The Beatles-a confession

You can't stop there Bruce. Not while Beatles For Sale, Sgt Peppers and Abbey Road are still absent.

So much music, in such a short time.

Joe

You need Help! Bruce :-)

I was (almost) in your position. Had the 'red' and 'blue' greatest hits albums and didn't see the need for anything else. On a whim I ordered the mono set and loved it, especially the early stuff but also playing the lot in order and seeing them evolve from a simple rock n roll band.

One of my best buys of the year.

quote:

Please Wait. Your request is being processed...
Logout: forums
Update LiveCloud Account

Re

I was watching the stones on youtube tonight - just untouchable. well for me so much better than the fab 4,

Welcome to the human race, Bruce! If you don't adore The Beatles, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to possess Naim replay equipment.

Bruce, you can't surely be holding out against getting Help! and Sergeant Pepper, man?

You must buy, and buy again, with confidence, in the certain knowledge that this music will bring unconfined joy, in a way that no other group could ever do.

Only my opinion, of course, but Help! was the first LP that I ever owned, aged 8 years, in 1964. And I've adored their music ever since.

All best wishes.

Graham

quote:

Originally posted by Andy1912:

quote:

Please Wait. Your request is being processed...
Logout: forums
Update LiveCloud Account

Re

I was watching the stones on youtube tonight - just untouchable. well for me so much better than the fab 4,

It's not an 'either/or' thing. You are allowed to appreciate both, I hope.

The Stones do (did) rock like few others. However, both bands were influenced by the same music as their joint early output shows. The Stones perfected the rock thing to me.....however, the Beatles took song writing and innovation to higher levels imo.

Joe

quote:

If you don't adore The Beatles, you certainly shouldn't be allowed to possess Naim replay equipment.

Bollox!

Naim to listen to the Beatles? It's bit overkill, a Bose set should be sufficient!

Beatles were a pop band the Stones a rock band.

It's the mythology surrounding the Beatles that pisses me off , they have been credited with everything form starting life on earth to splitting the atom.
They wrote a lot of very good songs, but so have many other people.
One thing is for sure any of them had more talent in their excrement than all of the X/talent crowd.

What do I know? I liked the Dave Clark Five at one point.

Me being a teenager when the Stones & The Beatles first emerged, you were either a Stones or a Beatles fan - not cool to like them both!

Having seen the Stones live at the Crawdaddy club in Richmond I was very much a Stones fan but with a sneaking like for certain Beatles songs. Although the latter wrote some superb songs there was much of their stuff I positively hated so I never bothered to buy their albums (apart from "Please Please Me" in mono).

I've recently bought several of the new remastered CDs & really enjoyed them. I made a compilation on computer of the tracks I really liked and when we recently had visitors who confessed they didn't like the Beatles I got them to listen to my compilation. Sure enough, it was a case of "Oh, I like that one of course" - "...and that one's pretty good..."

An advantage of Beatles albums (and most other material from that era) is that the tracks don't last long if you don't like 'em!

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:


An advantage of Beatles albums (and most other material from that era) is that the tracks don't last long if you don't like 'em!

Apart from Revolution 9

Sister xx

As someone who listens to mainly "classical" music I would want to add my praise to The Beatles. Their albums still entertain me which more than can be said for most old "pop".

I also have a similar soft spot for Bowie and Pink Floyd - perhaps it's because of my age (51).

Don't worry about the Dave Clark Five BigH - I liked Herman's Hermits!

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
re: The Beatles
..... they have been credited with everything form starting life on earth to splitting the atom.

I never bought into that splitting the atom part either.

Jeff A

The Beatles are the reason I'm on this forum, in a way. Back in the summer of 1983, Abbey Road studios opened their doors for a couple of months and for £4, you could purchase a ticket to The Beatles at Abbey Road, a two hour audio/video show. The sound coming out of the studio speakers was startling, almost like being there (which was close to the truth, being held in studio two). This was what led me down the "real" hi-fi route. The music brought tears to my eyes back then, as it still can today.

What makes the Beatles special ? A combination of great songwriting, George Martin's musicianship, the skills of the engineers in Abbey Road, and perhaps the fact that their recording career lasted just seven years. Just consider the change from late 1962-1969 and then think what has really happened since 2002 to the present !

I'm not saying that they created the change but they were certainly a major part of it. The rest of the 60's group were swept along with them, the Stones included.

