What made the Beatles SO great to so many people ?

[d halfnote]

Recently I posted a vid of the Beatles

doing one of their most spirited performances.

 

I get on those kinda kicks once in a while

where a single record or performance

seems to capture everything I like abt music.

First time I heard the live version of "Cosmic Slop",

I listened to it maybe a dozen times in a row.

 

Anyway, the 1st few comments on that thread

were mostly not abt the clip itself but

how great the Beatles were..."The greatest band EVER", etc.

 

Initially I was a bit disappointed in the responses there.

I hope that's not offensive to anyone but I always wonder about people's opinions

when they're vehement in their insistence of any artist's ultimate superiority to all else.

"The Dead !!", "The Stones, man !!"

I like a lot of music but I can't think of anyone who never served up some bad clams.

 

The insistence that The Beatles (of whom I'm clearly a fan) were better than bands such as,

to mention just a few examples,

Louis Armstrong & Earl Hines, Sun Ra, PFunk, some of the groups led by Miles Davis or Frank Zappa...

somehow to me that actually reduces the validity of the Beatles's very real achievement,

which is/was vast & extensive far beyond the music itself.

 

I know that makes me seem cranky, perhaps, but too much hype is ... :idk

 

I spent some time this past week trying to think how to put this idea into words

& I don't think I came up with a clear expression but maybe this quote from Maya Angelou will help:

"People will forget what you said & they'll forget what you did

but they'll always remember how you made them feel."

 

I think that says much about the lasting appeal of the Beatles, which extends not only over the years

for those who grew up with their music but to following generations---& still today---

to those who have only a vague idea what they were like, beyond their records,

& of their effect on the world at the time.

 

For all their ability as entertainers & musical creators, what seems the most masterful thing they achieved

is to somehow have imbued their recordings (or at least many of them) with a spirit that,

even when expressing sadness or negativity, just seems to make people feel good.

 

That's some magic I'd like to have.

 

Whadda you think ?

[Kimsky]

It seems to be a question of the right people in the right circumstances. The years in Germany gave them maybe 5,000 plus hours performing a variety of different musical styles in front of a live audience taught really allowed them to hone their vocal/harmony chops as well as developing their ears. Then having enough early success to be allowed to experiment a bit let them develop as writers and artists instead of being pressured to repeat their early successes endlessly. These events let two VERY gifted singers and writers (plus a moderately gifted 3rd option) make the most of their talents.

[Larryz]

It's a very cool feeling when you know you've made the audience feel good...and they show it by getting up and dancing at a sit-down open mic venue or singing along and having fun...the Beatles could do it with something as simple as "I wanna hold your hand"...

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Beatles deserve their legendary status because they combined solid writing with mass appeal in a way that nobody before them and few other acts since have succeeded in doing.

 

Combine that with the coincidence of the dawn of truly global media coverage and...

[The Geoff]

The Beatles as a group were of their time. Not only that, but they were fresh and new and, of course, hyped.

 

More importantly, the Kids were ready for something & The Beatles fitted that slot perfectly.

 

It was a different world then & the singer-songwriter was an uncommon animal and the fact that The Fab Four wrote their own material was in itself unusual.

 

The music started off basic rock and quickly matured to complex rhythms and chordage - see songs like 'Eleanor Rigby' and 'Fool On The Hill'.

 

The sheer variance of style and genre of the written work coming from them was astonishing. They (John, Paul & later George) provided a fabric of music that stretched across the limits of both western & to some extent, eastern musics and left us a legacy of such width and variety that I suspect it will be a very long time before we see it surpassed.

 

What made The Beatles special for me was their innate genius.

 

G.

[Bartholomew]

Plus exceptional feel & time and don't forget George Martin.

[Larryz]

I spent some time this past week trying to think how to put this idea into words

& I don't think I came up with a clear expression but maybe this quote from Maya Angelou will help:

"People will forget what you said & they'll forget what you did

but they'll always remember how you made them feel."

