Opinions about the Beatles by music critics are very devided, they were blamed of being too commercial and simple as much as they are praised for their influence on pop-music, creativity and timeless music.

I can't deny they were commercial, especially in their earlier years and had made some easy-listening tunes, but in spite of that I don't think they were superficial, in my opinion they were very creative in their accessibility. Their music was very diverse and during their existence they developed a lot. I'd like to know your opinion!

I'm not a huge fan of the early stuff. As for timeless - Abbey Road. Particularly the second side of the LP.

I'm sure many fans consider a lot more of their stuff timeless, but from beginning to end I think Abbey Road is their best work.

Wondered how long it would be before the Beatles came in...

Hit list:

'Yellow submarine' (Check out ''Northern Song''!

Sgt peppers lonley hearts club band'

'Magical mystery tour'

'white album' (My fav)

'Abbey road'

Never cared for 'Let it be' album much

If you have a top play back system you'll appreciate EMI recordings they the best, it shines me old diamonds, with early Floyd recodings for example

I can say I love everything from Rubber Soul to the end.

The Beatles and Pink Floyd are the two bands I've listened to my entire life.

I'm not a huge fan of the early stuff. As for timeless - Abbey Road. Particularly the second side of the LP. I'm sure many fans consider a lot more of their stuff timeless, but from beginning to end I think Abbey Road is their best work.

Absolutely agree with you Raymon , that's exactly how I feel Abbey Road side B is a masterpiece, even when I like Sgt Peppers I don't see it as the great masterpiece, and absolutely don't care for early stuff.

Iván

Jaap:

Well, as usual one has to look at this from two sides.  First, there is The Beatles' music.  Second, there is The Beatles' influence.

Re music, I happen to love all of it: from Love Me Do to Her Majesty.  Sure, the later stuff was more "mature," and thus more "acceptable" to snooty progheads like us...  However, even She Loves You was way ahead of its time compositionally, and especially harmonically.

Re influence, there is simply no argument.  If we assume that among the earliest prog albums were PF's Piper, The Moody's Future Passed, and KC's In the Court, one need only keep in mind that all three were influenced by Sgt. Pepper: the Moody's stated as much, as did Fripp (in an obvious moment of graciousness...).  Even PF reluctantly, begrudgingly admitted that Pepper influenced Piper (a nice alliteration, no?).

Personally, I believe that The Beatles were already "proto-prog" by Revolver (particularly Love To You, She Said She Said and especially Tomorrow Never Knows).  Pepper cemented that, and then "Strawberry Fields" and "I Am the Walrus" (and, as KE9 notes, a couple of tracks on Yellow Submarine, including Only a Northern Song and It's All Too Much) made it as clear as day.

It is also important to keep in mind, as Billy Shears notes, that The Beatles and George Martin were doing things production-wise that were so far ahead of their time as to be almost frightening - with very little equipment.  Consider that Sgt. Pepper was created on two four-track machines, which Martin "split" to create what amounted to the first 16-track album.  Add to this the effects they were using (e.g., audience sounds) and new, if not unique, studio tricks (e.g., tape loops, backward solos, etc.), and one can readily understand why Pepper holds such a unique, critical and historic place in rock, and in its influence on prog.

Peace.

The Beatles have always been (and always will be) my favorite group. I grew up on them. I spent many nights as a young-in watching Help!, Magical Mystery Tour, and Yellow Submarine (I still own all the original copies) and listened all their records. They will always have a place in my heart.

Hi Everybody.

Beatles are my number one group. Both, the "Early Beatles" and the "Studio Years Beatles" I love too much !!!

I think that if they not existed, the progressive music will not existed too, or it will be very different.

They made the perfection in 3 minutes songs. It's amazing! Think about it...

Best Greetings...

The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise)

Aqualung28 wrote:

The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise)

I always heard this and I can't deny they were influencial, but I believe this is not necesarilly true.

If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them.

Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it.

