someone care to explain the beatles to me?

[challenge_everything]

Wow I'm surprised how much love there is for the Beatles here. I don't see anything that groundbreaking about their so-called experimental phase. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that phase is generally considered to start with Sgt Pepper, right? It's still for the most part a simplistic bubblegum pop album. 'When I'm Sixty-Four'? 'Lucy in the Sky'? Complete crap. The Byrds and the Beach Boys were putting out more sophisticated pop at that time. I mean, Pet Sounds wipes the floor with anything the Beatles ever did and came out before Sgt Pepper. Nor I accept Pink Floyd drew much from the Beatles. Piper at the Gates of Dawn came out the same year as Sgt Pepper in 67. In fact the Doors put out their self titled album that year too, so did Hendrix's Are You Experienced and they were better than anything the Beatles ever did. Abbey Road is better but that was mainly due to the increased presence of George Harrison in the songwriting. Lennon and McCartney = massively overrated.

Their best song is 'Rock N Roll Music' and Chuck Berry still did it better.

 

[The Ozzman]

The Doors self-titled wipes the floor with any Beatles album

 

[razoredge]

thousands of screaming peeing girls cant be wrong.......

 

[The Ozzman]

thousands of screaming peeing girls cant be wrong.......

 

[Vimana]

Wow I'm surprised how much love there is for the Beatles here. I don't see anything that groundbreaking about their so-called experimental phase. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that phase is generally considered to start with Sgt Pepper, right? It's still for the most part a simplistic bubblegum pop album. 'When I'm Sixty-Four'? 'Lucy in the Sky'? Complete crap. The Byrds and the Beach Boys were putting out more sophisticated pop at that time. I mean, Pet Sounds wipes the floor with anything the Beatles ever did and came out before Sgt Pepper. Nor I accept Pink Floyd drew much from the Beatles. Piper at the Gates of Dawn came out the same year as Sgt Pepper in 67. In fact the Doors put out their self titled album that year too, so did Hendrix's Are You Experienced and they were better than anything the Beatles ever did. Abbey Road is better but that was mainly due to the increased presence of George Harrison in the songwriting. Lennon and McCartney = massively overrated.

Their best song is 'Rock N Roll Music' and Chuck Berry still did it better.

+1

Except I wouldn't say any Beatles songs are complete crap.

 

[Matt]

The Doors self-titled wipes the floor with any Beatles album

LOL

Wow I'm surprised how much love there is for the Beatles here. I don't see anything that groundbreaking about their so-called experimental phase. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that phase is generally considered to start with Sgt Pepper, right? It's still for the most part a simplistic bubblegum pop album. 'When I'm Sixty-Four'? 'Lucy in the Sky'? Complete crap. The Byrds and the Beach Boys were putting out more sophisticated pop at that time. I mean, Pet Sounds wipes the floor with anything the Beatles ever did and came out before Sgt Pepper. Nor I accept Pink Floyd drew much from the Beatles. Piper at the Gates of Dawn came out the same year as Sgt Pepper in 67. In fact the Doors put out their self titled album that year too, so did Hendrix's Are You Experienced and they were better than anything the Beatles ever did. Abbey Road is better but that was mainly due to the increased presence of George Harrison in the songwriting. Lennon and McCartney = massively overrated.

Their best song is 'Rock N Roll Music' and Chuck Berry still did it better.

LOL

 

[Alter]

The Doors self-titled wipes the floor with any Beatles album

No, The Beatles are much better. The Doors could never write "A Day In The Life" or "Across The Universe."

 

[Vimana]

Its stupid to see this arguement. Its all a matter of preference no band is "better" than the other.

 

[razoredge]

I second Mathias & F&F on this one and Im not even that fimiliar with whole albums or a big fan of any bands mentioned. I seem to remember them all bringing something to the table.

Ozzman - The thing about the girls reaction in the early days... it was just a cliche joke, commonly used, nothing more.

Good Vibrations was a great song, talk about harmonies
Eight Miles High - Turn Turn Turn - were awesome songs, more great harmonies and McGuinn with his Rickenbacker 12, what a sound!

I like Lucy in the Sky, Helter Skelter but for whatever reason the more, cant come up with right word, thoughtful?, deep thought?, songs like Let It Be, Yesterday and While my Guitar __ __ are the ones that stuck to me the most. Possibly because they identify with that time period, they take me back. All those songs I just mentioned do, great soundtrack material for movies based in that period.

