Members The Beatles27 Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Buy these: Please Please Me - (Parlophone, 1963) With the Beatles - (Parlophone, 1963) A Hard Day's Night - (Parlophone, 1964) Beatles for Sale - (Parlophone, 1964) Help! - (Parlophone, 1965) Rubber Soul - (Parlophone, 1965) Revolver - (Parlophone, 1966) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - (Parlophone, 1967) Magical Mystery Tour - (U.S. only. Released as a Double EP in the UK) (Capitol, 1967) The Beatles ("The White Album") - (Apple, 1968) Yellow Submarine - (Apple, 1969) Abbey Road - (Apple, 1969) Let It Be - (Apple, 1970) Welcome to the magical mystery tour we call being a Beatles fan.WARNING- sudden obsession with everything Beatles will occurside effects may include venturing out into music from 60s and 70s:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members guitarlady Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 wow!! thanks for all the responses! I'm differently going to buy some Cd's. i like the idea of starting from the beginning and seeing how they grew as a band..... so would anyone wanna post their albums in order? or post a link to somewhere that has a list. The problem with posting their albums in order is that what EMI released in Europe and what Capitol released in the USA are different. Album releases with the same name often had different songs on them and the album names between these 2 companies are not always the same either. For instance the album Help released by Capitol has quite a bit of instrumental filler on it that is not on the EMI release and the EMI release has Yesterday on it which was released later on the Capitol LP Yesterday and Today. I think the order of the CDs released in the '80s is different too. So what we need here is someone who knows the release dates for the USA and release dates for Europe and release dates for CDs. I do not know off the top of my head I would need to look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RedYagiDY Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 I can't believe I'm the only one that mentioned Help!, I consider my self a huge Beatles fan and own all thier LPs retail. Almost every one has mentioned Rubber Soul and Help! is as stylisticly close to Rubber Soul as an album can be. I'm sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wheeler004 Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Revolver- their pop roots are definitely apparent, but they are just starting to branch out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fantastico Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Geez even i know some beatles song's:thu: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Electric Blues Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 The Beatles aren't my favorite group although I enjoy a lot of their music but here are some cool facts... Wikepedia... The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music.[2] In the United Kingdom, The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries; their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion records worldwide.[3] According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles are the best-selling musical act of all time in the United States.[4] Rolling Stone... In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles #1 on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time.[5] According to that same magazine, The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today.[2] The Beatles are on EVERY top 50, 100 or 500 songs of all time lists. Usually more than once. Did the Beatles ever do anything to advance recording techniques? Do you think the Beatles had any influence over world culture??? Music? Fashion? Lifestyle? Record companies? You can love them or hate them but you can't deny them. You can have your own opinion but that doesn't change what the Beatles did and how they changed the world. That's just history. If some of you have never heard them, give a listen. Everyone has their favorite Beatles album but it's cool listening to their entire collection too so you can see how their music, personalities and the music of the 60s and 70s evolved. You may enjoy the music but even if you don't, you'll have a better understanding of Rock's history. So comments stating... "They were over rated", doesn't really reflect a musical preference so much as a lack of culture in general. Comments stating... "As every rock band to date has taken and improved on them" Well... that's just idiotic, even from a 17 year old. Really? Every band huh? And they all improved on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dparr Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Comments stating... "As every rock band to date has taken and improved on them" Well... that's just idiotic, even from a 17 year old. Really? Every band huh? And they all improved on them? I thought that was a very funny comment. Kids say the darndest things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 's mel gibson Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Yes, heaven forbid people have opinions. My reason for saying The Beatles are overrated is because they're constantly called the best band ever, which I personally believe is a silly claim. I personally think bands did what The Beatles did and carried it one stop further, maybe more steps. The Beatles are a crucial link in the chain of rock and roll evolution. With out them, ...it could seriously distort the space/time continuum. Bad thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MichaelSaulnier Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 There's no doubt that the Beatles were a phenomenon that goes beyond being a simple pop band. They were the right band at the right time in the right place. They were talented pop composers and performers. Their early songs were VERY catchy, and their vocal harmony was very nicely done. The little girls SCREAMED... and the little boys picked up guitars by the thousands hoping to one day have the girls scream for THEM. They owned the pop charts for a time... at one point the TOP 5 SONGS... 