10 bands better than the Beatles

[chipmcdonald]

Originally posted by Ernest Buckley I think the Beatles were a great band from Rubber Soul and on:

 

 

I'm not overly fond of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles stuff, BUT....

 

It's still genius. A previous poster mentioned some of the 50's era R&R greats; while they took liberally from them, the brilliant thing is that in each song they added some little twist to it that was completely novel. While there might be a "trick" to Eddie Cochran or Carl Perkins, they'd take that one trick and add something else to it, recombine it with something else - make something new.

 

..and mind you, none of those people mentioned didn't steal from somewhere, either.

 

 

..and what makes it so genius is that it's almost always so subtle as to falling into a musical "blind spot" for a lot of people. Musical ideas that *are taken for granted now*.

Each one of those old-school Beatles tunes has some oddball little aspect to it that one can learn from. Most all of them sound like "oh, that's just a rock and roll I-IV-V deal" until you really listen and dissect them, and you notice "hey.. that's an oddball modulation?" or some such...

 

Now, the question is the *value* of those little nuances. Having taught music for so long, I know a lot of musicians dismiss it, because they've heard these concepts used so many times in music that it seems old hat.

 

But, like I was positing in the post to Ani, there was a time when those things were new. And the Beatles did them.

 

The only thing that immediately comes to mind that's comparable is the Marx Brothers. A lot of people find them boring now; the pacing is decidedly pre-MTV, it's B&W...

 

BUT - their jokes were incredibly subtle, while at the same time innovative. They did the same thing: stole from vaudeville acts, added their genius to them. You watch a move of their now and it's not the same as what it must have been like then - because *so much of modern comedy is built upon a foundation they guys created.

 

Just like the Beatles, there isn't a modern sitcom that won't at some point do or say something that isn't one way or another traceable back to a Marx Brother's skit somehow. Likewise, there's very little that hasn't been touched by the Beatles.

[chipmcdonald]

This thread brings me down.

I didn't really try sushi until my mid 20's. I thought I knew what it was about, but I didn't.

It doesn't hit you over the head like the immediate satisfaction of a nice pizza, for instance.

I grew up hearing the Beatles, I was born in the Age of Aquarius ... I took them for granted, didn't think much about them, didn't think I *really* liked them - again until my early 20's.

At that point I had been teaching guitar long enough to realize just how influential they had been - and how brilliant they were. I took them for granted; they were the background sound to my youth, they had already happened, and were already part of "history".

Now, the more I learn about their music the more amazing it seems. While I liked them before, I didn't know the impact they'd had. I do now, and it's almost surreal. When I hear someone either disparaging the Beatles, or "not getting" them, it's just makes me sad.

I'm sure there's either a French, or Japanese word for the following concept:

There's some things that some people will *think* they fully understand the gestalt of, but are missing the elements required for it to coalesce into "appreciation". I'm pretty existential at this point; there's little good in being alive except to do things only human existence can do, which is essentially love and appreciate things. While it may seem passe - like loving Monet paintings or some such - I'm glad there's something like the Beatles that is so satisfying to wallow around in; I'm sorry other people can't get the same enjoyment.

[claveslave]

Seeing as how everyone is taking this all so seriously, I'd like to point out that my previous post was TIC x 1 million.

If I had nothing left to listen to other than the near 300 songs that The Beatles released, I would die a happy man.

For some unknown reason, time and old timer's disease ended up sticking Floyd's DSOM before Abbey Road but google sorts that. If Sun King didn't thankfully influence that album, then, I doubt I would enjoy it as much. Pretty amazing power. I miss that impossible, final reunion

Carry on.

[cooterbrown]

Originally posted by claveslave Seeing as how everyone is taking this all so seriously, I'd like to point out that my previous post was TIC x 1 million.

I think the lack of vitriol thrown your way would affirm that.

I have recognized their genius at completely different eras of my life, in completely different ways.

Their music and craft is appreciable on many different levels.

While I can understand that some people may not care for their music (including my eclecticly-minded father, who introduced me to everything from Lizst to The Weavers, to Cream, as a child), I believe everyone should lob whatever slings and arrows they have at their disposal at any idiot who would dimiss the Beatles rarified place in the history of popular music.

[shniggens]

Originally posted by Angelo Clematide Apropos fans... My neighbour Michael owns the whole Elvis collection. He said everybody who thinks Elvis is not the greatest, or doesn't know him at all, has a serious problem with life as such

The Beatles would probably agree with your neighbor.

clavesave,

6ths!!!!!!