Then there was The Association.... ?

 

[challenge_everything]

LOL



LOL

At least I put together a reasoned justification for my view.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Wow I'm surprised how much love there is for the Beatles here. I don't see anything that groundbreaking about their so-called experimental phase. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that phase is generally considered to start with Sgt Pepper, right? It's still for the most part a simplistic bubblegum pop album. 'When I'm Sixty-Four'? 'Lucy in the Sky'? Complete crap. The Byrds and the Beach Boys were putting out more sophisticated pop at that time. I mean, Pet Sounds wipes the floor with anything the Beatles ever did and came out before Sgt Pepper. Nor I accept Pink Floyd drew much from the Beatles. Piper at the Gates of Dawn came out the same year as Sgt Pepper in 67. In fact the Doors put out their self titled album that year too, so did Hendrix's Are You Experienced and they were better than anything the Beatles ever did. Abbey Road is better but that was mainly due to the increased presence of George Harrison in the songwriting. Lennon and McCartney = massively overrated.

Their best song is 'Rock N Roll Music' and Chuck Berry still did it better.

Sgt. Pepper is an over-rated album imo, and probably a bad example of their best work, although it's far from a "simplistic bubblegum pop album". The arrangements and production techniques used were utilizing brand new technology. But as far as songs go, A Day In The Life is the only real standout track for me. Revolver is a much better album imo, and it not only came out before Sgt. Peppers, but it contains one of their most psychedelic tracks, Tommorrow Never Knows. It's also a much more solid album songwriting wise; Taxman, I'm Only Sleeping, Dr. Robert, Elanor Rigby and For No One are all great songs.

You can pick out songs like When I'm Sixty Four, Yellow Submarine, Octopus's Garden etc all day and claim they were a shit band with no substance, but you'd be ignoring their good stuff imo, and of course the shit songs seem to be the most remembered.

And comparing their work with what other artists were doing at the time is pointless, yes many artists were doing groundbreaking things at the time and they were all inspiring each other. Brian Wilson has said that The Beatles inspired him to write better music and that in fact he felt intense pressure to 'keep up' creatively.

 

[ramses]

Have to agree with you on Sgt. Pepper. I love the album, mind you, but to me Revolver, and my favorite, Abbey Road are their best.

 

[Alter]

The White Album is their best and most advanced work of art.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I feel this way about The Rolling Stones. I love The Beatles.

 

[Vimana]

I don't really like Revolver, Abbey Road is their best IMO.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I never got what was so great about this band. I don't hate um, but they never sounded like anything special to me. Whats the deal with them?

what's there to explain? they were pioneers in their day and wrote many of the most memorable pop/rock songs ever made. their early stuff is sort of hit and miss for me (some is too hokey for my taste) but the later stuff is mostly pretty great.

 

[Einherjar86]

Basically everyone has said it already. Their influence is undeniable, but their music was nothing special. It was very immature, even their revolutionary/protest music. John Lennon was no prophet or musical genius. His popularity got in the way of other songwriters who were truly monumental and revolutionary:

Roger Waters
Peter Gabriel
Ian Anderson

These guys were more advanced and intellectual than Lennon on several levels (in my opinion...)

 

[Alter]

Basically everyone has said it already. Their influence is undeniable, but their music was nothing special. It was very immature, even their revolutionary/protest music. John Lennon was no prophet or musical genius. His popularity got in the way of other songwriters who were truly monumental and revolutionary:

Roger Waters
Peter Gabriel
Ian Anderson

These guys were more advanced and intellectual than Lennon on several levels (in my opinion...)

Well, you are wrong. And your opinion is only a pawn in the midst of my words.

 

[Vimana]

Alter what does my sig say?

And also, there is no such thing as a wrong or right opinion.

I do agree with him somewhat, Waters was very imaginative and clever. In my opinion John just told people what they wanted to hear in his peace music.

 

[Alter]

Alter what does my sig say?

And also, there is no such thing as a wrong or right opinion.

I do agree with him somewhat, Waters was very imaginative and clever. In my opinion John just told people what they wanted to hear in his peace music.

My statement was a total joke. Wow, did you not understand how overdone I made that post. Wow.