(Lotsa songs there)
August 8, 2005 12:26 AM Subscribe
Run! The anamolies are coming!
Sorry.
Wait - you're linking to a bucket full of pirate snacks. Is that, um, kosher?
posted by metaculpa at 12:43 AM on August 8, 2005
Sorry.
Wait - you're linking to a bucket full of pirate snacks. Is that, um, kosher?
posted by metaculpa at 12:43 AM on August 8, 2005
My dear old dad was watching the Paul McCartney Super Bowl halftime thingy last year and, out of the blue, told us his favorite Beatles record was Sgt. Pepper. A stunned silence ensued since he is 1) old and 2) a Glen Campbell fan. We were both shocked and awed by this.
Mine is Back in the USSR.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 12:50 AM on August 8, 2005
Mine is Back in the USSR.
posted by DeepFriedTwinkies at 12:50 AM on August 8, 2005
Call me a young ruffian or whatever, but I've tried time and again to understand the magic behind The Beatles, and the reality far undershadows my expectations every time I give them a whirl in the ol' jukebox.
Partly because lyrics mean absolutely nothing to me when I'm listening to music, but I can't find anything in their music that isn't already done better by contemporary bands.
Maybe I've been listening to them with the wrong idea in mind. I would be very grateful if one of you Mefites would be so kind as to give me some understanding into the insight required to really appreciate The Beatles. Like, what album should I listen to first.
If you'd like a primer on where I'm coming from musically, check out my music journal. (I think this sucker will find its way into every Mefi music thread).
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:58 AM on August 8, 2005
Partly because lyrics mean absolutely nothing to me when I'm listening to music, but I can't find anything in their music that isn't already done better by contemporary bands.
Maybe I've been listening to them with the wrong idea in mind. I would be very grateful if one of you Mefites would be so kind as to give me some understanding into the insight required to really appreciate The Beatles. Like, what album should I listen to first.
If you'd like a primer on where I'm coming from musically, check out my music journal. (I think this sucker will find its way into every Mefi music thread).
posted by Mach3avelli at 12:58 AM on August 8, 2005
Yeah, the Beatles never did much for me on the radio, and I'm not feeling a strong need to fill in the hole in my collection (though if the Beatles catalogue were on eg. iTMS I'd get several songs eg. the ones above).
Their work can be segmented into:
1) Early Pop Crap
2) The Pot Album (Rubber Soul)
3) The LSD Album (Revolver)
4) The Drugged Excess Album (Sgt Pepper)
5) The Ashram Album (The White Album)
6) Paul's Album (Abbey Road)
7) The Post-Breakup Album (Let It Be)
Stylistically, I think most fans think Revolver is their strongest effort but the only song I liked from that album is the very trippy Tomorrow Never Knows.
As for the recent "1" compilation, the first half is from their crap pop era and of the remaining 15 songs, 9 are Sr Paul's heavyweights that I just find banal.
I guess for the Beatles you just had to be there...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:25 AM on August 8, 2005
Their work can be segmented into:
1) Early Pop Crap
2) The Pot Album (Rubber Soul)
3) The LSD Album (Revolver)
4) The Drugged Excess Album (Sgt Pepper)
5) The Ashram Album (The White Album)
6) Paul's Album (Abbey Road)
7) The Post-Breakup Album (Let It Be)
Stylistically, I think most fans think Revolver is their strongest effort but the only song I liked from that album is the very trippy Tomorrow Never Knows.
As for the recent "1" compilation, the first half is from their crap pop era and of the remaining 15 songs, 9 are Sr Paul's heavyweights that I just find banal.
I guess for the Beatles you just had to be there...
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:25 AM on August 8, 2005
Call me a young ruffian or whatever, but I've tried time and again to understand the magic behind The Beatles, and the reality far undershadows my expectations every time I give them a whirl in the ol' jukebox.
Mach3avelli - it's hard to imagine a desert when you've been brought up in the rain forest. The trick to understanding the Beatles is to clear your mind. Immerse yourself into the billboard top 40 from 1961 and then start listening to the Beatles.
posted by three blind mice at 1:39 AM on August 8, 2005
Mach3avelli - it's hard to imagine a desert when you've been brought up in the rain forest. The trick to understanding the Beatles is to clear your mind. Immerse yourself into the billboard top 40 from 1961 and then start listening to the Beatles.
posted by three blind mice at 1:39 AM on August 8, 2005
Whereas for today's music even being there doesn't help.
posted by Joeforking at 1:41 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Joeforking at 1:41 AM on August 8, 2005
What 3XXmice said. Plus: It actually takes a REAL jukebox with a tube amp to appreciate the earlier work. Went camping with the kids at one of those Jellystone-type RV parks and they had a jukebox sitting outside in a shelter. Bunch of Beatles 45s. Played them all. Taxman, in particular, probably doesn't work for you all compressed on an .mp3. But duck your head down close in front of the undershadows of a shiny Wurlitzer at full volume and have a listen.