[phaeton]

Originally posted by chipmcdonald Who has more *songs* that are immediately recognizable? If you were going to Vegas and betting on "which artist would have the most songs recognized by random people on the street?", you would be a sheer complete idiot to *NOT* choose the Beatles.

 

 

Vegas? Hell, just about ANY marginally 'westernized' culture or country. Feel free to ignore whatever the predominant native language is too. Stand on any mildly busy street corner, you'd be hard pressed NOT to find anyone in just about any age group that doesn't like the Beatles.

 

 

Originally posted by chipmcdonald Does anyone musician reading this now, who was a musician during the Beatles era, feel they *didn't* spur a music revolution...?

 

 

I used to have a HUGE stack of Guitar Player, Music Player, Guitar World, etc mags from about 1978 through 1989. I read lots and lots of interviews from gobs and scads of people from just about every style of music you could remotely consider. Probably the most oft thing I ever saw in the whole lot was:

 

"So what made you decide to pick up guitar/bass/drums/vocals/keyboards"?

 

"I was about 10 years old or so, in 1964, and I was watching the Ed Sullivan show, and these 4 guys came out....."

 

 

We're talking about guys like U2's The Edge to Kerry King from Slayer.

[Billster]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Hmm Ani, I don't know if I can completely go along with your "it was the new and innovative gear" argument... But the one thing that to me, stands above everything else is the material, followed closely by the arrangements and performances. The recordings are of great interest to me as both an engineer and a producer, but IMHO, the thing that will insure the Beatles are still household names in 200 years - like Beethoven and Mozart are today - will be the material much moreso than the technological. Of course, everyone's POV may vary, and that's completely fine by me.

This is what I meant by the "content is king" idea in Bruce's style vs. fashion thread.

The techniques the Beatles used (most notably Sgt. Pepper) would not have meant much without the actual musical material. The durability of the content is proven by the wide variety of artists who have performed those songs in other styles.

As you can see from a lot of recent "artists", too much emphasis on production techniques only lasts a certain amount of time before people realize that there's no there there. Compare that to the fact that a song like "Strawberry Fields" can still be played and enjoyed without the more gimmicky elements of the original arrangement and production.

I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but I'm not deaf either.

[cooterbrown]

Originally posted by Ani The Beatles were the band on the set when the Recording Industry was in the heat of a revolutionary explosion with the innovative technologies of the era.

Like the innovative use of bailing wire and duct tape on John Lennon's amp to keep the battered rattletrap from vibrating?

Or the de facto dime-store Hofner that Paul played because he couldn't afford a "good" bass?

Or the night John came home,"stoned out me head" and accidently put his copy of "Rain" on the drive axle upside down?

None of these things are technological or innovative...accidental and mother-of-necessity, maybe.

And despite your pathetic attempt at technical mumbo-jumbo, making up some story about technologial advancements, the first real great leap of recording technology during the Beatles eight years of making records was the use of the new-fangled eight-track recorder that was used on Abbey Road, their final album, together.

Originally posted by Ani The first commercial stereo recording was introduced on the market in 1958. Acceptance of stereo broadcasting systems led to changes in FCC regulations during the 60's. The FCC ruling led to the end of monaural recordings and the proliferation of stereo product and increased stereo broadcasting.Producer Phil Spector introduced his famous "Wall of Sound" in the early 60's.... In 1962, 3M introduced Scotch 201/202 "Dynarange," a black oxide low-noise mastering tape with a 4 dB improvement in s/n ratio over Scotch 111.

and yet, Spector recorded in monoaural.

You want technological advancements?
Go to the 1970s when synthesizers, Dolby noise reduction, and 24-track consoles became the norm...then fast forward to the early 80s, when digital recordings started showing up.

The difference in technology is exponentially greater between 1969 and 1979 than from 1945 to 1969.

[shniggens]

Originally posted by chipmcdonald I'm not overly fond of pre-Rubber Soul Beatles stuff, BUT....

 

 

This always surprises me when I hear this. Especially from fans that grew up with The Beatles.

 

Since I'm a younger fan, I had the natural progression of experiencing The Beatles music in reverse chronological order. Newer stuff first, older stuff later. Actually, I hadn't even heard much of their earliest stuff until a couple of years ago (reluctantly), and it was a nice treat to discover a whole new batch of great songs I never even knew existed!

 

Most of that stuff blows me away simply because it stands on it's own without all the tricks and gadgets. I mean, I'll Be Back, The Night Before, What You're Doing, No Reply, I'll Follow The Sun, Thing We Said, I Feel Fine, etc, etc are all amazing songs with just a simple 4 piece band. I doubt songs like 'I Am The Walrus' would be so memorable without all the extra texture, but that's not really the point . . . .

