What's so good about the Beatles?

JAYJO

imo The Beatles recorded more albums that were mostly  listenable all the way through.
This meant you didnt risk scratching you new LP by skipping all the shit songs. You could go to the outside toilet for a no 2 and read the echo while you were there and Hey jude would still be playing when you came back.na na na naaa

EricTheWeary

Pet Sounds was out the year before Sgt Peppers wasnt it? .
Surely an awful lot of musicians played across styles, quite a traditional thing for any muso trying to pay the rent. The close classification of musical styles is really something much more post than pre Beatles. Even Elvis sang blues, country, gospel, film schmaltz,etc, pre Beatles.
A lot of musicians had songs written within the band, for example Muddy Waters or Howling Wolf were hardly looking for material down Tin Pan Alley. Might depend on your frame of reference of course but 50's Chicago blues and rock'n'roll were within the frame of reference of The Beatles themselves ( as was Elvis).
If Frank Sinatra ( et al ) covered the Beatles was that because he loved the songs or because he thought he could sell some records?
In country, blues, rock'n'roll and generally in popular music you did have front person and a revolving door of sidemen and the notion of a band as a small bunch of people who did everything together wasn't that common and the Beatles certainly popularised that concept ( via their films as much as anything) but I'm struggling to believe it was completely new or unique at the time.
Dusty Springfield and The Tornados had both topped the U.S. Chart before the Beatles did.
Everything I can find via Google is pretty clear they are/ were the biggest selling musical act of all time though, which is pretty impressive.

koneguitarist

Actually I think Garth Brooks has sold more records than the Beatles. 

But that's in country music where bands were often that a band of musicians all equal members and writing their own songs. 

Like for instance the Carter family 20 years before the Beatles were born. 

koneguitarist

Whoops sorry that's just the states sales ! ">

richardhomer

koneguitarist;603365" said:

Actually I think Garth Brooks has sold more records than the Beatles.

For the love of God!

The next thing we'll get is that Tammy Wynette has a better voice than Aretha Franklin....

Handsome_Chris

koneguitarist said:

Whoops sorry that's just the states sales ! ">

It's still a proud boast.

randomhandclaps

koneguitarist said:

Actually I think Garth Brooks has sold more records than the Beatles. 

koneguitarist said:

Whoops sorry that's just the states sales ! ">

Still, I think trying to deride the accolade of a band who musicians worldwide site as an influence by comparing their sales to that of a one trick pony who out-sold them in a country the elected this man...

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/northam/images/bush-george-w-2.jpg

...as president seems like a perfectly sound foundation for an argument.

Between 1975-79, despite their supposed greatness The Beatles were outsold in Cambodia by Pol Pot.  Fucking shocking band.

Samgb

koneguitarist said:

Samgb said:

Anyway, more generally - they completely changed music. There is no other way of putting it than that. They changed the way the music business worked and put the power in the hands of musicians. They changed the way songs were written. They changed the idea that a musician would only do one style of music. They changed the way music was consumed and brought albums to the forefront over singles. They invented the band made up of equals rather than Star+Sidemen. They changed the way music was recorded and pioneered effects and studio techniques that didnt exist before. Their influence on thousands of bands that came after and their peers is incalculable. Frank Sinatra recorded their songs. So did Duke Ellington. Brian Wilson wrote Pet Sounds and went insane making Smile in an attempt to equal them. There are Motown versions of Beatles songs, muzak versions.

   

Jesus, thats before you even begin value judgements about their music which is of course down to personal taste. 

So, yeah. Thats whats so good about them.        

What studio techniques did they invent? How did they invent the concept of the band being equal members etc, I think the Shadows were doing that ? Lots of bold statements but nothing to really back up what you have said really. 

They were a good band at a time, when music was changing in the UK big time, we were out of the war ration period and things were looking up. To me it's too much a band at the right time and place with a great producer. 

You mean Cliff Richard and The Shadows?

