• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Beatles.. too much love ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Modern musicians today wish they had an inkling of the vision the Beatles had during their time. They deserve every praise thrown their way.
 
This is a great backfire thread. And while I've distanced myself from their music because I listened to their songs many many times over during my high school years, I won't deny that they have made a tremendous impact on music everywhere.
 
Opiate said:
They're further instances of "we appreciate people who do things first." These are further examples of that. It's not a very complicated analogy.
Click to expand...

But it's a bad analogy. Newton and Einstein discovered immutable laws of nature. If they didn't do it, someone else would have.

The Beatles made unique music that no one else would have, music that many people feel is the pinnacle of 20th Century rock and roll. Were they the first supergroup? Sure, but I don't think that matters much, since they're essentially in a category all of their own. The only artists that might come close are Elvis (who predates the Beatles) and Michael Jackson (in a totally different genre of music).
 
Kerouac'd said:
Regardless, I hope people do remember the Beatles as time passes. Really fantastic band, even if you take the music out of the time period it originated from. I think Nirvana's music doesn't hold up as well today. Really influential, and still good music, but I don't think it's as good as it was influential. And I was a big Nirvana guy in middle school and high school. The Beatles still sound amazing today.
Click to expand...

Yea, same for me on The Beatles - when I listen to them it doesn't feel old or anything like that. It feels fresh and unique. It hasn't lost the luster.

Regarding Nirvana, it's also personal taste but I think they have held up quite well. I heard 'All Apologies' yesterday on the radio and had similar thoughts on The Beatles regarding the music being perennial.
 
inm8num2 said:
Yea, same for me on The Beatles - when I listen to them it doesn't feel old or anything like that. It feels fresh and unique. It hasn't lost the luster.

Regarding Nirvana, it's also personal taste but I think they have held up quite well. I heard 'All Apologies' yesterday on the radio and had similar thoughts on The Beatles regarding the music being perennial.
Click to expand...

As a kid, my family just listened to pop and disco and whatever the top 40 hits were. I didn't really think much of music back then. I discovered nu-metal and rapcore (yeah, I know :-P) in high school, and I figured that was as good as it gets.

Then I went to college and met THOSE people. You know the ones: always have a guitar and hacky sack, always smell kinda funky.

Anyway, a friend of mine like that gave me some of his CDs of The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Hendrix, etc. I was skeptical, this stuff wasn't metal. But I liked Queen, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

And boy am I glad I did. Those bands were pure joy and art. I decided to always keep an open mind.

While this is very personal and subjective, I feel that very few sounds since then have matched those. I feel like the best era of music is behind us, and while some bands are truly talented, they haven't really topped what was done by the Beatles and their peers.
 
Beatles are god-tier whether you like them or not. Rolling Stones, Elvis, Madonna, Michael, Prince, Johnny Cash, etc. Non-musically: James Dean, Marlon Brando, Marylin Monroe. They're up there with those folks. If you knock them down a peg or two, you're comparing them to, what, Hall & Oates? Def Leppard? Black Sabbath? Not the same level at all.
 
NEOPARADIGM said:
Beatles are god-tier whether you like them or not. Rolling Stones, Elvis, Madonna, Michael, Prince, Johnny Cash, etc. Non-musically: James Dean, Marlon Brando, Marylin Monroe. They're up there with those folks. If you knock them down a peg or two, you're comparing them to, what, Hall & Oates? Def Leppard? Black Sabbath? Not the same level at all.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that cultural impact is more important than the artistic quality?
 
Kerouac'd said:
I think their legacy is cemented too. But, how many people will care about them as time passes?
Click to expand...
The same way people think of Mozart now. The Beatles legacy and accomplishments are part of history. It really doesn't matter about an individual's personal preference. If an individual says they shouldn't have been so respected. Well, they were. They are. That's fact. It's not a matter of opinion, it's history.
 
They deserve it.

I like only 2 songs from them, Let it Be and Yesterday, and there are many that annoy me (yellow submarine, srsly?), but they deserve it.
 
Usually Right said:
So you're saying that cultural impact is more important than the artistic quality?
Click to expand...
Gosh, well no I don't think so; but "quality" and "important" are two more pretty subjective in themselves. Are The Beatles "more important" than some random garage band that might be producing things of higher artistic quality? Is Elvis "more important" than a lounge singer with a better voice? I'd say so, sure. Unquestionably. To say nothing of the question of "quality" which is a concept that by itself can be very complex (a large portion of Persig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is devoted to it, for instance). Are you saying The Beatles are not a quality band?

I'm actually not much of a fan myself, but their place in history is deserved as far as I can tell.
 
Their legacy and impact on modern music is beyond reproach. Their music, on the other hand, is certainly open to criticism.

They made some great music... and some not so great music.
 
So after reading through this thread and kinda thinking about it a bit...I realize that I really like a lot of singles from the band but don't really own any of their music and have never sat down and listened through an album.

One of the main reasons I've never really went out and bought an album is because, it's kinda overwhelming. I feel like they have had a lot of different releases and re-masters and UK version versus US version and remixes etc etc etc. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like that has been the main thing stopping me from really delving into their "deep album cuts".