The Beatles were an extraordinary group and I think they deserve all the accolades afford them - without them much of the inventiveness of the 60s and beyond would not have happened.

Although the Rolling Stones were a very very good rock band they were not the Beatles and tended to follow rather than lead IMHO. I think there were a number of rock bands that at least equalled, if not surpassed, the Stones.

Again although the DC5 were reasonable group they did not come close to the quality of the Beatles or the Stones or Herman's Hermits for that matter (who can forget Mrs Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter and No Milk Today for example).

It is good, Bruce, that you've discovered the Beatles were a very fine band, if you can please listen to Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour and Abbey Road.

What's your view on that other fine 60s band - The Kinks?

Q: Who was the best the Stones or Beatles?

A: The Who

ah that was a decade to be a teen in. The wave of Beatlemania, British invasion, competing American bands that had something to say. I cherish the memories. Last week on public TV fundraising they had an hour of Ed Sullivan clips of rock bands, it was so funny to see all the costumes the bands wore and they were all so slender and young fresh faced. I was tempted to buy the DVD set.

Special memories of each record in the basement, looking at the album art, read the lyrics and you could understand them, unlike today. Wish I'd had more money. Mowing lawns didn't pay much.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
The Beatles.....without them much of the inventiveness of the 60s and beyond would not have happened.

Well said!
It is as simple as that, and nothing else.
The inventions, the creativeness . . . you wouldn't tell it is the same band, from a record, to another . .

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
The Beatles.....without them much of the inventiveness of the 60s and beyond would not have happened.

I disagree the other groups were already set in their ways . Their guides being the blues from America and Buddy Holly,Elvis etc, there is no need to have the Beatles.
I pretty sure they didn't influence the Shadows either.
There was also plenty of creative studio work going on out side of Abbey Road.

Take off those Beatle coloured "granny" glasses ( that John didn't invent) and look with new eyes.

FWIW 4 of the top songs of 1963 were by the Beatles, Louie Louie by the Kingsmen was No1 though, and a Bob Dylan song by Peter Paul and Mary beat Please Please Me in to 10th place.

quote:

Originally posted by Fender:
Q: Who was the best the Stones or Beatles?

A: The Who

It was a fabulous time for popular music and no doubt the Stones and The Who were both wonderful. In terms of genuine originality I'd say The Who were well above the Stones although the Stones released some of the best pop music ever in the late 60s/early 70s. I've seen them both on many occasions and have most of their albums. No doubt also they'd both be happy to say they were chasing the Beatles. Their only serious competitor as far as I'm concerned was Brian Wilson.

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
The Beatles.....without them much of the inventiveness of the 60s and beyond would not have happened.

I disagree the other groups were already set in their ways . Their guides being the blues from America and Buddy Holly,Elvis etc, there is no need to have the Beatles.
I pretty sure they didn't influence the Shadows either.
There was also plenty of creative studio work going on out side of Abbey Road.

Take off those Beatle coloured "granny" glasses ( that John didn't invent) and look with new eyes.

FWIW 4 of the top songs of 1963 were by the Beatles, Louie Louie by the Kingsmen was No1 though, and a Bob Dylan song by Peter Paul and Mary beat Please Please Me in to 10th place.

I think you are being overly subjective and besides, 1963 is neither here nor there. The fastest development of Beatles music took place from '66 onwards.

Whether you like them or not, The Beatles set standards against which, others are judged. Any of the other bands we like (Stones, Who, Kinks etc.) would be pleased to be compared in that same light and often site the influence and effect they had.

Few artists have such influence. Elvis did, as did Buddy Holly, Dylan and the Beach Boys. I don't personally care for Elvis or the BBs, but it would be churlish not to recognise the huge influence they had on what followed them.

Mind you, where are such innovators now? Simon Cowell? (Retires to safe distance).

Joe

yeah I listened to Help, Rubber Soul and Revolver last night. Rhey sure did have a range of things from ballads to country like and some hard rock too. Their ballads are really wonderful and heartfelt on the light side but wonderfully put together with hooks and many different instruments from the normal. They were versatile if nothing else but so colorful.

That doesn't mean others weren't important, the thing about competition is it makes you reach for higher and better, all the groups were trying to grab that gold ring. The Beatles had their style as others had theirs. Just a wonderful period that's the important part not ranking who was best, that's all very personal.