Samgb

EricTheWeary said:

Pet Sounds was out the year before Sgt Peppers wasnt it? .
Surely an awful lot of musicians played across styles, quite a traditional thing for any muso trying to pay the rent. The close classification of musical styles is really something much more post than pre Beatles. Even Elvis sang blues, country, gospel, film schmaltz,etc, pre Beatles.
A lot of musicians had songs written within the band, for example Muddy Waters or Howling Wolf were hardly looking for material down Tin Pan Alley. Might depend on your frame of reference of course but 50's Chicago blues and rock'n'roll were within the frame of reference of The Beatles themselves ( as was Elvis).
If Frank Sinatra ( et al ) covered the Beatles was that because he loved the songs or because he thought he could sell some records?
In country, blues, rock'n'roll and generally in popular music you did have front person and a revolving door of sidemen and the notion of a band as a small bunch of people who did everything together wasn't that common and the Beatles certainly popularised that concept ( via their films as much as anything) but I'm struggling to believe it was completely new or unique at the time.
Dusty Springfield and The Tornados had both topped the U.S. Chart before the Beatles did.
Everything I can find via Google is pretty clear they are/ were the biggest selling musical act of all time though, which is pretty impressive.

Pet Sounds was Brian Wilson's reply to Revolver i think. And then came Sgt Peppers and he started Smile in response to that...and went nuts. I still prefer the cobbled together Smiley Smile they brought out at the time to the re-jigged complete Smile from a couple of years back. 

Samgb

koneguitarist said:

Actually I think Garth Brooks has sold more records than the Beatles. 

But that's in country music where bands were often that a band of musicians all equal members and writing their own songs. 

Like for instance the Carter family 20 years before the Beatles were born. 

Garth Brooks always freaked me out because he insisted on staring directly into the camera at all times. He wanted to make babies with me.

koneguitarist

randomhandclaps;603777" said:

koneguitarist said:

Actually I think Garth Brooks has sold more records than the Beatles. 










koneguitarist said:

Whoops sorry that's just the states sales ! ">





Still, I think trying to deride the accolade of a band who musicians worldwide site as an influence by comparing their sales to that of a one trick pony who out-sold them in a country the elected this man...http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/northam/images/bush-george-w-2.jpg...as president seems like a perfectly sound foundation for an argument.

Between 1975-79, despite their supposed greatness The Beatles were outsold in Cambodia by Pol Pot.  Fucking shocking band.

Don't forget the Bay City Rollers, real fashion sense! Not Kaftans and beards

EricTheWeary

Samgb;603785" said:

EricTheWeary said:

Pet Sounds was out the year before Sgt Peppers wasnt it?

.




Surely an awful lot of musicians played across styles, quite a traditional thing for any muso trying to pay the rent. The close classification of musical styles is really something much more post than pre Beatles. Even Elvis sang blues, country, gospel, film schmaltz,etc, pre Beatles.




A lot of musicians had songs written within the band, for example Muddy Waters or Howling Wolf were hardly looking for material down Tin Pan Alley. Might depend on your frame of reference of course but 50's Chicago blues and rock'n'roll were within the frame of reference of The Beatles themselves ( as was Elvis).



If Frank Sinatra ( et al ) covered the Beatles was that because he loved the songs or because he thought he could sell some records?



In country, blues, rock'n'roll and generally in popular music you did

have front person and a revolving door of sidemen and the notion of a band as a small bunch of people who did everything together wasn't that common and the Beatles certainly popularised that concept ( via their films as much as anything) but I'm struggling to believe it was completely new or unique at the time.



Dusty Springfield and The Tornados had both topped the U.S. Chart before the Beatles did.



Everything I can find via Google is pretty clear they are/ were the biggest selling musical act of all time though, which is pretty impressive.





Pet Sounds was Brian Wilson's reply to Revolver i think. And then came Sgt Peppers and he started Smile in response to that...and went nuts. I still prefer the cobbled together Smiley Smile they brought out at the time to the re-jigged complete Smile from a couple of years back. 

I was reading around some stuff last night. Brian Wilson was gobsmacked by Revolver, stopped touring and made Pet Sounds. The Beatles were gobsmacked by Pet Sounds and made Sgt Pepper.
Nice bit in one of the interviews with Macca were he said he had bought each of his children a copy of Pet Sounds.

Of course, the Beatles are the most famous band to have played in my office!
Well, our office block is on the site of an old club were they played so they were around here somewhere.