Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Proto-Prog and Prog-Related Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Do the Beatles get too much credit..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Do the Beatles get too much credit..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 23>
Poll Question: See opening post for question.
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
48 [32.88%]
95 [65.07%]
3 [2.05%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ExittheLemming Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 08:55
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:


Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 

The 2-3 minute pop song, which remained until the end the distinctly prevalent format of the Beatles, with a few exceptions, had been surpassed by all the real rock bands like the ones I mentioned above. With Abbey Road the Beatles manage to produce real rock in step with the times, as they had done in part with the White Album and with some Sgt Pepper songs. In addition, they build a mini suite on the second side, one of the first in the history of rock. The Beatles' contribution to the prog, in my opinion, as far as the arrangements is concerned is seen in Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, but as for the dilation of the format of the song, which is much more important, you see in Abbey Road. 

In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 

There are two types of great artists: those that bring a genre to perfection, and those that create a new genre, transversal, out of all rules, personal. The latter are the really innovative artists. The Beatles belong to the first category, but sometimes they have churned out in the second category, with few examples but extraordinary.


You make it sound as though all truly original art can somehow be created in a vacuum uncontaminated by the past. Surely all great art references the past albeit sometimes very obliquely? For a genre to be said to exist, it has to exhibit some 'socially agreed upon conventions' that have accumulated over time which kinda makes creating a shiny brand new one a non-sequiter The Beatles turned many popular music conventions completely on their head during their recording career but their not having invented a genre in the process does not diminish their achievements. The idea that verse and chorus structures are incapable of yielding innovative and groundbreaking music just seems like a very lazy association of ideas to me.


Edited by ExittheLemming - March 31 2020 at 02:26
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 08:13
Originally posted by moshkito moshkito wrote:

Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

...
In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 
...
Hi,

And I would attribute this to George Martin a lot more than I would to the Beatles themselves. However, all 4 of them were not "dummies" and they learned quickly and moved forward, which made them better musicians, and more interested in what they did with their music ... which of course, disappeared totally when they all went solo ... which leaves one person standing ... George Martin.

See the special on Amazon about GM ... it's free and it has some great things ... and there are some fun moments ... kids in a candy store with thousands of knobs ... what kid wouldn't have any fun with that?

(... only prog'rs of course!!! Wink)



Yes, George Martin was very important for the sound and the arrangements of Beatles' songs, especially for John Lennon.

In fact, Paul McCartney was able to do the arrangements of his songs on his own, instead Lennon said to Martin how he wanted the arrangemant of his songs and Martin did them.


"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14242
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Lewian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 07:34
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

  What I've been saying in this thread is that everything is overrated and underrated (meaning given too much credit or too little credit) by someone.

This implies that there's a correct objective rating to which you could compare people's different ratings. I doubt that.
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16594
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 29 2020 at 06:48
Originally posted by jamesbaldwin jamesbaldwin wrote:

...
In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 
...
Hi,

And I would attribute this to George Martin a lot more than I would to the Beatles themselves. However, all 4 of them were not "dummies" and they learned quickly and moved forward, which made them better musicians, and more interested in what they did with their music ... which of course, disappeared totally when they all went solo ... which leaves one person standing ... George Martin.

See the special on Amazon about GM ... it's free and it has some great things ... and there are some fun moments ... kids in a candy store with thousands of knobs ... what kid wouldn't have any fun with that?

(... only prog'rs of course!!! Wink)




Edited by moshkito - March 29 2020 at 06:48
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 23:31
Well, I am again saying theyīre the most important band in the pop history. But I agree that no-one can say them best band in the pop history as a common truth, because whatīs the best band is just subjective thing and there are no objective criterion from which any artist can say commonly best. I know many people who thinks theyīre best but itīs their opinion, not right or wrong.

About Ringo as a drummer, heīs of course not Bill Bruford, but heīs really great anyway, has always had his own style that not every drummer can imitate. I think Ringoīs drumplaying is essential part of Beatles greatness.
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 23:30
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Your taste doesn't determine whether an album is great or good or average.  Your taste only tells you whether you like an album or not.  But let's leave that aside, what your taste doesn't decide is whether a band gets too much credit.

Of course not

I believe they were highly influential, the were pioneers, but not the best band in history as most sites and magazines say.

I read that John Lennon is one of the top 5 guitar players in Rock....Not remotely, McCartney is a bit closer, but not a top bass player either..I even read that Ringo is a top drummer...Please.