1 through 5 belonged to them. NO ONE has EVER done that... and probably never will. They were the ultimate "crossover" band. Not only did little girls like them, but so did many of their parents, and other musicians, and so on. THEIR music was the music of the masses. Compare that to today. What band is popular with people here... and also rules the "little girls"? Do you guys dig the Jonas Brothers? Ummm. No. Or any of the current pop stars? Ummm. No. Are the people YOU LIKE... able to gain success in the pop arena? Ummm. No. And then, at the peak of their success. They EVOLVED. They stopped touring. They used the studio like an instrument. They changed what a "pop song" could be. They changed what a "pop artist" could be. That could NEVER happen today. It wouldn't be allowed. Any band who had the early success of the Beatles would be FORCED to make the same catchy pop songs... over and over and over and over again... Until the world was SICK of them. And then would come the "REUNION TOUR". Whether you like or don't like the Beatles... you have to give them respect for what they did... not just for themselves... but for the music business. Their legacy lasted almost 30 years... It's almost gone now... Maybe the "next Beatles" will be on the horizon soon... But frankly, I doubt it. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarMasterNot Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 I used to like the Beatles, but for some reason, I just can't stand them anymore. I don't know why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alecto Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Yes, when you look at The Beatles from a 2008 perspective, they do sound immature and na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members superdistortion Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 That's because they are slightly overrated. No offence to them, I have some albums by them myself, but they are overrated. Most influencial band? probably, best? probably not.How old are you? I was around when they first hit. They changed popular music forever. Maybe all of music. They were that big and that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members D-Lew Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 He said most influential. AFAIK none of us have said that they didn't revolutionize music. That's not the reason I listen to someone... it's just that they really don't do anything for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ModernSaloon Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 I can't believe I'm the only one that mentioned Help!, I consider my self a huge Beatles fan and own all thier LPs retail. Almost every one has mentioned Rubber Soul and Help! is as stylisticly close to Rubber Soul as an album can be. I'm sad Help! Help! Help! here too. It's the only Beatles Album that I can listen to back to back these days. Followed by Rubber Soul, but I skip some songs on that one (OK, I skip Yesterday too). Very simple, very effective arrangements. Every song a perfect capsule of pop catchyness. Tasteful use of recording studio gimmicks (they went a bit overboard in later albums). Oh, and you can tell that at the time they were still HUNGRY. They were motivated, driven, giving their 100%. I love the Beatles myself, but I can understand those that are fed up with listening to their songs over and over again. Overexposure can drain the enjoyment of almost everything. Except for the enjoyment of listening to Ringo sing "Act Naturally", of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HopeStreet Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 The Beatles are on EVERY top 50, 100 or 500 songs of all time lists. Usually more than once.Did the Beatles ever do anything to advance recording techniques?Do you think the Beatles had any influence over world culture??? Music? Fashion? Lifestyle? Record companies?You can love them or hate them but you can't deny them. You can have your own opinion but that doesn't change what the Beatles did and how they changed the world. That's just history.If some of you have never heard them, give a listen. Everyone has their favorite Beatles album but it's cool listening to their entire collection too so you can see how their music, personalities and the music of the 60s and 70s evolved. You may enjoy the music but even if you don't, you'll have a better understanding of Rock's history.So comments stating... "They were over rated", doesn't really reflect a musical preference so much as a lack of culture in general. Comments stating... "As every rock band to date has taken and improved on them" Well... that's just idiotic, even from a 17 year old.Really? Every band huh? And they all improved on them? calling me on stating "every band has improved on them" is idiotic because clearly,i was speaking about notable bands that have made an impact on the music industry.the ones who don't improve on the genre don't usually make it anywhere,as it's been done before.just like every kid on here who worships page and clapton and wants to be just like them.what's the point?the evolution of music is the refining of music.sure tons of stuff is played on the radio now that doesn't make an impact,but that's because they can play what ever they want and people will "like" it.mainstream is no longer controlled by people but by the media.when i hear the beatles now i just think that tons of kids in garages all over the world could do that now,and so many have.it's obsolete to me.i'm not saying i don't respect what they have done for pop music,it just doesn't appeal to me.it's been evolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Clarknova Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 I use to think The Beatles were okay. I thought Pink Floyd was the best band and that Dark Side of the Moon was the best album in the world. I thought this for ten years. I've been taking audio recording classes in college and with the knowledge that I've gained from those classes, I now think that The Beatles were primortialy diaties of Rock and Roll. They did everything first and they were all better musicians than I thought they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members csm Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 It's possible that one reason some forumites can't get their head around The Beatles is that their primary purpose was as singers and songwriters, and that the playing (and, from Rubber Soul onwards, Sir George Martin's increasingly