Iván

maani wrote: Re influence, there is simply no argument.  If we assume that among the earliest prog albums were PF's Piper, The Moody's Future Passed, and KC's In the Court, one need only keep in mind that all three were influenced by Sgt. Pepper: the Moody's stated as much, as did Fripp (in an obvious moment of graciousness...).  Even PF reluctantly, begrudgingly admitted that Pepper influenced Piper (a nice alliteration, no?).

That's interesting to think about, I agree that Sgt.Pepper was a very influential album, but before it was released, Pink Floyd and Frank Zappa already did some very experimental things. I think the progression they made in the earlier years was more influential on progressive rock then Sgt Peppers. Sgt.Peppers was the figurehead of a creative revolution in pop-music. 

ivan_2068 wrote: Aqualung28 wrote: The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise) I always heard this and I can't deny they were influencial, but I believe this is not necesarilly true. If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them. Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it. Iván

The easy answer to that is, Ivan, that the Beatles DID.

Your argument is like saying that if Mozart or Beethoven hadn't existed, then somebody else would have taken their place - or that if you didn't exist then somebody else would take your place.

I for one am not sure how much truth there is in that, but I'm as certain as I can be of the truth of the easy answer!

Rock'n'Roll was an explosive force in music - but so was Beethoven. People couldn't believe the monstrous cacophony his music produced - some actually complained! Beethoven's evolution of music from Classical to Romantic remained a titanic shadow over composers right up until the 20th Century, when the 1st World War seemed to stimulate a complete breakdown of old forms.

Other styles of popular music took the world by storm too - the Charleston in the "Roaring twenties", the Big Bands during the 2nd World War, Jazz...

But "Beatlemania" was an insanity - I'm sure everyone is familiar with stories of the band being unable to hear what they were playing at gigs because of the fans screaming. John Lennon was absolutely correct with his outrageously controversial statement about being bigger than Jesus at the time - in the context that the Beatles albums sold more units than the Bible.

The Beatles' music itself remains a benchmark - and the albums released over such a short period of time reveal a level of consistent improvement in quality of songwriting, arrangement,  production and influence that has never been matched by any band. In history, I would suggest that only Mozart's output is more staggering in terms of quantity, quality and influence over a given timeframe.

So the short answer to the original question is that they were and still are fantastic.

As far as superficiality is concerned, it must be remembered that the Beatles were not just great songwriters, they really worked on their public image too, with a flawless marketing strategy and brand awareness (if you'll excuse the "Business-ese"). So yes, they had a deliberate and crafted level of superficiality too, in order to maintain and grow their mass appeal.

Most bands today seem to concentrate more on the latter than the former, sadly

That's why I listen to prog rock - where the music matters most

ivan_2068 wrote:   If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them. Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it. Iván

I never care too much for The Beatles, until one o two years ago. I decide to increase my musical spectrum and begin to find bands that I alllways discarded in the past. And learn to appretiate The Beatles beyond  the usual classics. There are true gems, it's a matter to find them.

ivan_2068 wrote: Aqualung28 wrote: The Beatles are excellent.  Without them we wouldn't have anything, even Metal (Helter Skelter, before someone says otherwise) I always heard this and I can't deny they were influencial, but I believe this is not necesarilly true. If The Beatles never would have existed, somebody else would have taken their place, another band would have influenced the rest or maybe many bands would have replaced that influence, but music had to evolve and Rock was the most explosive force of music even before them. Maybe the evolution would have been different, faster or slower, but rock had to change and grow with or without The Beatles, nobody could stop it. Iván

We should limit this thread to popular/rock music and leave out the jazz and classical realms out of this context. I am not so sure that if the Beatles (from Rubber Soul on) had not been there, the other bands (be they Beach Boys or Stones or Yardbirds) would've managed to make things advance/evolve the same way, if at all. The fact that my parents and grandparents (and not only mine) spoke highly of the Beatles as artists "even though they looked like dirty hippies" proves to me that only them could be accepted widely even by much older people. My grandfather was a conservative judge (the other an engineer) but could see the evolution of their music and personna. Only the Beatles aura could manage that. Never could've the Stones or B Boys even come close to that.

