[Miki]

Hi--
As a person who was a teenager in the 1960's, I first saw the Beatles (also called the Fab Four) on the Ed Sullivan Show, in the Spring of 1964, when they first made their debut here in the United States. Although I was rather skeptical at first, I got caught up in their music and their demeanor and changed my mind instantly. I was a seventh grader back then, and, like most all of my friends and classmates, got caught up in the Beatlemania that was rocking the country at the time, wearing an "I Love the Beatles" pin to school every day, listening to their albums, singing their songs, (my friends and I used to sing Beatles songs on the school bus)., and, in general, digging the rock music of that period. It was cool. I've also got many of their albums, from the mid-1960's through around 1970.
Any thoughts about the Beatles, anyone?

[Rich Kennedy]

I find it fascinating that much of their work has risen above rock and into the realm of pop standards. They are covered all of the time in jazz, folk, and other more "serious" genres. I have a sentimental attachment to "Abbey Road", but "Beatles '65" is my favorite of their albums. "I Feel Fine" is an underrated favorite of mine among their songs.

Also, I find that Lennon and McCartney did not fare so well aesthetically after breaking up.

[Greg P]

I have a sentimental attachment to "Abbey Road"...

Me too. The last half of that album, beginning with Because, is probably as close to "inspired" as anything you'll ever find in Pop/Rock music. "Perfect" is an asinine word to use when discussing art, but that particular song cycle comes darn near close.

[Miki]

You've both made some good points, Rich and Coltrane. It's very true that the Beatles, or the Fab Four, as they were affectionately called, did some fantastic work when they also expanded their repertoire beyond the rock, and into the pop music standards. However, their earlier music, for some reason, has still retained a special flavor to it that has prevailed overtime. Plus, I also believe that many, many other rock groups were greatly influenced by the Beatles as well. I'm not sure I have a favorite album, but, in addition to enjoying their earlier music, their Sgt. Pepper and their Rubber Soul Albums are both rather cool.
I also agree with your point that Lennon and McCarthy didn't do that great after breaking up, which is often a pattern with rock groups who break up generally, I think.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Link to the Let It Be thread.

There's a lot that could be said about the Beatles, but all I'll say is this: The band made an interesting progression from peppy boy-band stuff to arty pre-progressive-rock stuff, and it is remarkable to me how incredibly good they were at BOTH the former AND the latter. I know people who only like early Beatles, and I know people who only like later Beatles, but I like both, because they were very, very good at both of those phases in their career.

[Greg P]

The Beatles' monumental-- and in many ways unparalleled-- achievements in pop/rock, helped lay down some absolutes for musicians hoping to follow in their train:
1) No one ever created great rock n' roll who was not first a student of the deep tradition of early american blues music (The 'ol "water-never-rises-higher-than-its- source" philosophy...)
2) You NEED a good producer...Two words-- George Martin

[Rich Kennedy]

Two words-- George Martin

The farther the Beatles recede into history, the harder it is to remember this. Not much said about him anymore.

[Miki]

Again, some great good points have been made about the Beatles here. I, too greatly enjoy both their earlier and their later music. I also agree that they were really the backbone of rock-n-roll music, and that, without the ascendency of the Beatles, rock-n-roll wouldn't have risen to the promenence that it has.
I admit that I totally forgot about George Martin, but that having a good manager/producer also helped the Beatles a great deal, in a positive way, I mean.
However, I sincerely doubt that the Beatles will ever recede completely into history, or even super-far, first because of the recognition that they were, indeed the backbone of rock-n-roll music, and they're not only still popular with us baby-boomers, but with today's present generation as well.

[stu]

Two words-- George Martin

The farther the Beatles recede into history, the harder it is to remember this. Not much said about him anymore.

George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin George Martin

Will that do? Whoever produced the snare drum sounds on the White Album needs a knighthood. Although thay may well have one already.

[Christian]

The Beatles were my first "favorite band" -- way back in elementary school (they were followed by the Rolling Stones and the Kinks). It's amazing how well their music has held up, but I've noticed that their "drug-phase" music -- and no, I can't put a strict timeline on it, but you know it when you hear it -- is almost impossible to listen to these days, at least for me.

It has not aged well. In fact, none of the psychedelic '60s music, which I listened to in heavy doses during my high-school years and into college, has any appeal whatsoever ... again, for me. I'm trying to be careful to avoid making objective statements about this music. I don't know enough to speak with any authority. But on a subjective level? It's drek. Embarrassing, overwrought, tedious.

[stu]

That's funny, I still love their psychedelic classics. How about 'Tomorrow never knows'? Clearly it is an acid song, but it's also decades ahead of it's time, it's almost like they invented dance music as an afterthought to Revolver.