 

It's the melody and vocals that sucks you in. Their voices were meant to sing together. We sing harmonies in our band, but unfortunately, the timbre of our combined voices is nowhere near the magical sound that the Fab {censored}ers made.

 

 

I think alot of people look at their earlier stuff as too clean or too poppy. Maybe they don't like their square, pre-LSD image (especially people from the 70's generation and younger), but damn, those songs are tight.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by shniggens I think alot of people look at their earlier stuff as too clean or too poppy. Maybe they don't like their square, pre-LSD image (especially people from the 70's generation and younger), but damn , those songs are tight.

 

 

While I appreciate pre-Rubber Soul, I find the other songs more interesting and adventurous. It has nothing to do with their image - I could really care less what they look like - it has to do with what really moves me, and I happen to respond to their more psychedelic stuff.

 

Also, just to chime in with the Ani argument, I'm not the hugest Beatles fan, but to deny that they didn't start a music revolution is completely revisionist. Sure, Phil Spector and Joe Meek and others were doing innovative work, so that's not to take anything away from them, but the Beatles are clearly the ones who gave things a swift boot in the pants.

[Phil O'Keefe]

While as an engineer and producer I am extremely interested in their later material and all the techniques they (the collective "they") came up with in the studio (and yes, that we still use to this day), they had me hooked from the very first time I heard "one two three FOUR!

Emotion and great songs beat the technological tricks and innovation any day. Combine them and you can change the world.

[phaeton]

And yet another thing...

Probably the coolest thing evar to come out of the 1990s was the whole "Unplugged" trend. Yeah I know that people have been doing acoustic sets of their music for eons, but MTV brought a lot of folks into it. It was the true Litmus Test for a lot of the bands around at the time, and that's the sort of thing that could separate the wheat from the chaff.


I'll bet a Tascam ATR 16 that every {censored}ing one of the Beatle's songs would have been nothing short of excellent if all done in the "unplugged" fashion. Especially if the Beatles themselves were doing it. They had a way with their 'environment' as a team.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Emotion and great songs beat the technological tricks and innovation any day. Combine them and you can change the world.

Yes, a potent combination!!!!

If The Beatles had done stuff like "Rain" or "I Am The Walrus" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" primarily, they'd probably be my favorite band. My tastes tend to run to other bands quite a bit more, although I have maximum respect for The Beatles. That said, reading the Geoff Emerick book made me enjoy many of their songs more.

For me, the first big jaw-dropping musical experience was Led Zeppelin. A friend of mine purchased "Physical Graffiti" with his paper route money because his big brother had turned him on to it. A few of us hung out in his back patio and put it on. We sat utterly quiet for the entire first side.

R.E.M. "Murmur" was another one. That one floored me. So did their live show.

And another huge one was "My Life in the Bush of Ghosts" by David Byrne and Brian Eno. I've never listened to music quite the same way since then. What an interesting collection of music!!!

For me, those are the three big ones that really made an impact when I was growing up (later, it was Nirvana "Bleach" and "Nevermind", The Cure, NIN, Cocteau Twins, and some other stuff, but those three are the big ones when I was growing up).

[nhbw]

To the self anointed Forum Police:

The OP is not a troll (cute little abbreviation by the way). Maybe he has a life outside the world of Internet Forums. The Forum Police remind me of the kid who always volunteered to be the hall monitor in Grade School.

Anyway, I am not a Beatles hater. I Love the Beatles. They were most definitely a cultural phenomenon, and a pretty good band to boot. I just think that any number of bands (given the same set of circumstances) could have been the Beatles. They were in the right place at the right time, and yes, they delivered the goods. I just can't get all goofy and proclaim that popular music would be all that different today had it not been for them. Someone else would have stepped up. The time was ripe!

But the point is moot. It was the Beatles and they win!

By the way, the "Love" circus show in Vegas is pretty great. The music really is the star if you can handle all of that surround sound business. I find it a bit distracting. I couldn't help wondering though, what it would have been like listening to "Close to the Edge" instead of "I Want to Hold Your Hand". I'm sure there would have been a lot fewer people in the audience so once again, The Beatles win.

I Love Music!!!!

nhbw

[fred zappelin]

Whatever...
Attempting to dis the Beatles is always a good way to get everyone riled up !

