why like the beatles...?

[EmptinesOf Youth]

im not putting them down or trying to start anything, i just dont get it. What makes the beatles so great? i like a couple of their songs but honeslty, i dislike most of it. In fact, i think the Rolling Stones are better, maybe cause there not as happy....but anyways, try to convince me to like them....

[Gabriel E.]

I've never been a Beatles fan although I enjoyed them when I was a kid.

 

They deserve props for being highly innovative. Basically, they went from being a relatively safe pop band to a highly experimental one in a matter of a couple of years. A lot of the songwriting, orchistration and audio engineering techniques in their music hadn't been used by anyone before them. "Sgt. Pepper" was an extremely daring record at the time.

[Tedster]

I can't. You either like them or you don't...like Italian food.

 

One of the things, you have to take them in the context in which they appeared. But, their songs hold power over the years...where a lot of stuff sounds hopelessly dated.

 

I'm a big Beatles fan. They were the soundtrack of my youth. They (arguably) defined what it was to be a "rock star".

[Shoes]

Originally posted by Tedster:

One of the things, you have to take them in the context in which they appeared. But, their songs hold power over the years...where a lot of stuff sounds hopelessly dated.

Perfect point and one that defines the genius of being able to write lyrics that are timeless. There are so many of their songs that hit on common experiences that transcend time and generation and I'd trade everything I've ever written for the ability to tap this gift. They did seem to stay away from the popular topics of the day unlike most of their contemporaries.

Hmmmm.. perhaps there was a lesson there.

[Darklava]

What Ted said, either you do or you don't.

But I liked the first Paul better.

They were my fab four

[A String]

For those of us who are old enough, we began playing guitar because of the Beatles. I'm not sure if you have heard all of their stuff or not, but it is quite a range of music.

 

Some people like the early, stuff. Sweet, happy music you can snap your fingers too. Some like the stuff half way along, psychedelic, artistic stuff. Others like the later stuff, gritty and raw.

 

If you've listened to a good compilation of their music and still don't care for it, then there is nothing more I can do for you. If, however, you have only heard "I want to hold your hand" or other singles, then I recommend listening to a little bit from each album to really get a grasp of what The Beatles were about.

[Werewolf by Night]

Like other artists iconic of their times, the Beatles' body of work really makes the most sense when taken in context.

 

They were first or among the first to do many of the things they did. For starters, it wasn't as common pre-beatles for artists and groups to write nearly all of the material on their records; standards and poular covers were much more the norm then, as was buying pre-written songs, or hiring songwriters and arrangers. The "artists" were largely viewed only as performers then. Also, the Beatles took an unprecidented amount of control over their writing and recording.

 

Then there's all the groundbreaking sonic experimentation, unusual arrangements, music that was truely influenced by exotic forms (Indian classical, American blues, R&B, and rock 'n' roll), instead of just doing a send-up of it like you would hear in a show-tune (you know, where there's a bit that sounds like it's supposed to be snake charmer- or Chinese- or Russian Folk-music, and then the "straight" bit where the singer comes in, then the bridge, then the novelty act again). They actually incorporated sounds and styles and instruments from other sources and mixed up something new!

 

If there had been no Beatles, it's very likely that there wouldn't have been a Smashing Pumpkins or _________ (fill in the blank). That doesn't mean there's something wrong with you if you just don't care for their music, or even "get" it. It does mean, though, that they were extremely influential, both directly and indirectly.

 

P.S.- I guess that none of that is why I like the Beatles, I, uh, just do! Maybe it's 'cause I was young enough then and I'm old enough now...

 

I'm a master of gravity!!

 

Oh, and the "Beatles, or 'Stones"-thing has been bounced around for years; it's part of the eternal "Ginger, or Marrianne", "Corvette, or Mustang", "Gibson, or Fender", "Muddy, or 'Wolf", "PC, or Mac"-thing...

[Funk Jazz]

someday, son, you'll be a musician and the answer to that question will be obvious...

 

just try, i beg you to just try and write one song that is of the quality of the most average beatles song.

 

i'm guessing that you are young enough to totally take for granted all of the creative doors that the beatles opened.

 

forgive me the bitterness, but this topic is thrown around so much and so lightly. it's easy to berate those at the top when you have done nothing to topple them.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by And I knew the echo that is love:

In fact, i think the Rolling Stones are better, maybe cause there not as happy...