[Miki]

I, too have enjoyed some of the Beatles' psychedelic music, and yet there are parts of it that aren't that great. However, all things being equal, I still tend to mostly fall back on their non-psychedelic music, because, after all, that was the music that paved the way for much of the rock music here in the U. S. A. during the 1960's; unfortunately, however, with some relatively rare exceptions, rock music here in this country began to show a decline during the mid to late 1970's, especially with the advent of disco music, then heavy metal, and then rap music, a decline, which, unfortunately has continued through to this day.

[Christian]

a decline, which, unfortunately has continued through to this day.

Aren't you forgetting about Hanson?

[Rich Kennedy]

The Beatles were my first "favorite band" -- way back in elementary school (they were followed by the Rolling Stones and the Kinks). It's amazing how well their music has held up, but I've noticed that their "drug-phase" music -- and no, I can't put a strict timeline on it, but you know it when you hear it  -- is almost impossible to listen to these days, at least for me.

Well, their participation in their drug phase started in Germany where they were forced to play 6 to 12 hour sets. The music started with "Revolver". I am no fan of "The White Album", but I do like some of their psychadelic stuff. 'I Am the Walrus' and 'A Day In the Life' come immediately to mind. Oh, and 'Hey Jude' is about the only chronically overplayed song that I can still enjoy when I hear it.

It has not aged well. In fact, none of the psychedelic '60s music, which I listened to in heavy doses during my high-school years and into college, has any appeal whatsoever ... again, for me. I'm trying to be careful to avoid making objective statements about this music. I don't know enough to speak with any authority. But on a subjective level? It's drek. Embarrassing, overwrought, tedious.

'Strawberry Fields' and 'Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds' come right up to the front in this case. Of course, I never even heard much of the Beatles 'til well after "Abbey Road" came out. Music of the Devil, donchaknow.

[Greg P]

It's amazing how well their music has held up, but I've noticed that their "drug-phase" music -- and no, I can't put a strict timeline on it, but you know it when you hear it  -- is almost impossible to listen to these days, at least for me. It has not aged well...It's drek. Embarrassing, overwrought, tedious.

Gasp! I'm one that still thinks their music from Revolver to Abbey Road, is about as good as popular music can ever hope to get. Really. From the masterful songwriting and innovative approach to production, to the fact that these albums were all cranked out in the span of about five years... I find very few songs from the period sound dated. Anyone remember the "alternative" mix of I am the Walrus they put out back in the mid-90's? Now THAT sounds dated! The original is still fresh and exhilirating nearly 40 years later.

I think one factor that has helped to diminish the Fab Four's impact has been the emergence of "Classic Rock" radio over the last ten or fifteen years. Most of these stations are formatted the same, no matter their location around the country. They play the SAME, 50 classic rock songs over and over, day after flippin' day... and this means you will hear the same seven or eight psychedelic-era Beatles songs constantly. This musical sacrilege seems to have bred an annoying familiarity that was once reserved only for songs like Macarena...

Classic rock radio, as a "closed system", has wrung the life out of a lot of great music from the 60's and 70's.

'Strawberry Fields' and 'Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds' come right up to the front in this case.

I admit, I usually turn the dial whenever L.S.D. comes on, but Strawberry is an amazing composition with a very stark, radio-unfriendly production... A touch of the avant-garde dissonance...Not at all schmaltzy or overwrought!

Whoever produced the snare drum sounds on the White Album needs a knighthood. Although thay may well have one already.

One of my favorite aspects of the Beatles music during this period are the incongruities in the mix. I love the fact that Ringo's drums are often so darn loud! Likewise with the occasional punch-in guitar riffs that just overwhelm everything else. Some of this can be attributed to the very primitive multi-track equipment of the day, but a lot of it is Mr. Martin's doing.

[Andy Whitman]

I, too have enjoyed some of the Beatles' psychedelic music, and yet there are parts of it that aren't that great.  However, all things being equal, I still tend to mostly fall back on their non-psychedelic music, because, after all,  that was the music that paved the way for much of the rock music here in the U. S. A. during the 1960's;  unfortunately, however, with some relatively rare exceptions, rock music here in this country began to show a decline during the mid to late 1970's, especially with the advent of disco music, then heavy metal, and then rap music, a decline, which, unfortunately has continued through to this day.

I'm a first-time poster here. My apologies if I violate some unknown rule.

I'm a huge fan of The Beatles, and always will be. Their arrival in the U.S. coincided with my own growing awareness of music, my first transistor radio (aqua plastic, with a white volume control knob), and the crucial epiphany that there were radio stations out there that played things other than the Frank Sinatra and Peggy Lee songs my parents loved to hear.