Harrison is IMO the closer to a virtuoso by far-

Why is Ringo in the R&R HoF?

Will never understand.


I agree with this except that I would rate McCartney and Ringo as the best musicians in the band.  But that being said, this kind of overrating is normal for bands that get popular and doesn't lead to the generation of conspiracy theories.  Geddy Lee gets voted as one of the top rock keyboardists, something he would not agree with himself.  Hammett gets up in top rock guitarists lists and he simply doesn't belong there. Why, on this website, Gabriel and Jon Anderson are frequently voted as the best singers in prog rock and mainly because they sang for two of the most popular bands (in prog).
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 22:45
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:


Your taste doesn't determine whether an album is great or good or average.  Your taste only tells you whether you like an album or not.  But let's leave that aside, what your taste doesn't decide is whether a band gets too much credit.

Of course not

I believe they were highly influential, the were pioneers, but not the best band in history as most sites and magazines say.

I read that John Lennon is one of the top 5 guitar players in Rock....Not remotely, McCartney is a bit closer, but not a top bass player either..I even read that Ringo is a top drummer...Please.

Harrison is IMO the closer to a virtuoso by far-

Why is Ringo in the R&R HoF?

Will never understand.

            
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 19:22
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I don't think many would dispute, any more than I would, that The Beatles were hugely influential and had a tremendous impact on music, but in terms of origination of musical ideas and true innovation, I think they're overrated. I don't doubt their importance at all, and I like this statement "It was the concept of creativity for the masses that makes them so important." What I do suspect is that they were being given exposure to a lot of underground music that was more innovative (asnd more musically astute associates such as George Martin helped to elevate the music).  I listen to the Beatles albums, and I can think of many more, that I would think, were more musically creative/ inventive before them. They popularised such ideas, I would say, but I doubt that they were as originative as quite a few claim.

Some claim that Sgt. Peppers was the first Prog album, but I hear others from the same time and earlier that seem like much more progressive rock.  It was an important album to Prog, I won't deny that.  I've seen claims made that tthat The Beatles originated Psychadelic Rock and Raga Rock, which is not true.  Musicians/ composers borrow ideas for music. Music is not born in a vacuum, other than the Hoover Symphony was born in a vacuum cleaner, and they adapt, that's progress, but I think that those who influenced The Beatles are not getting enough credit.

I totally agree.

Moreover, I think until 1966 the Beatles have published only 2-3 minutes pop-songs. They have enriched the pop songs with unreleased arrangements and studio effects, perfecting the format of the pop song verse-chorus (Rubber Soul and Revolver). Sgt Pepper is not a prog album, nor is it a concept album, it's simply an album where the Beatles created an introduction that is then reprised. Then, they have expanded some songs. Sgt Pepper is not even a real rock album, in fact there is very little rock music, there is Indian music, swing music, symphonic pop, melodic pop, music hall, pop mixed with avant-garde and finally even some rock songs. The Beatles have expanded their arrangements so much that they have become popular music musicians of all kinds. The Beatles (the White Album) again mixed songs of all musical genres, then the Beatles returned to rock in 1969 with Let It Be and Abbey Road. But in the meantime, between 1967 and 1969 rock music changed completely (Hendrix, Doors, Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Family, King Crimson). 

The 2-3 minute pop song, which remained until the end the distinctly prevalent format of the Beatles, with a few exceptions, had been surpassed by all the real rock bands like the ones I mentioned above. With Abbey Road the Beatles manage to produce real rock in step with the times, as they had done in part with the White Album and with some Sgt Pepper songs. In addition, they build a mini suite on the second side, one of the first in the history of rock. The Beatles' contribution to the prog, in my opinion, as far as the arrangements is concerned is seen in Revolver, Sgt Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, but as for the dilation of the format of the song, which is much more important, you see in Abbey Road. 

In short, the Beatles were experimenters of new instruments, new arrangements, new sound effects in the studio but on a compositional level they were not innovative, indeed they were retro, they were at the rearguard, in fact they were always attached to the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes verse-chorus. When they went beyond this format, they wrote absolute masterpieces (A Day in The Life, Abbey Road suite etc) but in general, their greatest value was to make commercial, palatable to all, every new musical cue coming in their era, being able to integrate it into the format of the pop song of 2-3 minutes, which thus led to a level of compositional sophistication and exceptional arrangement. 