The only other figure who are as Historically Musically Important (in "pop"terms) is Dylan ( he propmpted the Byrds and the whole folk and country rock thing) but stopped IMHO being relevant in the mid-70's and is almost redundant now (thanks to a much tooooo long career). The Beatles were lucky enough to stop when they did because they would've soon or later made mistakes or redundant stuff and a longer career would've eroded that aura.

Hendrix is another genius but he picked up from both as well as Motown.

The Stones weren't as complexe, but more energetic on stage. Lennon could have been a Dylan-like figure from the very start, and could've had worked with Cohen or Joplin.

That would've been sweet - figure it out for yourself

If I learned something during my life is that evolution or change is a process that can’t be stopped, determined persons are only the trigger that fire the change, but evolution is going to happen anyway.

Probably without The Beatles this change would have been different but musicians were already developing new tendencies. The feeling of musical rebellion against adults was there in the youth of the 60’s there’s no way anybody could have stopped them.

The Beatles were so exclusive that no other band had the chance or the need to develop but without them somebody had to take their place, other musicians would have been forced to take more risks and dare to impulse that change.

History is made by people but everything is a process, WWI would have been declared even if Archduke Francisco would not have been killed in Sarajevo, the nationalist and anti Semitic feeling in Germany would had caused a WWII even without Hitler, of course the development would had been different, but the feeling was there, at it would have exploded anyway.

I believe The Beatles are influential because they were there and did it, but nobody can stop the change, somebody would have taken their place.

As someone said this is speculative, but it’s also speculative to affirm that rock wouldn’t change without them.

Iván

Up to 'Help' - a boy band

After 'Help' - pure genius - they wrote the book, everyone else just read it.

you cannot overestimate the Beatles contribution to popular music of all stripes

ivan_2068 wrote: If I learned something during my life is that evolution or change is a process that can’t be stopped, determined persons are only the trigger that fire the change, but evolution is going to happen anyway. Probably without The Beatles this change would have been different but musicians were already developing new tendencies. The feeling of musical rebellion against adults was there in the youth of the 60’s there’s no way anybody could have stopped them. The Beatles were so exclusive that no other band had the chance or the need to develop but without them somebody had to take their place, other musicians would have been forced to take more risks and dare to impulse that change. History is made by people but everything is a process, WWI would have been declared even if Archduke Francisco would not have been killed in Sarajevo, the nationalist and anti Semitic feeling in Germany would had caused a WWII even without Hitler, of course the development would had been different, but the feeling was there, at it would have exploded anyway. I believe The Beatles are influential because they were there and did it, but nobody can stop the change, somebody would have taken their place. As someone said this is speculative, but it’s also speculative to affirm that rock wouldn’t change without them. Iván

Can't argue your point Ivan, the Beatles were the catalyst which began a change, but not the only musical evolution, look to Elvis for example, a huge influence for many Blues Rockers such as Zeppelin! I love when I get to mention Zeppelin.

But as I said, Dylan influenced the Beatles best work, so is Dylan not equally important?

Ivan, think on this.

The Beatles directly led to Ringo Starr's movie and solo music career.

Genesis led directly to Phil Collins' movie and solo music career.

In terms of drummers going solo, the Fabs win hands down.

Jaap:

Actually, if Piper was PF's first album, and it was influenced by Pepper (by their own admission), how can you talk about things PF did before Pepper?  Unless you are talking about live stuff, or studio demos.  But then, as noted, The Beatles had already started on the proto-prog road with stuff on Revolver.  And one could (if they tried really hard) make that case that even a track or two on Rubber Soul is proto-prog, thus bringing us back to late 65 early 66.

As for Zappa, he was working on an entirely different set of influences, including avant-garde jazz and neo-neo-classical (Varese, Stockhausen et al).  Sure, he was listening to The Beatles and other, too, but that was only a part of a much larger "world" of music for him.

Cert:

Thank you for your riposte to ivan.  You took the words right out of my mouth (hey, that sounds like a great title for a song! ).  To argue that if The Beatles hadn't been the right group at the right time, somebody else would have been is absurdist in the extreme.  It can neither be proven nor disproven - but I would side against ivan on this point.  (Ivan - no offense here...) As the saying goes: "If the king had wheels, he'd be a wagon."  And...?

