Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9.29pm
4 September 2009
Offline
In your opinion, what made and makes The Beatles better than anything that came before them and that has come after them?
11.23pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Songs, singing, experimentalism and eclecticism.
11.56pm
1 May 2011
Offline
Fearlessness in the studio
Humour
Unbelievable charisma and getting of and between the 4 - they really knew each other
Exceptional songwriting
Musicianship
Production (in the hands of any other producer it wouldnt have been as good)
Talent
Singing
Time (before (hours and years of playing together (J, P & G)), during (able to develop and mature in a constraint environment) and after (it all still sounds fresh, contemporary and relevant))
12.58am
16 February 2011
Offline
"A beautiful melody that keeps haunting me…"
1.15am
23 July 2012
Offline
Creativity level all the way.
They never failed to come up with something new and exciting, even in their darkest hour.
5.07am
23 January 2011
Offline
I agree with everything that's been said above…or I could say it's Ringo's songwriting and Mal's hammer playing.
5.28am
12 March 2010
Offline
Musical development:
From "Love me do" to "Tomorrow never knows" in 4 years.
Their motto "Never do the same thing twice".
They were never satisfied with a successful formula but always willing to look for new ways.
That's why they were never boring.
9.34am
3 May 2012
Offline
Again, I agree with everything that has been said.
They were always looking to use new and strange instruments (often unused before on a pop/rock record, or any record).
2.51pm
14 April 2010
Offline
Von Bontee said
experimentalism and eclecticism.
meanmistermustard said
Fearlessness in the studioUnbelievable charisma and getting of and between the 4 - they really knew each other
FlyOn13 said
They never failed to come up with something new and exciting, even in their darkest hour.
kedame said
Mal's hammer playing. *don't laugh – see "Fearlessness in the studio" above*
paulsbass said
Musical development:They were never satisfied with a successful formula but always willing to look for new ways.
Agree with all of the above. I will add that The Beatles actually "sold out" at the beginning of their fame and ended up doing things just for themselves as time went by.
Most bands play what they love at first and then sell out to try and become more famous. Then, their careers come to an end or they end up going back out on the road to celebrate the 30th anniversary of their farewell and/or reunion tours.
One could argue that the Fabs played what they loved in Hamburg, then sold out to become famous. No argument here. But they then took steps to start experimenting on things they were growing to love whether anyone liked it or not. Turns out we loved it. Not many other bands, if any at all, can say that.
That aspect of their career will never cease to amaze me.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
3.38pm
1 May 2011
Offline
To a degree they sold out as they had to buckle a little to be given the time of day and the leather thing (one area) was getting very old and grotty ("people would start to laugh" as Paul said). Its like on Dragons Den when they have to give away a bit of their company to get investment, theres no point sitting there all day getting nowhere, and The Beatles (John, Paul, George and Pete) had conquered Liverpool and its surrounding area and Hamburg. Would they have gotten any further without giving in and changing their image? I doubt it.
John said in 1970 (might be the wrong date) that he knew they were selling out in '61/'62 but he didnt put up that much of a fight (apart from leaving his top button undone). And to be fair they did stand tall to get Love Me Do as the single and not sell out completely by having some lame Tin Pan Alley song as their first single (yes we're looking at you Gerry). Tho i do agree with John that their best live music was before they hit it big, certainly going by the Star Club recordings; there arent many times afterwards where they were dynamite on stage (Sweden '63, Washington '64 come instantly to mind).
I know people point to songs like Till There Was You and A Taste Of Honey and use those as evidence of losing their roots but they were doing those sort of numbers before Brian came on the scene as Paul was a fan of that type of music. It wasnt just 3 hours of solid Rock and Roll as they would have literally passed out on stage – or overdosed. The Decca audition songs were taken from the bands repertoire even tho Brian chose the ones most likely to appeal (he was wrong, they sank, Decca passed).
[I really should be doing something else, should have finished it 2/3 days ago. Thanks for posting Zig, a very nice and welcome distraction. There's probably some rambling in here and going off topic.]