 

even when expressing sadness or negativity, just seems to make people feel good.

 

That's some magic I'd like to have.

 

Whadda you think ?

 

I think "magic" might be the key word to explain it...just like the Rolling Stones, Chuck Berry, CCR, Beach Boys, etc., the Beatles had an endless series of hits (and superior hits in so many ways), and just when you think they couldn't come up with anything more, they would as if by "magic" do it again. If they were all still with us today, there is not a doubt in my mind that they couldn't pull a new rabit out of their hat. Thanks for taking the time to reflect back on this thread D

[Fred_C]

I liked the early Beatles better than the later efforts. Rubber Soul was my favorite album.

 

IMO they became self-absorbed and pretentious later on. But, I guess that fame, money, dropping acid and hanging out with an Indian mystic will do that to you.

 

As a devoted bluescat, I liked the Stones better due to their bluesier sound. Even the Stones got far out with Their Satanic Majesties Request which had a psychedelic flavor. Too much acid.

 

Different strokes for different folks.

[SEHpicker]

In case anyone is interested, I recently read an excellent 850 page biography appropriately named: "The Beatles" by Bob Spitz.

It begins with the ancient lineage of the boys and tells the most intimate details of their lives beginning at very early ages. Their families, influences, memoirs etc. The depth of research that Spitz went into is incredible. Many things are explained that I've always wondered about. This book is a page-turner. Highly recommended.

BTW - I totally stand by my statement on the other thread, Best band EVER !!

[d halfnote]

Plus exceptional feel & time and don't forget George Martin.

 

Exactly !

Most ppl fail to recognize the depth of GM's involvement, not just directing their recordings but even writing much of what we presume Lennon & McCartney concocted (harmonies & instrumental lines) but even playing parts (& not just things like "In My Life"---early on he did some extremely rocking piano parts).

Things as varied as "Here, There & Everywhere" or "I Am The Walrus" simply wouldn't be what they are without his participation.

 

However, as good as the tunes & decoration the Beatles presented, I emphasize my orig point:

It was their ability to convey feelings in their performances that seems to be what is as important.

[whitefang]

It could be easier understood by those of us old enough to remember what there was before, and what they provided at the time. When they came on the American music scene, wasn't much happening. Elvis was making movie music, the Beach Boys already had been around for a while, and surf tunes were pointless here in Detroit, Motown was just starting to get off the ground, so wasn't that much of a factor, and the folk scene was beginning to stale.

 

We had "hits" like "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport", Tommy Roe's cover of "Oh, Carol" and some song about Honda motorcycles. When "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" came out, even those of us at the time who weren't yet musically attuned KNEW there was something uncommon and very different about what we were hearing. Forget about how we finally saw how they LOOKED. They SOUNDED so different than anyone else at the time. And the sound wasn't disagreeable. As time went on, their penchant for always doing something different became their appeal; each succesive album had something new to offer. The songs on "Beatles '65"(the U.S. title for "Beatles For Sale") were notably different that the tunes on the "Hard Day's Night" soundtrack. And on and on.

 

The fact that they had very few, if any, "bad clams" is another factor. It seemed each new album offered so many #1's (if THAT'S important to ya) when anyone else maybe had ONE tune on an album that hit high on the charts was remarkable. And did you notice that it seems they recorded enough music to have some think they'd been at it for MORE than seven years? They managed to put out two studio albums a year WHILE doing extensive worldwide touring. And make a couple of movies, too! Twice or more albums in six years than many of today's top artists did in the same time span. And NONE of them "bad clams"

 

It's easy to see WHY they were considered "The Greatest". Paul McCartney summed it up in the Anthology: "We were always proud of the fact that most of our songs were about love. Getting love, finding love, giving love, feeling love."

 

Yes indeedee. Made us ALL feel the same way!