As for Dylan, he was important and influential in a completely different way than The Beatles.  He was, from the get-go, overtly socio-political (The Beatles didn't get to that point until late in the game), and he was a folk and "protest" song writer, not a rock musician (until much later).  Did he influence The Beatles?  Perhaps.  Indeed, Lennon credits Dylan with influencing his song Norwegian Wood.  (As an aside, some might even argue that NW is one of The Beatles' earliest "proto-prog" songs - use of non-standard instruments (sitar, flute), non-standard composition, etc.  Does this mean we can go truly absurdist and say that Dylan helped influence the creation of "prog" as well?  Boy, is that a slippery slope...)

If Dylan influenced The Beatles, it was (and I'm not being facetious) in introducing them to marijuana.  no one could argue that The Beatles' didn't change after that point.  But Dylan influencing The Beatles musically?  Not in my understanding of music, or music history.

Peace.

I hate the Beatles.Utter drivel to my ears.

However they were incredibly influencial and as Cert says, you can't just presume that rock music would have evolved the same way without them.For that we owe them our gratitude and respect.

Maani wrote:

To argue that if The Beatles hadn't been the right group at the right time, somebody else would have been is absurdist in the extreme.  It can neither be proven nor disproven - but I would side against ivan on this point.  (Ivan - no offense here...) As the saying goes: "If the king had wheels, he'd be a wagon."  And...?

No offense taken.

Why absurd Maani? it's a theory, but comming from a man like you who believes in God (As I do), it's hard to believe in a phrase like "It can neither be proven nor disproven."

I believe history and evolution can't be stopped (maybe delayed), things will happen despite the individuals, if society is ready for a change it will take place.

The anti Vietnam movement of the late 60's was a big impulse for psychedelia and rock in general as a way to protest, and even if the Beatles never existed, this movement would have taken place and they would created a musical genre to express what they believed in.

Iván

Reed Lover wrote:

However they were incredibly influencial and as Cert says, you can't just presume that rock music would have evolved the same way without them.

Never said IN THE SAME WAY Reed, probably the evolution would have been slower, probably rock would have turned more closer to  Blues or Jazz and maybe it would have been closer hard rock, because The Beatles and their popularity and their softer earlier tunes worked as a brake for harder forms of rock.

But sooner of later, rock would have evolved, that's afact, no man can stop evolution.

Iván

In the book:

Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture
by http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Edward%20L.%20Macan/102-2248747-2744113 - the author is under the opinion that sociological aspects of the early progressive movements including the early age influence of the musicians in England were to develop the R&B or Rock and Roll backbeat out of the United States with the harmonies of Classical music and Hymns from the Anglican Church.  In his opinion the Beatles were the first to do that.  That is why Pink Floyd, The Moody Blues and Genesis, among many otheres, claim the Beatles as a major influence. This is a great read and really allows some great theories as to why prog music started and why it happened in the particular areas it did to unfold.  I think it may even be the best theory.

Also, he points out what areas of The United States did it become popular in and why.  I have had my own theories on American Progressive rock in the 70's for some time and this book along with some recently discovered recordings are putting a theory that prog rock, while starting a little later than the Brits, was alive in the United States by probably hundreds of bands in local areas of the country that were heavily influenced by English Progressive Rock. This is contrary to the notion that prog rock did not develop in the United States or was not as accepted. 

 (It really came down to where you lived in the US.  I know in my area of the country in a relatively small county there were 4 local prog bands that dominated the music scene. I know of one concert where all four played at that drew 4-5000 people. None of which had a record out. I know for a fact that the Beatles were a major influence of all of these musicians)  

That most of these bands never saw the light of  day was more from the record companies contracting into 6 major labels and their incessant need to label something to be able to channel it into format limited radio stations killing diversity in music even among the individual bands own songs.