I tend to agree with those who think that the early Beatles material has held up better than the psychedelic material. I do find parts of Sergeant Pepper, and especially Magical Mystery Tour, to be hopelessly dated. On the other hand, most of the White Album and all of Abbey Road still sound great to me.

I have to disagree slightly with whoever wrote that The Beatles built their music on a blues base. Not really, unless blues is defined quite broadly. Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins, and the early Motown artists? Sure. But I tend to think of them as the first generation of rock 'n rollers, already one step removed from the blues. In contrast, The Rolling Stones really were a blues-based band, particularly on their early albums, where they borrowed quite heavily from Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Willie Dixon, etc.

Finally, Miki, I really don't believe that the quality of music has declined since that mythical '60s/early '70s apex. I think access to quality music has certainly declined. I think it's much harder to find in the popular media. But it's there, and I think it's there in about the same ratio as it's always been. I am regularly surprised and delighted by new music. And I hope that's one of the things a list like this can foster and facilitate. I look forward to hearing more about the music that people here have found meaningful, challenging, and delightful.

[Christian]

a decline, which, unfortunately has continued through to this day.

Aren't you forgetting about Hanson?

Nobody took the bait, eh? I confess that I wrote that last night, looked at it, laughed out loud, got control of myself, laughed out loud again, then hit “Add reply” and braced for the onslaught. Maybe I'd had too much coffee?

This sort of misjudgment is, sadly, increasingly common in my life.

[Mark]

[quote=coltrane,Mar 14 2005, 10:28 PM]
I think one factor that has helped to diminish the Fab Four's impact has been the emergence of "Classic Rock" radio over the last ten or fifteen years. Most of these stations are formatted the same, no matter their location around the country. They play the SAME, 50 classic rock songs over and over, day after flippin' day... and this means you will hear the same seven or eight psychedelic-era Beatles songs constantly. This musical sacrilege seems to have bred an annoying familiarity that was once reserved only for songs like Macarena...

Classic rock radio, as a "closed system", has wrung the life out of a lot of great music from the 60's and 70's.

[/quote]

Amen, brother!

[quote=Christian,Mar 15 2005, 01:32 PM]
Aren't you forgetting about Hanson?

[/quote]

Nobody took the bait, eh? I confess that I wrote that last night, looked at it, laughed out loud, got control of myself, laughed out loud again, then hit “Add reply” and braced for the onslaught. Maybe I'd had too much coffee?

This sort of misjudgment is, sadly, increasingly common in my life.

[/quote]

If it makes you feel any better, Christian, I laughed when I read that ... after furrowing my brow, putting my finger on my chin and saying out loud, "Hanson?" Then I remembered that "MMM-Bop" song and it's been bopping around in my brain ever since. Thanks, man ....

[Christian]

Thanks, Mark.

Just now I'm listening to Air America, and the host -- sounds like Janeane Garofalo, but the station's Web site tells me I'm listening to Randi Rhodes (I always wondered what happened to him after he stopped playing with Ozzy) -- and she's just reminded her sychophantic guest that "Bush, while at Harvard, was quoted saying that he liked the Beatles 'until they got weird.'"

So there you go. It's no wonder I voted for the guy. Twice.

[Greg P]

I have to disagree slightly with whoever wrote that The Beatles built their music on a blues base.  Not really, unless blues is defined quite broadly.

First of all, welcome to forum Andy!

Obviously, the Beatles were never the R&B band that the Stones were, but the undergirding influences are very much the same--albeit a bit more indirect with the Fab Four. Lennon especially, was a lover of early electric blues (Elmore James, Muddy Waters) and the references become more conspicuous in the psychedelic-era Beatles... but I would argue, they're present from the beginning-- even in the bubblegum era.

This is one of the things that distinguishes the Beatles from almost every other group in rock history-- and that is, this succesful ability to amalgamate styles and influences into something that transcends the original artifact.

I really don't believe that the quality of music has declined since that mythical '60s/early '70s apex. I think access to quality music has certainly declined. I think it's much harder to find in the popular media. But it's there, and I think it's there in about the same ratio as it's always been

I would agree to a point... depending on what type of music you're talking about. I think the quality of rock n roll-- if such a thing even exists anymore-- has definitely diminished. As younger artists move further away from the canon of folk traditions and are influenced soley by the second and third generation references to those traditons, the music gene pool becomes increasingly shallow. Many of these artists were sparked by Nirvana, whose references were 80's underground and punk, whose references in turn were Velvet Underground or the aural assault of Zep, the Who or Stooges whose influences were back to early blues music.

This is all a terrible oversimplification, but it demonstrates one reason why reviving Marquee Moon-era Television in 2005 is such a dead end as opposed to drinking directly from the deep wellspring of Mississippi John Hurt or Leadbelly.