Whitefang

[picker]

Greatest band in the world? No. There is no such thing as a band that could claim a title so broad. But,they were a rockin' little band, for sure. And like a lot of other folks I could name, they were the first band to do what they did in the way they did it, even if the music they did was basically just recycled American r&b. They did eventually take the music somewhere that it hadn't been before, I think, rather than just continuously playing deraunchified covers of Tamla/Motown and Sun artists. And, that is what makes their music original and unique. For me, Revolver & Rubber Soul is where they really came into their own, Sgt. Pepper had some great moments but isn't their best work, The White Album was a ponderous accomplishment, Let it Be proves you could get something decent out of even their worst work, and the side of Abbey Road that starts with Here Comes The Sun and ends with Her Majesty is their magnum opus.

[whitefang]

You forgot to mention "Magical Mystery Tour" which also contained some of their best compositions. And I didn't like "Let it Be" all that well until the "Naked" version was released, minus all the Phil Spector over producing.

Whitefang

[Eric Iverson]

The Beatles were definitely one of a kind!

They DID have a couple bad songs: "Rain", "Inner Light"... but very few, whereas a lot of albums of the time had one or two good tunes and the rest was filler, to put it mildly!

So they did a lot to make ALBUMS the rock standard when it used to be SINGLES!

 

Actually, there are some fine moments in their individual work, too, though they never equaled what they could do together, IMHO.

 

So they did a lot also to make GROUPS the rock standard as opposed to individual singers a/k/a sex symbols like Elvis, no disrespect intended, LOL.

 

 

[Mark Schmieder]

Hah, "The Inner Light" is one of my faves (it holds a special place in my heart because it was the LAST song in their catalogue that I added to my collection, it being extremely rare in the US), as is "Rain" (I also dig Todd Rundgren's cover and am not surprised he made it his Beatles pick for his first half-covers album called "Faithful"). Different strokes, and all that... which brings up the main point, that The Beatles had something for everyone, as they covered such a range.

 

I agree about "Let It Be" finally coming into its own with the "Naked" reissue, but it's a shame they used the short version of Get Back as the basis. The biggest revelation for me on that version is the song that I previously felt was Harrison's weakest, "For You Blue". It finally makes sense and sounds musical. I don't know what Phil Spector was thinking!

 

I'm one of those "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" guys, but The White Album has grown on me with time -- especially due to the passion in some of John Lennon's vocals (notably "Yer Blues"). All the same, I think it unlikely the band would have gotten big had that been their debut offering and were they not a known entity at the time. In other words, they were past their peak as a band (but not as individual musicians).

 

"Abbey Road" was an attempt to reinvigorate the band and give them more live energy again. It worked. I think they knew it was going to be their last new material ("Let It Be" was recorded before it and only came out afterwards due to delays in the production after negative feedback on the DJ-only "Get Back" version, and even "I Me Mine" only has a later recording date because it was mostly a George solo effort), so they gave it extra effort in spite of antagonism.

 

If you listen to their Decca demos, you'll see that they didn't have the ingredients for success without the guidance of George (musically) and Brian (fashion/looks). They were young, after all. It was their energy and tightness more than anything else, honed by all those hours in Hamburg and by being close personally, that made George Martin and Brian Epstein believe in them. And they were good listeners, learning from everyone around them.

 

In the end, they outgrew their teachers and were ready to prove themselves on their own. "The White Album" is the first example of them more or less doing it for themselves; much to the annoyance of every engineer that worked on that project (lots of fights, and several walkouts by EMI staff as well as the lads themselves). They had grown up and wanted to do adult rock.

 

As good as their solo music was -- and I personally prefer it to The Beatles music in general, just due to the maturity of the songwriting, singing, and lyrics -- it is doubtful any of them would have become big stars on their own if not for The Beatles and people already knowing who they were.

 

Yet their solo material had as big an impact on other artists, and spawned as many careers, as the music they made as a foursome. Wasn't "All Things Must Pass" the first time all those musicians got together that ended up being the core of Derek & the Dominoes and the backing for so many 70's artists? Apple Records signed a lot of artists that went on to become big stars. McCartney's solo material has been a big inspiration for DIY artists and the Indie movement.

