The Beatles, superficial or fantastic ?

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!

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'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.

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...

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

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