3.46pm
19 September 2010
Offline
They "sold out" (I quibble with the term, but I get why it was used) as a route to fame, where they could return to anything they wanted. Which is what they did. If they hadn't become the kings of EMI, then they couldn't have done Pepper, MMT, White Album or Revolver, really.
4.28pm
20 December 2010
Offline
What made the Beatles so special and I think the best all around band in the world was that they covered a wide range of different styles in their songs from covers to originals, ballads to rockers, all four of them sang and wrote songs and they had very little filler songs.
6.49pm
14 April 2010
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
They "sold out" (I quibble with the term, but I get why it was used) as a route to fame, where they could return to anything they wanted. Which is what they did. If they hadn't become the kings of EMI, then they couldn't have done Pepper, MMT, White Album or Revolver, really.
One definition of selling out…
- it can also refer to those who sacrifice their musical integrity through a change in their musical sound, sometimes due to pressure from major labels.
I'd hate to see you waste your last few days of summer vacation quibbling.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
9.49pm
19 September 2010
Offline
As well, I think there was a vacuum in music in 1962/3/4. If the Beatles' hadn't made it big, the Beach Boys would have been the massive story. Or the Stones. Or maybe Elvis makes a comeback. Something had to break musically in that time, and it broke for the Beatles.
10.10pm
1 May 2011
Offline
mr. Sun king coming together said
Your concern for my final days of summer is touching. I greatly appreciate it.As well, I think there was a vacuum in music in 1962/3/4. If the Beatles' hadn't made it big, the Beach Boys would have been the massive story. Or the Stones. Or maybe Elvis makes a comeback. Something had to break musically in that time, and it broke for the Beatles.
Would the Stones have gotten big without The Beatles? George was the one who urged Decca to sign them and without John and Paul dashing off and finishing I Wanna Be Your Man its unlikely that Mick and Keith would have started writing. Totally agree however that something would have broke if The Beatles hadnt – not sure what tho. Personally cant see it being Elvis as his music was quite passe.
4.00pm
4 September 2009
Offline
I always believed it was that The Beatles were never satisfied with what they did. They had the drive to wanting to evolve and do it better. They would hear a song by another artist and thought that is good, but how can we do it better. They looked at their own music the same, how can we make it better.
I got to thinking about this question when I was listening to the band "Fountains of Wayne" at the gym. I had all their albums on shuffle and noticed that their first album sounds pretty much like their second and third, etc. I got to looking at other bands I enjoy listening to, "Fastball", "The Rembrandts", and it seems that they have a formula and all their albums are basically a re-write of their previous releases.
7.25pm
14 December 2009
Offline
As far as "selling out" (by ditching the leathers in favour of suits) goes, you could argue that they counterbalanced that by adopting their Beatle haircuts. That was a potentially risky move – rather than changing Western fashions, they might've simply gotten themselves laughed out of show business. Or, at least out of the major record labels' headquarters.
7.27pm
3 May 2012
Offline
c64wood said
I always believed it was that The Beatles were never satisfied with what they did. They had the drive to wanting to evolve and do it better. They would hear a song by another artist and thought that is good, but how can we do it better. They looked at their own music the same, how can we make it better.I got to thinking about this question when I was listening to the band "Fountains of Wayne" at the gym. I had all their albums on shuffle and noticed that their first album sounds pretty much like their second and third, etc. I got to looking at other bands I enjoy listening to, "Fastball", "The Rembrandts", and it seems that they have a formula and all their albums are basically a re-write of their previous releases.
I agree with that. They never did the same thing twice so there aren´t two songs of theirs that sound the same. Not many artists/groups can say that.
8.32pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Well, "Komm, Gib Mir Deine Hand" was kinda derivative…
8.34pm
19 September 2010
Offline
As was Yes It Is from This Boy. They weren't perfect, but they didn't do it often.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Egroeg Evoli, HeyTrud
5 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3422
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1514
vonbontee: 1427
GniknuS: 1365
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 86
Members: 1680
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2390
Posts: 73125
Newest Members: JQ, Juliana Melo, musicfreak21, Victor Sepúlveda, TheNoWhereMan5870
Moderators: Joe (2698), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2698)