[myshkin]

Originally posted by phaeton And yet another thing... Probably the coolest thing evar to come out of the 1990s was the whole "Unplugged" trend. Yeah I know that people have been doing acoustic sets of their music for eons, but MTV brought a lot of folks into it. It was the true Litmus Test for a lot of the bands around at the time, and that's the sort of thing that could separate the wheat from the chaff. I'll bet a Tascam ATR 16 that every {censored}ing one of the Beatle's songs would have been nothing short of excellent if all done in the "unplugged" fashion. Especially if the Beatles themselves were doing it. They had a way with their 'environment' as a team.

 

 

Great point.

[franknputer]

Maybe the thread title should have been "10 bands I like better than The Beatles" - then the nature of the discourse might have taken a different tack.

[cooterbrown]

Originally posted by fred zappelin Whatever... Attempting to dis the Beatles is always a good way to get everyone riled up !

+1...you might as well be dissing ice cream, sunshine or Mother Theresa.

[cooterbrown]

Originally posted by phaeton I'll bet a Tascam ATR 16 that every {censored}ing one of the Beatle's songs would have been nothing short of excellent if all done in the "unplugged" fashion. Especially if the Beatles themselves were doing it. They had a way with their 'environment' as a team.

 

 

They always say that a great song should sound great, no matter the context.

 

Wow...my hair just stood on end thinking if John and George were still with us and The Beatles did an "unplugged" show.

 

How impossible would it be to pick a setlist for that kind of gig from their entire catalog?

[Iamtheblues]

Originally posted by nhbw In no particular order: Led Zeppelin - Maybe not better, but close. The Who - Agree Yes - Puhleeze Genesis - Somewhat close, only if it's the Gabriel era band Gentle Giant - Never heard of them King Crimson - I love them, but totally different league. Supertramp - Puhleeze (pt. 2) Elton John Band - Close, in the early years. Porcupine Tree - Never heard of them (pt. 2) Crack the Sky - Never heard of them (pt. 3) I could go on........... Please, don't. nhbw

 

[Fab4ever]

Originally posted by cooterbrown They always say that a great song should sound great, no matter the context. Wow...my hair just stood on end thinking if John and George were still with us and The Beatles did an "unplugged" show. How impossible would it be to pick a setlist for that kind of gig from their entire catalog?

 

 

I'll play:

 

1. Across the Universe

2. Yesterday

3. Everybody's Got Something To Hide (Except for Me and My Monkey)

4. I'm Looking Through You

5. Something

6. Blackbird

7. Here Comes The Sun

8. Rain

9. Let It Be

10. Hey Jude

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

Originally posted by cooterbrown +1...you might as well be dissing ice cream, sunshine or Mother Theresa.

 

 

Another proven way to make a fool out of yourself is to say that you don't like Bach or Mozart. Another way is what I said to one trumpet player at the rehearsal for the orchestra piece I wrote for the "700 Year of Confederation" celebration in Lucerne. In a short pause during the three day long rehearsal, one trumpet bloke aproached me while I was talking to the the American conducter LaRue Jones, and without any introduction he said to me: "The greatest composer of all time is Bach, Bach and once more Bach, then comes Mozart." After which I replied to him: "The last musician I know of who was capable playing the trumpet died in 1798.

 

.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by cooterbrown +1...you might as well be dissing ice cream, sunshine or Mother Theresa.

Oooookay, throwin' down the gauntlet, eh?

-Ice Cream - fattening
-Sunshine - cancer, wrinkles
-Mother Theresa - accepted money from dubious donors



(I know someone is going to take this post seriously...

- I love Ben and Jerry's Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream

- Sunshine freakin' rules

- I visited one of Mother Theresa's clinics in Calcutta and, like anyone else, was absolutely blown away by the care given to people.)

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by franknputer Maybe the thread title should have been "10 bands I like better than The Beatles" - then the nature of the discourse might have taken a different tack.

 

 

That's what it always ends up being. For one thing, how do you define "best" when it comes to a band? It's a bit easier to describe what's best at a sporting event, but a band? And so people will automatically assume that because they like a band more than another band, they are somehow better.

[Magpel]

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli That's what it always ends up being. For one thing, how do you define "best" when it comes to a band? It's a bit easier to describe what's best at a sporting event, but a band? And so people will automatically assume that because they like a band more than another band, they are somehow better.

 

 

While there is a certainly a part of personal taste that is inexplicable, it's not ALL that way. I can explain in detail why I like some music better than others, why I think it is better written, better played, even more honest or authentic, though the latter is the hardest to express.

 

The popular expression "it's all good," doesn't actually mean it's all good, just that it's fruitless to try to change opinions.