My last favorite song became "Tomorrow Never Knows" when they'd load it up after the Dead left the stage back around '93. The perfect surreal soundtrack for wandering through deadheads and muck trying to find your car.
posted by hal9k at 2:07 AM on August 8, 2005
My last favorite song became "Tomorrow Never Knows" when they'd load it up after the Dead left the stage back around '93. The perfect surreal soundtrack for wandering through deadheads and muck trying to find your car.
posted by hal9k at 2:07 AM on August 8, 2005
i cant really understand the beatles... but man, franz ferdinand is fucking incredible!
posted by Satapher at 2:14 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Satapher at 2:14 AM on August 8, 2005
It's okay, Satapher, Jesus forgives you so you're not going to hell.
posted by Jimbob at 3:06 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Jimbob at 3:06 AM on August 8, 2005
Sweet link, now I can steal their music.
Heywood, nice job first honoring the Beatles by doing a one-link FPP and then putting them down only minutes later.
posted by poppo at 4:03 AM on August 8, 2005
Heywood, nice job first honoring the Beatles by doing a one-link FPP and then putting them down only minutes later.
posted by poppo at 4:03 AM on August 8, 2005
Blackbird.
You probably had to have been there. And if you remember the sixties, you weren't really there.
posted by unrepentanthippie at 4:05 AM on August 8, 2005
You probably had to have been there. And if you remember the sixties, you weren't really there.
posted by unrepentanthippie at 4:05 AM on August 8, 2005
I don't trust anyone who says they don't like The Beatles.
posted by Necker at 4:54 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Necker at 4:54 AM on August 8, 2005
i don't like the beatles.
*snatches necker's pocketbook*
posted by Hat Maui at 4:58 AM on August 8, 2005
*snatches necker's pocketbook*
posted by Hat Maui at 4:58 AM on August 8, 2005
Heywood, nice job first honoring the Beatles by doing a one-link FPP and then putting them down only minutes later.
Yeah, Heywood also states they've 'only caught snippets of their oeuvre' but can segment their matchless career into 7 cack-handed segments.
posted by the cuban at 5:04 AM on August 8, 2005
Yeah, Heywood also states they've 'only caught snippets of their oeuvre' but can segment their matchless career into 7 cack-handed segments.
posted by the cuban at 5:04 AM on August 8, 2005
i'm sure a lot of you have seen this already but, see also:
i buried paul- turn me on dead man for some entertaining conspiracy theories.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 5:22 AM on August 8, 2005
i buried paul- turn me on dead man for some entertaining conspiracy theories.
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 5:22 AM on August 8, 2005
like that execrable medley thing of the late 70s.
originally, i read this and didn't click, assuming it was a reference to the second side of Abbey Road.
however, it is not. i may be missing something, but I'm not sure why you think this is something created by the Beatles. It seems to be elevator music based on some of their melodies.
heywood, i demand a fucking explanation for every link in your post. explain yourself.
posted by poppo at 5:26 AM on August 8, 2005
originally, i read this and didn't click, assuming it was a reference to the second side of Abbey Road.
however, it is not. i may be missing something, but I'm not sure why you think this is something created by the Beatles. It seems to be elevator music based on some of their melodies.
heywood, i demand a fucking explanation for every link in your post. explain yourself.
posted by poppo at 5:26 AM on August 8, 2005
Anomolies or messages from distant civilizations? You be the judge.
In any case, if you grew up as a teenager listening to the Beatles and graduated from high school when they broke up...well, you'll understand why listening to the two-minute gem "And Your Bird Can Sing" just now cleared away the shreds of ennui and angst that often float around my brain on monday mornings, in a way that other sixties songs (like "Monday, Monday) could never do.
I've met a lot of kids who like the Beatles, too, so I don't think it's just a "music of my youth thing."
Not saying that Beck and Monk and Fela and Trane and Prince can't turn me on. But The Beatles just happened to be the ones who made me want to become a musician.
posted by kozad at 5:30 AM on August 8, 2005
In any case, if you grew up as a teenager listening to the Beatles and graduated from high school when they broke up...well, you'll understand why listening to the two-minute gem "And Your Bird Can Sing" just now cleared away the shreds of ennui and angst that often float around my brain on monday mornings, in a way that other sixties songs (like "Monday, Monday) could never do.
I've met a lot of kids who like the Beatles, too, so I don't think it's just a "music of my youth thing."
