Topic: A most important question

[MikeHz]

But Paul is dead!

Judging from his performance at the Grammies, I'd have to agree.

[seamas]

I voted Beatles.

They had a shorter total run, but were damned near perfect for each and every one of them. For a group that put out over ten albums worth of material in about 7-8 years, plus several movies and an unbelievable touring schedule from '63 to 66 they were nothing short of astonishing.



The Stones, had about five or six totally awesome years ('66-72) bookended by a couple ok years,  then a whole bunch of crap since the late '70s

It sucks.
I would put Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street as being among the greatest rock albums by anyone.

[drizz]

I'm fairly certain there was music around before the Beatles.

I'm fairly certain you didn't understand what I was trying to say.

[Johnny Slick]

The Beatles are it. From Rubber Soul onward is a complete masterclass in the art of the album. Before Rubber Soul it was a masterclass in the art of the pop song. The Stones were a good band with good songs, but the stars were really aligned, or whatever, when the Beatles happened. The Beatles were around for a decade and invented music, and the Stones have been playing catch up for 40 years since.

Yeah, pretty much this, and I'm not sure why it's Beatles v. Stones either. IMO The Who is far, far more influential in modern rock, and better too (still like the Beatles better overall but at least there's a comparison to be made).

I think a lot of the flak the Beatles get is that their early stuff is pretty cheesy. Yeah, that's a pretty valid argument. They are basically like what might have happened if N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys stuck together, fired their managers, and all of their members turned into freaking awesome and genre-expanding musicians in their own right (also, the Beatles were WAAAY more popular than any modern boy band, but still). I think you could hear the transition from mega-popular boy band to legitimately awesome musical group with Help but yeah, Rubber Soul is widely seen as the big turning point. I actually think I like the mid-career group of Soul, Revolver (is there a bad song on that album?), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Magical Mystery Tour the best.

[drizz]

Yeah, pretty much this, and I'm not sure why it's Beatles v. Stones either. IMO The Who is far, far more influential in modern rock, and better too (still like the Beatles better overall but at least there's a comparison to be made).

I think a lot of the flak the Beatles get is that their early stuff is pretty cheesy. Yeah, that's a pretty valid argument. They are basically like what might have happened if N'Sync or the Backstreet Boys stuck together, fired their managers, and all of their members turned into freaking awesome and genre-expanding musicians in their own right (also, the Beatles were WAAAY more popular than any modern boy band, but still). I think you could hear the transition from mega-popular boy band to legitimately awesome musical group with Help but yeah, Rubber Soul is widely seen as the big turning point. I actually think I like the mid-career group of Soul, Revolver (is there a bad song on that album?), Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Magical Mystery Tour the best.

I disagree about the early Beatles. I think the main reason it sounds so cheesy is that it's completely dated, but from a historical standpoint it was crazy shit at the time. In a way they perfected a style that had already sort of been around, drawing together disparate threads from the blues, rockabilly, early soul music, etc...and coming up with the now-recognizable pop format. The BSB and N' Sync were more about drawing together influences from bottom of the barrel soul, r&b, etc., making them all shittier, and then coming up with shitty crap that sucked. These boy bands were basically told what to sing, how to sing it, how to dress,.... The Beatles on the other hand mastered melody, harmony and pop songwriting to a point where no one else could compete. Then they more or less scrapped everything and invented the modern concept of the album.

My favourite Beatles album is actually probably Abbey Road, but Revolver is close.

I also am not sure why its Beatles vs Stones, though I might actually say that the Band are the next one for me. They were hugely influential, especially among other musicians; they weren't called "the Band" for nothing. *waits for Anders to tell me that he's pretty sure there were other bands before the Band*

[MikeHz]

Early on, the Beatles churned out money-making pop tunes. The plan was to make a boatload of money before their popularity faded, as they assumed it would. By "Revolver" they didn't need to worry about money, and figured they could risk experimenting. If it bombed, who carried?

[Anders]

*waits for Anders to tell me that he's pretty sure there were other bands before the Band*

Well there were.

The music comment was meant as a joke. I hope there are no hard feelings?

[seamas]

I disagree about the early Beatles. I think the main reason it sounds so cheesy is that it's completely dated, but from a historical standpoint it was crazy shit at the time. In a way they perfected a style that had already sort of been around, drawing together disparate threads from the blues, rockabilly, early soul music, etc...and coming up with the now-recognizable pop format. The BSB and N' Sync were more about drawing together influences from bottom of the barrel soul, r&b, etc., making them all shittier, and then coming up with shitty crap that sucked. These boy bands were basically told what to sing, how to sing it, how to dress,.... The Beatles on the other hand mastered melody, harmony and pop songwriting to a point where no one else could compete. Then they more or less scrapped everything and invented the modern concept of the album.

I agree.

Even their early music had a pretty interesting sophistication.
They basically synthesized all of the various American pop/Rock N Roll styles and fused it with their own substantial songwriting sensibilities.
It was a very potent mix.

Of course I do think the demands made upon them did make them toss out some sub par material in those days.

I think the weak material was mostly manifested in their covers of other people's stuff.
Their first recorded/released effort at a cover was a monster (Twist and Shout).
But yearly '65, the covers sounded tired.

What I think is funny is that when we discuss their "early" material, we are basically talking about 4 or five albums put out in less than three years.
Their early years had some really awesome songs and recordings. I Wanna Hold Your Hand may have a dated sentiment, but it is a total monster of a pop song.

[MikeHz]

 The Beatles had the advantage of George Martin who, though classically trained, knew what a good song should sound like.
Martin had been given charge of a crappy minor sub-label of EMI's called Parlophone, which made novelty records.  He wanted to turn it around and bring it to profitability. He was specifically looking for a hit rock and roll band, and discarded many before finding the Beatles. He figured that with a little tweaking he could make something different--and successful.

Martin made many suggestions for improving the groups music, giving them their distinct style. For instance, at their first recording session, he suggested that John and Paul change the tempo of their slow song, “Please Please me,” speeding it up and giving it more power. After hearing the result, he said to them, “Boys, you’ve just made your first #1.”

[seamas]

There is no doubt that Martin was the ideal producer for the Beatles (I think Phil Spector's handling of Let it Be is good proof of that!).

I don't think anyone has yet matched his work at arranging or producing orchestral parts for pop music.
While most artists use of orchestra or strings/brass sections always sound sort of pasted on (or a grasp at high-brow cred), his orchestration for Elanor Rigby is just stunning. And they sound like natural extensions of the Beatles' songs.

His work with the novelty records was no doubt handy when the Beatles would come up with some of their more outlandish ideas for sound.

The funny thing was the engineers at Abbey Road (and maybe martin himself) were still required to work in lab coats for much of the 1960s. It was apparently a very staid and conservative scene. Many of the engineers would balk at the Beatle's suggestions, but Martin would have the band's back.