Well, if the reason you don't like the Beatles is because their music sounds too happy for you, then I don't really know what to say. I wouldn't be able to take listening to dark, heavy stuff to the exclusion of everything else. I love the Stones' music because it's so raw and dark. But I also love the Beatles' music in part BECAUSE they have a positive vibe while still being passionate. Not all of their music is "happy" sounding either, but even if it were... why is that bad? Life is more than just angst, hopefully.

[dondottcomm]

Ell. Rigby..is not a happy song!

[the.circular.motion.rub.it]

im young, im only 18, but the beatles are one of my favorite bands, period, for the only reason that really counts, because theyre music is simply incredible

 

AND i dont have some kind of weird preference that negative emotions are worse than positive emotions.... emotions are just, emotions

 

AND AND, the thing about those older songs, im not really into those myself, but even tho they were more of a straight up pop act then, they were still writing really incredible and great songs

 

the end...

 

that was a beatles reference

[Tedster]

But the Stones were happy. They needed a love, to keep them happy. Hap-pay (slide lick).

[BriBaby]

Get a hold of someone who has the White Album. Check out "Yer Blues".

 

"Yes I'm lonley

wanna die

Yes I'm Loooonley,

wanna die.

If I aint dead already (rundown lick)

Girl you know the reason why"

 

Great tune, not happy. Report back after listening to that. There be a quiz on friday.

[Lee Flier]

LOL BriBaby!

[mstreck]

Is it just me or are most of the Beatles' songs easy to play, but at the same time extremely HARD to pull off? It almost seems that as soon as someone else tries to cover their stuff, the "magic" is gone.

 

Mike

[mjmclane]

I'm one who grew up with the Beatles. If you weren't there and familiar with where (American) music was at before they came out you can't understand just how exciting and powerful they were. I'm talkin' Pat Boone, Bobby Vee, Bobby Rydell, Paul Anka, Dion. . .all a bunch of industry engineered Doowop dickheads. . .American Bandstand, letter sweaters. I'm getting ill just talking about it. It's the same doldrum the industry's in today. The Beatles turned everything on its collective head because they came out of nowhere and were totally outside the mainstream. Hells bells, they weren't even Americans! Your typical middle class white kid had NO SENSE of rock n' roll except for Elvis (and the aforementioned dickheads). We didn't learn about Lil' Richard, Sam Cooke etal until the Beatles (and subsequent UK groups they paved the way for) reintroduced them to us. If they did nothing but that, they would be a seminal group. The fact that they went on to fearlessly reinvent themselves several times (successfully) without regard for the "market", made them unprecedented. If you can imagine a group coming on the business controlled music scene today, without a business machine behind them; and based soley on the strength of their inventiveness, musicality and ability to connect with their audience relegating every industry engineered act from Britanny on down to irrelevance overnight, then you'd have a sense of who the Beatles were. But then I really didn't like them either !

[Funk Jazz]

mjmclane, that is a perfect summation

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by mstreck:

Is it just me or are most of the Beatles' songs easy to play, but at the same time extremely HARD to pull off? It almost seems that as soon as someone else tries to cover their stuff, the "magic" is gone.

Most of the time, yeah. Unless it's us covering them.

 

A lot of people who grew up with the Beatles seem to feel you have to put them in some sort of historical context to appreciate them... I think that's selling them short. I was in diapers when the Beatles appeared on the scene, thus had no real appreciation of their historical context, but as a teenager, that "magic" still struck me. And still does. A lot of young people now seem really into them too.

[Major Tom]

I'm one who grew up with the Beatles. If you weren't there and familiar with where (American) music was at before they came out you can't understand just how exciting and powerful they were.

Yep.

[mjmclane]

Lee's comment is spot on. History be damned. You don't have to like 'em, but most would agree that they were f****** terrific and prolific tunesmiths and talented performers; original, fresh, playful, inventive; so much of "them" (the group, not four individuals) came out effortlessly in everything they did. The historical significance is simply an outgrowth of that fact. I was just priveleged enough to get hit with "both barrels".

[LiveMusic]

Perfect point and one that defines the genius of being able to write lyrics that are timeless.

 

Yeah, what he said. Except, I would replace the word "lyric" above with "music." They were just so damn musical. Plus, all of the other stuff that is insane, in that it all came together AT ONE TIME. The stuff I hear these days can't touch them for musicality.