There are two types of great artists: those that bring a genre to perfection, and those that create a new genre, transversal, out of all rules, personal. The latter are the really innovative artists. The Beatles belong to the first category, but sometimes they have churned out in the second category, with few examples but extraordinary.
"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
jamesbaldwin View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: September 25 2015
Location: Milano
Status: Offline
Points: 5744
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jamesbaldwin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 18:55
Wow, what a wonderful thread!!

It comes from 2010!!


"Happiness is real only when shared"
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 16594
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote moshkito Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 04:46
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

I think Cooperīs statement is true when thinking sixties. Beatles were then everywhere and I think you couldnīt avoid their influence even if you had wanted.
...

Hi,

This would be true TODAY ... but if you can make a sort of chart and line it up as much music as you can from 1935 until 2000, you will find that there are many "points" where the chart spikes, and the likelihood is that it would spike way higher than many of the others.

Remember that both the Beatles and Rolling Stones are on record as the worst business decisions EVER MADE, and the number of folks that turned them down is insane ... but when they started selling ... those b*****ds had the money to buy out all the small companies ... and take the business away ... there ... my paranoia for the day!

Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

...
Ian Anderson has said he wasn't influenced by the Beatles, although he liked them. I understand his point, he wanted to make Jethro unique, so he wanted to get influences to his band from much more rare artists.
...

To my ears, Ian has more roots in the folk scene that was going towards rock music in those very early days ... just like Bob Dylan was trashed silly by a very stupid press (owned by the studios that also produced the festival, BTW!!!) for doing the same thing ... going electric and the song becomes more rock minded automatically! 

But the "format" he used, was much more towards a rock song, than otherwise ... so saying he wasn't influenced, is probably not quite true ... but he always says things that are off kilter ... in the Rick Wakeman interview series he says that there is nothing rock can do that has not already been done ... which surprises Rick but Ian did not quite go into it ... so expecting him to trash that scene is not really a surprise ... I rather think in his earlier days that he thought himself an actor on stage ... and not appreciated, because the songs became huge hits right next to the ones he didn't care for!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 04:14
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Revolver? Decent? Look at all the forgettable pop that was around in 1966! LOL

That's my opinion.

Honestly, even if there were no better albums, this doesn't make an album good, just a poor year for music.

But there were better albums for me, like Freak Out (Zappa), Roger The Engineer (Yardbirds), Pet Sounds (Beach Boys) and the underrated Psychedelic Lollipop (Blues Magoos).

But again, just my opinion.


I think 1966 was quite good year in music (not as great as 1967-1974, but close):
the Beatles: Revolver
Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
the Ventures: Where the Action Is
the Rolling Stones: Aftermath
Small Faces: s/t
the Ventures: Go With the Ventures
Bob Dylan: Blonde On Blonde
Yardbirds: s/t
John Mayal With Eric Clapton: Bluesbrakers
Donovan: Sunshine Supermen
the Byrds: Fifth Dimension
the Ventures: Wild Things!
Simon & Garfunkel: Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme
13th Floor Elevators: the Psychedelic Sounds Of...
the Kinks: Face To Face
Tim Buckley: s/t
Love: Da Capo
the Blues Project: Projections
Buffalo Springfield: s/t
Skip James: Today!
Cream: Fresh Cream
the Who: Quick One
Frank Zappa: Freak Out

I think there are also many others, but not yet listened them (or remember them).
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 03:34
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

The entirety of his ratings above are highly debatable, to say the least.  I know no Beatles fan who rates Let It Be above Sgt, White album or Revolver. Let It Be had potential but combined with the brass gloss of Phil Spector turned into a rather soporific affair.  


Do you know there's something called personal taste?

Taste is not debatable.

BTW: I'm not a Beatles fan.

P.S. Spector saved Let it Be from oblivion, the work he did with Across the Universe is brilliant.

Your taste doesn't determine whether an album is great or good or average.  Your taste only tells you whether you like an album or not.  But let's leave that aside, what your taste doesn't decide is whether a band gets too much credit.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 03:30
Originally posted by rogerthat rogerthat wrote:

The entirety of his ratings above are highly debatable, to say the least.  I know no Beatles fan who rates Let It Be above Sgt, White album or Revolver. Let It Be had potential but combined with the brass gloss of Phil Spector turned into a rather soporific affair.  


Do you know there's something called personal taste?

Taste is not debatable.

BTW: I'm not a Beatles fan.