Not sure if I'm trying to spend 100 plus on a comprehensive box set....but where would be a good place to start?
 
I didn't care much about The Beatles until I played their Rock Band game. Then I checked out all of their albums and loved most of it. I now think they are the GOAT. You could make several albums with their singles and the change in sound of each album is astonishing.
 
Hey Jude is the only song of theirs I like, nothing else I can stomach. But a lot people love them and looking at the type of music most people listened to back then in comparison to them, I can see why. So I just tend to change the station whenever their songs come on and ignore any tv programming dedicated to them.
 
I feel once they stopped touring and focused on trying new things in the studio they really stepped it up with albums like Revolver and Sgt,Pepper. I listen to their music and think it must of been amazing for the young adults of the 60s partying, socialising and such listening to such diverse music, from Daytripper to Tomorrow Never Knows.
 
Do The Beatles get too much love? No, I don't think so. You don't like them? Okay...that's your business.

I love them for their music, not because they were trendsetters or popular or whatever. The thing is, they wrote really fucking good rock songs, and tons of them. The volume of great music they produced alone is astounding. Also, listen to songs like "Come Together" and "Don't Let Me Down" and tell me they don't still stand up to today's music.
 
Kitschkraft said:
So after reading through this thread and kinda thinking about it a bit...I realize that I really like a lot of singles from the band but don't really own any of their music and have never sat down and listened through an album.

One of the main reasons I've never really went out and bought an album is because, it's kinda overwhelming. I feel like they have had a lot of different releases and re-masters and UK version versus US version and remixes etc etc etc. Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like that has been the main thing stopping me from really delving into their "deep album cuts".

Not sure if I'm trying to spend 100 plus on a comprehensive box set....but where would be a good place to start?
Click to expand...
The boxes and special releases are not really worth it unless you're a huge fan, neither is their earlier stuff.
Start with the obvious choices, there're obvious for a reason -
Rubber Soul, Revolver, the white album, Abbey Road.
Sgt, Pepper is obvious as well, but I personally really don't like it.

p.s.
I'm not the world's greatest Beatles fan, so make of it what you will

Opiate said:
The analogy starts and ends with the concept of "here are other examples of first mover advantage." This is a good, simple analogy.
Click to expand...
The thing is that The Beatles are not really first movers, to go with another analogy, they're much more Apple than Xerox.
They were however many people's first serious exposure to rock/pop, so in that respect, I agree with you.
 
They deserve all the praise and love they get because they are the best and most influential music act of all time. If you like music it's not very hard to understand honestly.
 
smh at all this Yellow Submarine hate, sorry all their songs aren't dark and serious like your souls.

I genuinely hate Sgt. Pepper, but the Beatles deserve all the praise they get, and then some.
 
They may be credited with innovations they're not really responsible for, but they were undeniably eclectic and adventurous, and they combined that with an expert pop sensibility. They wanted to reach the "toppermost of the poppermost" and they did it while helping to push pop and rock forward rather than relying on formula. That's a hell of an achievement. Maybe they're not the best band ever, but they earned their popularity, the love is not manufactured.
 
They constantly grew.
They weren't afraid to experiment.
They have a fuckton of great music.
Incredibly consistent.
Their influence is pinnacle.
Their production consummate.
They were phenomenal live and got that way by endless touring as youths.
Fuck, they could even ROCK THE FUCK OUT


They were absolute artists and the greatest band to ever exist (they're not my favorite but they are the best). Putting 'first lander' status on them is not a salient point and discounting them as anything but superlative means you haven't looked at them through an educated light. Seriously, learn about them - they had an incredible fucking run.

You don't have to like The Beatles' music but do not discount them.


Yoko Ono is still making great music at 80 btw.
 
MadraptorMan said:
Do The Beatles get too much love? No, I don't think so. You don't like them? Okay...that's your business.

I love them for their music, not because they were trendsetters or popular or whatever. The thing is, they wrote really fucking good rock songs, and tons of them. The volume of great music they produced alone is astounding. Also, listen to songs like "Come Together" and "Don't Let Me Down" and tell me they don't still stand up to today's music.
Click to expand...

This is what it has always come down to for me. The Beatles made albums full of songs that artists other artists would have as the A-Single on their album. I think if you go from Rubber Soul though Abbey Road, there is not another band that matches their output.

Even their early albums aren't bad. A Hard Day's Night and Help! are really good albums on their own. If the Beatles stopped at those albums and the phenomenon of the Beatles was just Please Please Me, A Hard Day's Night, and Help!, the OP may have a point.

Those early albums and singles on their own are enough to catapult them above many of their peers. Their accomplishments and the music they made after being the mop-top fab four put them above everyone else by a fair margin. This is if you feel music should be treated as a competition, as OP seems to be setting this up as.

I feel the Beatles recording catalogue earns its praise even if you remove their first mover advantage. The quality of their recordings stand the test of time.
 
I guess it's anecdotally possible for a few people to have been completely exposed and familiarized with the Beatles' whole body of work and not like them, but I truly suspect that the vast majority who "can't stomach them", etc, haven't really ever given them a shot.
 