 

-------------


"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"

maani wrote: Jaap: Actually, if Piper was PF's first album, and it was influenced by Pepper (by their own admission), how can you talk about things PF did before Pepper?  Unless you are talking about live stuff, or studio demos.  But then, as noted, The Beatles had already started on the proto-prog road with stuff on Revolver.  And one could (if they tried really hard) make that case that even a track or two on Rubber Soul is proto-prog, thus bringing us back to late 65 early 66. As for Zappa, he was working on an entirely different set of influences, including avant-garde jazz and neo-neo-classical (Varese, Stockhausen et al).  Sure, he was listening to The Beatles and other, too, but that was only a part of a much larger "world" of music for him.

I never said that Pink Floyd was'nt inspired by the Beatles, (they were the most influential band in pop-music and in addition they're my all-time favo's) I just said Sgt.Pepper was the figurehead of progressive rock from the 1960's and the whole thing they did before (like Revolver) was the biggest inspiration to prog artists and bands from around 1967. I'll never play down the influence of Sgt.Pepper - it was and still is a brilliant album - but some people seemed to think it came out from nowhere and suddenly introduced progressive rock, in my opinion the album was a peak in the Beatles' career (and music history) which was based on the developments they made before. The "proto-prog" road they were driving during the Revolver and Rubber Soul years were a part of that development towards Sgt.Pepper.  

Jaap wrote: [QUOTE=maani] Jaap:   I never said that Pink Floyd was'nt inspired by the Beatles, (they were the most influential band in pop-music and in addition they're my all-time favo's) I just said Sgt.Pepper was the figurehead of progressive rock from the 1960's and the whole thing they did before (like Revolver) was the biggest inspiration to prog artists and bands from around 1967. I'll never play down the influence of Sgt.Pepper - it was and still is a brilliant album - but some people seemed to think it came out from nowhere and suddenly introduced progressive rock, in my opinion the album was a peak in the Beatles' career (and music history) which was based on the developments they made before. The "proto-prog" road they were driving during the Revolver and Rubber Soul years were a part of that development towards Sgt.Pepper.

Jaap,

Check out my note on Macon's book.  That is his theory about the Beatle's.  They mixed rock and roll with classical and hymm like harmonies. Good read. you should buy it.

Among other things, they started the tradition of sprawling, self-indulgent double albums.

Seriously, though, the Beatles are classic like Elvis is classic. Nobody else captured the attention of the world and propelled the "cause of rock and roll" like they did. If they hadn't happened, would someone else have taken their place? Really hard to say...it doesn't seem like they had close competition during the height of their popularity. I don't think anybody else was as well placed to convince the world to take rock music a little more seriously.

I agree with Ivan- the times were more important than the specific people, but on the other hand it was the specific people who made history after all. The Beatles were more right for more people than anybody else at the time, due to all the elements coming together. George Martin and Brian Epstein had a lot to do with that, giving the band a master of studio experimentation on one side and a talented and obsessed promoter and manager on the other.

Honestly, I don't listen to them much. But I don't really need to; most of their songs are burned into my brain. That's pretty fantastic all by itself. If they were truly superficial the music would be mostly forgotten by now.

whoa, hold on there man, you're calling Paul a great songwriter. See you like the later stuff, ie-Bob Dylan influenced yes?

ivan_2068 wrote: If I learned something during my life is that evolution or change is a process that can’t be stopped, determined persons are only the trigger that fire the change, but evolution is going to happen anyway. Probably without The Beatles this change would have been different but musicians were already developing new tendencies. The feeling of musical rebellion against adults was there in the youth of the 60’s there’s no way anybody could have stopped them. The Beatles were so exclusive that no other band had the chance or the need to develop but without them somebody had to take their place, other musicians would have been forced to take more risks and dare to impulse that change. History is made by people but everything is a process, WWI would have been declared even if Archduke Francisco would not have been killed in Sarajevo, the nationalist and anti Semitic feeling in Germany would had caused a WWII even without Hitler, of course the development would had been different, but the feeling was there, at it would have exploded anyway. I believe The Beatles are influential because they were there and did it, but nobody can stop the change, somebody would have taken their place. As someone said this is speculative, but it’s also speculative to affirm that rock wouldn’t change without them. Iván

Hey Ivan:

You don't need to shout we're neither deaf nor blind