 

George Harrison probably had the biggest impact of any single Beatle, helping draw attention to the plight of a young nation (Bangladesh) coming out of Civil War, famine, and repression. He also helped save the British film industry from dying, and almost went broke in the process. But now that industry is strong. Yet if not for him, the last studio would have closed and the opportunity to rebirth British film would not have come.

 

In spite of their personal flaws and squabbles, they remained essentially an unselfish group of musicians who were constantly doing things to help other people and try to promote a message of love and peace, however naive that might seem at times. They walked the walk; they didn't just talk the talk. People "got" that, and it affected their popularity, just as U2 reaps benefits today from sticking to their principles.

[desertbluesman]

What made the Beatles SO great?

Sir George Martin early on, simple as that!!!!!

 

Once they learned from him, their own genius showed through. But it was the times as well. They (along with Sir George) did things with popular music that no one ever did before.

[picker]

Actually, there are some fine moments in their individual work, too, though they never equaled what they could do together, IMHO.

 

I started out to disagree, because there are some things they did after The Beatles that I really like. But I have to admit you are right about that, with this caveat; George only really came into his own AFTER the Beatles. With Paul & John taking the lion's share of the songwriting chores, together at first and separately later, and George being a much less prolific writer, he'd never have developed to the extent he did if the Beatles had stayed together.

[Eric Iverson]

George said exactly that in an interview with Dick Cavett, that he only got 2 or 3 songs on a Beatles album.

 

John said that he and Paul were two of the greatest songwriters, and that George's talent was "less"; maybe, but he wrote some fine songs for the Beatles, especially "Something".

[d halfnote]

Wasn't "All Things Must Pass" the first time all those musicians got together that ended up being the core of Derek & the Dominoes and the backing for so many 70's artists?

It's a side point to the thread but actually those guys were all together already as the backing band for Delaney & Bonnie Bramlett, who hit England like a whirlwind (& with whom both Clapton & Harrison toured in late 1968).

[whitefang]

Here's something many of you might think is a load of crap...

 

My feeling is when Paul or John were writing songs for the GROUP, they took the group's already established sound and abilities in mind and composed accordingly. And whether in collaboration, or seperately, they turned out to be some very good tunes.

 

Even though the group recorded together for about six or seven years, not really a long time, they spent a huge percentage of that time up each other's asses, so little time was spent effectively to develope an individual "sound", therefore making it hard to compose effectively FOR it.

 

Except for George, who's songs were few and far between used in the scheme of things, and who had a little more time to think about how HE would do them if on his own. He probably had his own "sound" down before the break up.

 

Even though Paul did some good stuff with Wings, he STILL put out crap like "Silly Love Songs" and "My Love". And John couldn't let go of the reverb soaked '50's style vocals. Sorry, fans, but I really didn't care for his last album.

Whitefang PS: Ringo gave it a good try. Some of his solo stuff was OK.

[A String]

I've always found it fascinating how you can distinctly hear the individual aspects of the Beatles, in each of their respective solo projects. You can hear Paul's light hearted, pop sound. You can hear John Lennon's rough, bluesy side. You can hear George's exotic side and you can hear Ringo's, country/children's side.

 

Listening to their solo stuff is like taking a Beatles song, cutting it into four pieces and only hearing one fourth of the influence.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Definitely a band where the sum was greater than the parts...and the parts were pretty damn good on their own!

[d halfnote]

Here's something many of you might think is a load of crap...

 

My feeling is when Paul or John were writing songs for the GROUP, they took the group's already established sound and abilities in mind and composed accordingly. And whether in collaboration, or seperately, they turned out to be some very good tunes.

 

Even though the group recorded together for about six or seven years, not really a long time, they spent a huge percentage of that time up each other's asses, so little time was spent effectively to develope an individual "sound", therefore making it hard to compose effectively FOR it.