[LiveMusic]

I thought this might be appropos. I wrote this in February, the day after the 40th anniversary was the inspiration. It's a slow piano ballad. I enjoy playing this and people like it.

 

I am a HOOGE Beatles fan and I am very proud of this song.

 

=====

 

"POP WENT BANG"

©2004 All rights reserved

 

Intro:

It was forty years ago today

That my life changed in so many ways

 

Huddled on the floor with my brothers, Bob and Jeff

When Ed Sullivan said Here they are, I thought we might go deaf

Yeah, yeah, yeah was hipper than a squarer Yes, yes, yes

And I thought then that Beatles boots drove girls wild

 

[ CHORUS: ]

Fate chose a fabulous four

Then it simply opened the door

What we got was roaring, it was soaring to the top

When the Fabulour Four first sang, POP WENT BANG

 

Take a dose of Dylan, add some Elvis and the blues

Then add in some Beethoven while you're reinventing shoes

Moptop hair, talent, charming attitudes

And stir it with the hand of fate and that's what drives girls wild

 

[ CHORUS - REPEAT ]

 

[ BRIDGE: ]

I think of Yesterday and even one where they beeped

Sir George Martin must've cringed and lost sleep

On, The Long And Winding Road makes me ponder things deep

Imagine... My Guitar Gently Weeps

 

[ BREAK ] (verse progession, 6 of 8 bars)

 

When the Fabulous Four first sand, POP WENT BANG

All the goddesses of muse decided '64 was right

When the Fabulous Four first sand, POP WENT BANG

[Tedster]

Originally posted by mstreck:

Is it just me or are most of the Beatles' songs easy to play, but at the same time extremely HARD to pull off? It almost seems that as soon as someone else tries to cover their stuff, the "magic" is gone.

 

Mike

I would take sort of exception to that. When I learned to play, there were a lotta rock and roll I IV Vs blues based stuff...and other stuff...stuff like Foghat, relatively simple

chord progressions. Some of those Beatles songs show astonishingly developed senses of chords, especially for kids of 20 or so with no formal training who wrote them.

[A String]

I have to agree with Tedster on this one. They put chords together in very complex ways. Also, if you learned Beatles songs from a book, there is a good chance that you are playing a simplified version. Most of the books I have seen use basic chords so that you can "hum and strum" Beatles songs at parties. If you get a good Beatles book, you will find they used some fairly advanced chords.

[LiveMusic]

Originally posted by mstreck:

Is it just me or are most of the Beatles' songs easy to play

I cannot even fathom that statement with respect to all of the other pop music of their day. Even to this day. In general, their music was anything but simple.

[Funk Jazz]

since when are songs supposed to be hard to play this has absolutely no relation to the importance or substance of music.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by FunkJazz:

since when are songs supposed to be hard to play this has absolutely no relation to the importance or substance of music.

We're not saying that their songs were hard, or supposed to be hard, we're saying that their music, for four guys barely out of their teens, showed incredible sophistication.

 

I was playing "Any time at all" the other night. The main chord progression is D-F#m-Bm-Gm. Now the first three chords in that are pretty straightforward, but going to that Gm is a masterstroke IMO. I mean, when you listen to it, it sounds simple, and IS simple, but so effective. But for most kids who would be the sixties equivalent of those going into a music store and playing "Enter Sandman"...they wouldn't have had a clue. "Louie Louie" would have been far easier.

 

Oh, and as for the songbooks...be careful. Most of them are written for easy piano...and they'll take songs in uncomfy piano keys like A and E and put 'em in Bb...and give beginning guitar players some squirrely way to play a Bb chord.

[Dave da Dude]

I think my problem is that they got so OVERplayed on radio when I was in college (1963 through 1968) that I got kinda' burned out on them.

 

There is no doubt though that they were very prolific, and wrote very good music that is timeless; maybe just a little too soft for me (overall, some songs are "just right").

 

Dave the Stones fan

[I I mjrn]

To answer a question with a question...why not?

[Guitar Geezer]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Most of the time, yeah. Unless it's us covering them.

[/QB]

IOf ypou haven't listened to What The's

I\'ve got a Feeling

 

Stop what you're doing....click the link...and enjoy

{pimping for Lee and the group}