Being a 31 y.o. Hispanic American I never heard of the Beatles until I was in my latter elementary school years...so I could never get why Anglo-Saxon people talk about how world wide culturally impacting they are when my own parents who come from the Dominican Republic among many other Dominicans I have spoken can tell you which Beatle is still living? To be honest I think this debate about the Beatles place in the history of world music is really limited to the western world. The sad thing people fail to mention is just how much soul music the Beatles regurgitated back to American Anglo-Saxon culture (like Elvis) that originated from African Americans like Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, & Bo Diddley...not enough predecessors are given credit for their influences on others "creative" works
 
I don't like The Beatles at all, but for some reason I love pop culture references to them. Like that Powerpuff Girls episode where every other line is a Beatles reference of some sort.
 
I got really into them back in 08/09, still love em and I'm 26. So many songs are great.

Their whole attitude and outlook creatively is so different to the mostly bland mainstream music sensations of today.

Edit: To poster above, yep, some great tracks and performances in their early output. It may take some people a little effort to get into that style if they aren't into it though I guess. I was listening to This Boy and Yes It Is on the way home today!
 
Just listening to I wan't you (she's so heavy), from min 4:40, with more gain on the guitars, this could be a awesome post-metal part.
 
legend166 said:
I think we've actually reached the point now where their pre-Rubber Soul stuff is underrated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I was younger I gravitated towards the edgier, later stuff but in time I really came to appreciate the earlier stuff as well.

Four young guys coming from nowhere and belting out I Saw Her Standing There and Twist & Shout and blowing kids' minds is pretty damn cool. In a way that was more revolutionary than the later stuff in terms of the effect it had on the younger generation.

Also, the Beatles were super tight as a band in the early days as a result of the endless hours they spent playing in Hamburg. John and Paul were both awesome Rock and R&B vocalists, on their own or in harmony, and the band gelled together perfectly.
 
RedProwlingDevil said:
Being a 31 y.o. Hispanic American I never heard of the Beatles until I was in my latter elementary school years...so I could never get why Anglo-Saxon people talk about how world wide culturally impacting they are when my own parents who come from the Dominican Republic among many other Dominicans I have spoken can tell you which Beatle is still living? To be honest I think this debate about the Beatles place in the history of world music is really limited to the western world. The sad thing people fail to mention is just how much soul music the Beatles regurgitated back to American Anglo-Saxon culture (like Elvis) that originated from African Americans like Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, & Bo Diddley...not enough predecessors are given credit for their influences on others "creative" works
Click to expand...

So they took influence from the past and added their own vision to it to create something new? What's the problem? Or do you expect people to write music in a vacuum?
 
RedProwlingDevil said:
Being a 31 y.o. Hispanic American I never heard of the Beatles until I was in my latter elementary school years...so I could never get why Anglo-Saxon people talk about how world wide culturally impacting they are when my own parents who come from the Dominican Republic among many other Dominicans I have spoken can tell you which Beatle is still living? To be honest I think this debate about the Beatles place in the history of world music is really limited to the western world. The sad thing people fail to mention is just how much soul music the Beatles regurgitated back to American Anglo-Saxon culture (like Elvis) that originated from African Americans like Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters, & Bo Diddley...not enough predecessors are given credit for their influences on others "creative" works
Click to expand...

I particularly take issue with this point because The Beatles never downplayed the extent to which they were influenced by a multitude of artists, I mean their early career is dominated by covers of Chuck Berry, Smokey Robinson, The Shirelles and Little Richard etc... I think in fact more than a lot of bands The Beatles always comfortably wore their influences on their sleeves and it's not like they didn't give credit to those artists.

So yeah I don't really know what you mean by that, besides the fact that by the time Rubber Soul had come around they were distancing themselves from the classic tropes of Rock n Roll, Rhythm and Blues and Motown and forging something new and unheard of. Which is one of many reasons they are held in such high esteem.
 
While the pioneers of a genre deserve much credit, pushing things forward and introducing it to the masses without dumbing it down is a bloody impressive and important thing.

This is a video game forum, you might grumble that Catacomb 3D doesn't get the credit for first person shooters but that doesn't discredit or diminish what Wolfenstein 3D did and the phenomenon that DOOM was.

Popularity may bring about undue praise, but The Beatles are to be praised for what they did, and I don't recall them ever denying their own influences.

The Beatles aren't Zynga, they didn't take black music and Pat Boone it for the masses.
 
It's about demographics mostly. The American baby boomer generation was larger than anything after so their tastes and influences are given much more importance in a lot of places for purely commercial reasons. This leaves America thinking that anything that happened or was popular in the 60s was much more culturally significant to their nation than things happening now or much earlier. It doesn't hurt that the Beatles are easy to listen to and recorded some good songs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How much do you love tacos?
2
75
391
Tunned replied
How much do you love tacos?
2
80
Rentahamster replied
First images released of the actors playing The Beatles in Sam Mendes' four part biopic
33
451
AJUMP23 replied
Is there such a thing as too much chest press?
12
698
Melon Husk replied
Your go too treatment?
36
2K
mitch1971 replied
Top Bottom