 

Except for George, who's songs were few and far between used in the scheme of things, and who had a little more time to think about how HE would do them if on his own. He probably had his own "sound" down before the break up.

 

Even though Paul did some good stuff with Wings, he STILL put out crap like "Silly Love Songs" and "My Love". And John couldn't let go of the reverb soaked '50's style vocals. Sorry, fans, but I really didn't care for his last album.

Whitefang PS: Ringo gave it a good try. Some of his solo stuff was OK.

W/out responding in full to what you wrote, I can say that's one of the most unique & , possibly, most valid , conceptualisms of the band's output & history.

 

I THINK YOU"VE DONE SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY THERE !!!!!

[d halfnote]

FWIW, I can at this time cite only a few examoles of the Beas commenting om their group activity after the band had ended.

Most obviously : Ringo's track c.1970 "Early 1870" wherein he cites each member.

 

GH track : 'Isn't It A Pity" wherein he declaims a general sadness but sets the track against an almost exact copy of the progression of "Hey Jude".

 

Palm MyC etc. track : "Let Me Roll It " , which is generally considered a copy/tribut of Lennon's work.

 

[desertbluesman]

Definitely a band where the sum was greater than the parts...and the parts were pretty damn good on their own!

 

All were talented but the Beatles had a component that no one else seems to care about, I reiterate, Sir George Martin. His production skills are probably very high on the "genius of the Beatles phenomenon"

 

At one time I ran across the money split on the Beatles music, EMI 80%, Sir George Martin 15%, the Beatles 5% (split 4 ways) That is probably why Sir George owns a whole Island in the Caribbean. The money split seems unfair, but it may just reflect the importance of the players in that game......(The front men always get all the glory, but as musicians we insiders know that the front men might not be the best of the talent involved)

 

This is not to say that the Beatles were not great at what they did, They were. I am just saying there was a real important ingredient in the mix that did not get very much glory, but I am sure he was very important in the end product.

[desertbluesman]

Y'all do know that the Beatles had to show up at the studios just like you would at a day job. They had to be there day in and day out, right on time just like anyone does at a standard day job. Sir George was a taskmaster, kinda like a dictator. And the penalties for not showing up were very strict. That kind of intensity (which the Beatles resented big time) had to pay off in spades which it did.

 

How do you know this DBM?

 

I have a producer friend in Beverly Hills, and during the days of the last Police tour several years back, the drummer and actual owner of the Police (with his brother) Stewart Copeland had been gifted with some tickets to a seminar with Sir George. Stewart Copland could not make the seminar of course (while he was making hundreds of million dollars) so he gave the tickets to my, (and Stewart's) longtime friend, and master musician Steve. A short time after that seminar Steve and his then wife came out to visit the wifey and I for a weekend, and during our drive up to Sedona on a day trip (which takes 3 to 4 hours) I got about a three hour dialog on that seminar from Steve.

[d halfnote]

At one time I ran across the money split on the Beatles music, EMI 80%, Sir George Martin 15%, the Beatles 5% (split 4 ways)

I believe that to be incorrect.

The Beatles got paid 2 ways for their records:

Their contracted mechanical royalty , which changed a couple times, & their compositional royalties, through the various © holders.

Out of all their earnings NEMS (Epsteins's co.) took 25%.

 

Martin got paid his staight EMI rate while he worked for the company (he resigned before the end of his asscociation with the band, can't recall what year).

He claimed in one of his books that he never got a bonus from EMI or the band.

 

[desertbluesman]

Could be, I am just quoting something I read sometime back, that part of my post did not come from my friend.

[d halfnote]

We must also keep in mind that not everything anyone says (yes even Beatles or Geo Martin ) is always accurate.

[whitefang]

So here's another question: What does it say about a band that broke up 43 years ago, and people are STILL having discussions and debates about 'em?

Whitefang