exceptional songwriters, although I would give the edge to the former if forced to choose. The only reason I posted in the first place was because someone claimed that The Beatles were not responsible for a "musical revolution," when I think it's quite obvious that the innovations that they introduced to popular music were incredibly important to the development of a variety of different genres. Can we agree now at least that The Beatles were very important to the development of popular music over the last few decades?

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion. I'm interested to hear what others might contribute to the conversation. Let's keep it going!

By the way, sorry for lying about not being so longwinded.

 

People need to stop fuckin with The Beatles. I'm sick of them being mixed together was some bullshit rapper or some fuckin metal band.


And whoever compared The Beatles to Bob Dylan and Led Zep is fucked up. I don't think you've taken the time to actually listen to the music and realize none of those bands sound anything a like. The Beatles are the best band to ever create music and always will be, there's no arguing it. And no, Elvis didn't do anything, so no one bring him up.

 

While I agree with you about The Beatles being the best pop music group ever, it should be pointed out that John Lennon was influenced heavily by Bob Dylan's early work. Many of Lennon's contributions to Rubber Soul are obviously influenced by Dylan's folk style. The effect was reciprocal, though, as Dylan became interested in attempting to incorporate some of the maturity of The Beatles' sound into his music in the late 60s.