sophisticated production) was there to serve the songs, rather than the songs being there to showcase the playing. Also: the purpose of most UK record production prior to the birth of hard rock in the mid-60s was to smooth and tame the excesses of live performance rather than to capture and transmit its energies (example: the producers' fortunately unsuccessful attempt to get Clapton to turn his Marshall down during the 'Beano' sessions with John Mayall, when the whole Gibson/Marshall THANG essentially came into being). By all accounts, The Beatles and the Stones both rocked way harder on the stage than you'd guess just from listening to their early records. To return to the OP's question, my pick would be Revolver: the transitional album between The Beatles' 'touring' and 'studio' phases, when the science-fantasy production touches are beginning to creep in but hadn't yet peaked, harnessed to the funk and drive of a band not yet out of the habit of rocking it out live. If all else fails, just listen to the drums. Ringo was the Beatle who ALWAYS rocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tyrone111 Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 having one of their early albums like a hard days nigh is good as well as something like revolver, white album and abbey road Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LordLove Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 It's possible that one reason some forumites can't get their head around The Beatles is that their primary purpose was as singers and songwriters, and that the playing (and, from Rubber Soul onwards, Sir George Martin's increasingly sophisticated production) was there to serve the songs, rather than the songs being there to showcase the playing. Not at all, I have no problem with the technical capabilities of the band - ok, they weren't great on their instruments, but that's not important. I just don't actually think the songs were always as strong as people suggest. For the record I have no insterest in the obsession with technical playing. Again, I'm not arguing that people are idiots for loving The Beatles so much, I'm just saying it's still an opinion. To call someone who doesn't like them uncultured is a grave, grave, mistake. And I shall have vengence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members superdistortion Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 He said most influential. AFAIK none of us have said that they didn't revolutionize music. That's not the reason I listen to someone... it's just that they really don't do anything for me. I understand what you are saying. I'm not a big fan of Elvis. Although I know he was good. His music isn't really my style. And what is good or not is subjective. What I'm saying is the Beatles were good. And it's because of this they were influential and ground breaking. Comparing them to who came later may not be the best way to appreciate them. What I'm saying is they sounded and played better than all of their contemporaries. Or at least most of them. To the original poster I'd suggest Abbey road and the White album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LordLove Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 What I'm saying is the Beatles were good. And it's because of this they were influential and ground breaking. Comparing them to who came later may not be the best way to appreciate them. It seems like the best way to appreciate them to me, I don't give bands a free pass on that basis that they were influential and ground breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members csm Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Are songs like Yellow Submarine, Revolution 9, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da and Octopusses' Garden really that great? Honestly? I had to sing 3 out of those 4 at school virtually everyday (they spared as Revolution 9, thank god), and IMHO those songs could have been written and recorded by many artists of that period All of the above were light-hearted throwaways (with Rev 9 the odd one out as a hardcore experimental piece), hilariously unrepresentative of the bulk of their output. Ringo wasn't exactly their front-burner lead singer, ya know ... Day In The Life, anyone? Strawberry Fields forever? Yesterday? Something? In My Life? Help!? Or -- special shout-out for the rockers in da house? -- Back In The USSR? Ticket To Ride? A Hard Day's Night? Come Together? Or even Track 1 Side 1 of their very first album -- I Saw Her Standing There? And that's just a few. Then you got the great rockin' cover versions from the early years (You Really Got A Hold On Me, Twist And Shout, Money, Roll Over Beethoven), the visionary production epics (Tomorrow Never Knows and I Am The Walrus, as well as Day, Fields and the others) ... Whatever your final judgment -- they had a little more going on than Octopus's Garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LordLove Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 The stuff the right hon. CSM said Yeah, my point with picking out those is that they're fed in from a young age even though they're not good songs. They need to be left in peace. You're certainly right, tracks like Strawberry Fields and Back in the USSR are great tracks. Twist and Shout and others of that ilk seem products of their era to me, and weren't really beyond what was going on at the time. Like many a worthy band, they've done some recorded output which is right up there, and some which...isn't. I personally find there isn't as much stuff in that top bracket as the media would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Blues Junior Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 Without the Beatles, there would be nothing. Those boys took chances, and opened up the whole thing for everyone else who came after. The music they put together in about 6 years is mindboggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dparr Posted May 27, 2008 Members Share Posted May 27, 2008 I personally find there isn't as much stuff in that top bracket as the media would have us believe.My ears and millions of other peoples tell a different story.You just can't argue with the facts. The Beatles throw-a-way songs were better than most bands best ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.