P.S. Spector saved Let it Be from oblivion, the work he did with Across the Universe is brilliant.
            
Back to Top
Mascodagama View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mascodagama Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 02:51
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

Said it already, but while I voted yes, the Beatles do get too much credit, had I been asking if the Beatles get too little credit, then I also would have voted yes. This need not present a contradiction.
Yes - that is to say, no.
Soldato of the Pan Head Mafia. We'll make you an offer you can't listen to.
Bandcamp Profile
Back to Top
Mascodagama View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 5111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mascodagama Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 02:50
Originally posted by dr wu23 dr wu23 wrote:

"The Beatles are the reason I'm a musician." -Sting, The Police

Those b*****ds have a lot to answer for.

Soldato of the Pan Head Mafia. We'll make you an offer you can't listen to.
Bandcamp Profile
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rogerthat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 02:14
Originally posted by Mortte Mortte wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Ok honestly

  1. One masterpiece.....Abbey Road.
  2. One great album.....Let it be
  3. Two good albums...Sgt Peppers and White.
  4. One decent album...Revolver
  5. Forgettable.............Everything before Revolcer
  6. Two aberrations......Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine 
I donīt think Help & Rubber Soul are forgettable. Theyīre not as great in whole as Revolver and the other albums after that, but there are really great songs like Drive My Car, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, In My Life, If I Needed Someone, Help!, You Got to Hide Your Love Away, Ticket To Ride, Itīs Only Love & of course Yesterday. Also those other early albums have great songs like Every Little Thing, a Hard Days Night, And I love Her, Iīll Be Back, All My Loving, Please Please Me & There is a Place.

At the moment my fav Beatles album is that compilation US version of Magical Mystery Tour, but of course it canīt be said official studio album, Revolver has stayed itīs place.

The entirety of his ratings above are highly debatable, to say the least.  I know no Beatles fan who rates Let It Be above Sgt, White album or Revolver. Let It Be had potential but combined with the brass gloss of Phil Spector turned into a rather soporific affair.  
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ivan_Melgar_M Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 02:04
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Revolver? Decent? Look at all the forgettable pop that was around in 1966! LOL

That's my opinion.

Honestly, even if there were no better albums, this doesn't make an album good, just a poor year for music.

But there were better albums for me, like Freak Out (Zappa), Roger The Engineer (Yardbirds), Pet Sounds (Beach Boys) and the underrated Psychedelic Lollipop (Blues Magoos).

But again, just my opinion.




Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - March 28 2020 at 02:05
            
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 28 2020 at 00:23
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Ok honestly

  1. One masterpiece.....Abbey Road.
  2. One great album.....Let it be
  3. Two good albums...Sgt Peppers and White.
  4. One decent album...Revolver
  5. Forgettable.............Everything before Revolcer
  6. Two aberrations......Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine 
I donīt think Help & Rubber Soul are forgettable. Theyīre not as great in whole as Revolver and the other albums after that, but there are really great songs like Drive My Car, Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, In My Life, If I Needed Someone, Help!, You Got to Hide Your Love Away, Ticket To Ride, Itīs Only Love & of course Yesterday. Also those other early albums have great songs like Every Little Thing, a Hard Days Night, And I love Her, Iīll Be Back, All My Loving, Please Please Me & There is a Place.

At the moment my fav Beatles album is that compilation US version of Magical Mystery Tour, but of course it canīt be said official studio album, Revolver has stayed itīs place.
Back to Top
Mortte View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: November 11 2016
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 5538
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mortte Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 27 2020 at 23:57
I think Cooperīs statement is true when thinking sixties. Beatles were then everywhere and I think you couldnīt avoid their influence even if you had wanted. Ian Anderson has said he wasnīt influenced by the Beatles, although he liked them. I understand his point, he wanted to make Jethro unique, so he wanted to get influences to his band from much more rare artists. But I think he also couldnīt at least unconsciously avoid Beatles-influences. Beatles were masters of the sad melodies, these same kind of melodies I hear for example Jethro`s "Alive and Well & Living In", "Life`s a Long Song" & "Really Donīt Mind"-part in Thick as a Brick.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Online
Points: 33129
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Logan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: March 27 2020 at 20:45
Said it already, but while I voted yes, the Beatles do get too much credit, had I been asking if the Beatles get too little credit, then I also would have voted yes. This need not present a contradiction.
My 1960 to 2024 youtube playlist, one track per act and one track per year.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4Jq6bFhyET
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 23>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.211 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.