someone care to explain the beatles to me?

The stuff Syd wrote was highly influenced by the Beatles actually, it wasn't until DSOTM that they actually redefined their sound imo... I don't understand what you mean though, when you say he was an "Experimental person". He did a lot of drugs?

Actually had to do more with their architectural and art school backgrounds then the beatles music.. as well as their contacts with film school students for their experimentations... your assumption of the Beatles being a high influence to them is opinion and not fact... you should read the excellent book :

A Saucerful of Secrets : The Pink Floyd Odyssey by Nicholas Schaffner
 
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...)

Those 3 guys came afterwards pretty much so your understanding of the Beatles music at the time is obviously ignorant... and with the exception of Waters/Pink Floyd... i would hardly call Anderson and Gabriel as monumental and revolutionary songwriters... that is just your opinion and fanboy mind speaking... Anyways for the younger generation to fully understand the Beatles music they would have to have been there because listening to too music from after the Beatles up to the present time clouds their judgement about the Beatles...
 
I'd say The White Album would be a good place to start. It's got a great range of stuff on it, and it's a double album. The thing about the band is that they had their poppy, kids friendly stuff like Yellow Submarine and Ob La Di, Ob La Da which were largely written by either Ringo Starr or Paul McCartney. I think a lot of people write the band off because of this lighter, fluffier material coupled with the fact that they were so hugely popular. I find some of that material ok and that's what drew me to the band as a child, but it's the other stuff I love the most.

Abbey Road and Revolver are fantastic albums as well.

I've been listening to the The White Album lately and it seems nice enough. It doesn't seem without flaws though. One thing that strikes me is how incoherent the album is. It almost feels like you're listening to a compilation than an actual studio album with tracks like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, Helter Skelter, Revolution 9 and Good Night all on the same album. I also think it has a good amount of filler on it. I'm pretty sure they could have cut this down to not be a double album and it would have been better for it.

It's too bad the radio tends to warp your view of a band like the Beatles by mostly focusing on their most tedious songs.
 
Those aren't really opinions.

Opinion: A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
 
So basically what I got out of this thread was, the beatles were influential in american popular music. But for me as a music listener there's absolutely no reason to try and get into them, when I got me Kaleidoscope.
 
Those aren't really opinions.

Opinion: A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Dear Fuckstick,

I'm glad you took the time to check dictionary.com to confirm the alleged truth of your opinion but you forgot to look at the other entries. At any rate, it doesn't really matter and you are gay.

~C~
 
I did look at the other entries, I just didn't use them because they weren't the ones I wanted to use.

Whatever.

Mods, please delete the flame posts, I hate stupid shit like this.
 
'It is my opinion that Earth revolves around the sun.' <-- right

'It is my opinion that the sun revolves around Earth.' <-- wrong

Okay, point taken. I think with something like that though, there are right and wrong opinions. Concerning music, though, there's really no right or wrong opinion
 
I've been listening to the The White Album lately and it seems nice enough. It doesn't seem without flaws though. One thing that strikes me is how incoherent the album is. It almost feels like you're listening to a compilation than an actual studio album with tracks like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, Helter Skelter, Revolution 9 and Good Night all on the same album. I also think it has a good amount of filler on it. I'm pretty sure they could have cut this down to not be a double album and it would have been better for it.

It's too bad the radio tends to warp your view of a band like the Beatles by mostly focusing on their most tedious songs.

Glad to hear you're liking it. The reason it feels like a compilation is because the band weren't writing as a unit at that point at all. And yeah I agree there is filler, but the good stuff far outweighs it imo. I think McCartney is the main reason for the incoherent feel of the album. To have written kids songs songs like Ob-la-di Ob-la-da along with vaudville campness like Honey Pie and then at the other end of the scale really cool stuff like Helter Skelter, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Rocky Racoon and Back In The USSR, it seems like he got to put in whatever he wanted regardless of quality because of his 'leader' status in the band.
 
Oh the good stuff definitely outweighs the bad. The album is very enjoyable overall. It's just stuck at being a good album rather than the amazing album it could have been if they got rid of some of the camp and stuck to the darker and more rocking material. But there's some amazing tracks onthere that I had not previously heard.
 
Seems to me it used to be somewhat common for bands to record a wide variety of material on one record. I dont think anyone thought much of it at that time. Now its nearly the complete opposite where an entire recording could be viewed as one song with ten variations.
 
Seems to me it used to be somewhat common for bands to record a wide variety of material on one record. I dont think anyone thought much of it at that time. Now its nearly the complete opposite where an entire recording could be viewed as one song with ten variations.

Which other bands from that period were known for their wide variety of material?
 
Well that particular Beatles time period or sound is a bit too old for me but I was thinking about say

Hendrix albums
Led Zeppelin albums
Humble Pie had a few varied albums
Steppenwolf varied some
Crack the Sky
Jethro Tull
ELP
early Uriah Heep
early Rush
The Guess Who

I could find many examples if I put the time into it.
 
Ok, whatever, you either get what I was talking about or you dont

no variety in Karnevil ? and then of course that sounds just like Meant to be Here

I surely didnt mean to imply that many bands did goofy stuff like ob la de or Rocky Raccoon to qualify for what I was talking about.
 
Ok, whatever, you either get what I was talking about or you dont

I don't really get what you mean tbh, it all sounds a bit "things were better back in the day" to me. Plenty of todays bands have as much or more variety in their material than the ones you listed.

I surely didnt mean to imply that many bands did goofy stuff like ob la de or Rocky Raccoon to qualify for what I was talking about.

Well, the discussion was about the kookier Beatles material..