Not saying that Beck and Monk and Fela and Trane and Prince can't turn me on. But The Beatles just happened to be the ones who made me want to become a musician.
posted by kozad at 5:30 AM on August 8, 2005
Mach3evelli - Hal9k's right. But you don't even need a Wurlitzer. A record player will do. And as you're listening you should sit on the floor. Mp3's don't rotate, which is only one of their drawbacks.
posted by Hobbacocka at 5:44 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Hobbacocka at 5:44 AM on August 8, 2005
Yep, I can vouch for the Beatles fandom among the youth today; but I suspect it's more of downloading their best songs, like I do, than collecting whole records. Because I already have a collection of ~40 of the most popular (according to limewire) Beatles songs, and I have to say I'm not being impressed by the other, more obscure ones. But I will always love songs such as I am the Walrus, Eleanor Rigby, and Across the Universe.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:45 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:45 AM on August 8, 2005
I'm sure there was a Led Zeppelin version of this site as well. Fascinating, although I have the book somewhere around here.
And, for what it's worth, the White Album rules.
posted by bdave at 6:04 AM on August 8, 2005
And, for what it's worth, the White Album rules.
posted by bdave at 6:04 AM on August 8, 2005
Call me a young ruffian or whatever, but I've tried time and again to understand the magic behind The Beatles,
Their sound might simply not be your cup of tea. But, I've heard Beatles songs covered as soul, blues, reggae, country, easy listening, punk and jazz, and they always came out sounding at least listenable and usually better than that. That kind of songwriting talent is an extremely rare thing.
posted by jonmc at 6:27 AM on August 8, 2005
Their sound might simply not be your cup of tea. But, I've heard Beatles songs covered as soul, blues, reggae, country, easy listening, punk and jazz, and they always came out sounding at least listenable and usually better than that. That kind of songwriting talent is an extremely rare thing.
posted by jonmc at 6:27 AM on August 8, 2005
While I'm not *quite* old enough to have seen them on
the Cavern, even before they issued their first record, I
can remember the buzz they generated around this city -- not just
from teenagers who were old enough to have seen them,
but also from adults -- for example, my parents.
Teenage loyalties were divided largely between two groups:
The Chants, who were a black vocal group doing early soul
and doo-wop covers, and The Beatles -- who covered similar
material, but also drew from wider sources. The Chants were
regarded as much cooler, but they were never going to
break through in the way that the Beatles did.
I remember the first time that they appeared on a local TV
show -- Scene at Six Thirty (introduced by Bill Grundy, IIRC
-- who was later to trash his career by encouraging the
Sex Pistols to swear on the Six O'Clock news.) It was the
summer, but the whole street cleared as grown ups and
children ran in to watch them perform Love Me Do -- which
was about to be released that week.
I suppose I would have been about eight at the time.
Many years later, I ran into an old friend of an ex-girlfriend.
We'd been very close to this couple for a few years, and so
she was filling me in what had happened since we'd last
met. When she told me about the impact that John's death
had had on her, I was a little confused for a while, and the
more she talked, the more confused I became.
Eventually, I stopped to ask her to clarify, and it turned out
that she was John Lennon's half-sister, Jackie.
She'd always assumed that I'd known (because my girlfriend
would have told me). However, she'd always been very
discreet about it as she had a small child and we moved in
extremely dodgy circles, so she lived in fear that her son,
John, would be kidnapped.
As soon as she told me, I knew it was true, but I'd never
connected the dots. (ie, the visits to Aunt Mimi's house in
Bournemouth, the visits over to her sister Julia's house
when they were broke. The copy of 'The Primal Scream'
on the bookshelf.)
So that was kind of weird. John Lennon had been my hero
since the age of eight or nine, and it turned out that I'd
known his sister for years, but never actually *knew*
that she was his sister, until he was dead.
Anyway, my favourite five (in no particular order):
Norweigian Wood
In My Life
Paperback Writer
The Night Before
She's Leaving Home
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:45 AM on August 8, 2005
the Cavern, even before they issued their first record, I
can remember the buzz they generated around this city -- not just
from teenagers who were old enough to have seen them,
but also from adults -- for example, my parents.
Teenage loyalties were divided largely between two groups:
The Chants, who were a black vocal group doing early soul
and doo-wop covers, and The Beatles -- who covered similar
material, but also drew from wider sources. The Chants were
regarded as much cooler, but they were never going to
break through in the way that the Beatles did.
I remember the first time that they appeared on a local TV
show -- Scene at Six Thirty (introduced by Bill Grundy, IIRC
-- who was later to trash his career by encouraging the
Sex Pistols to swear on the Six O'Clock news.) It was the
summer, but the whole street cleared as grown ups and
children ran in to watch them perform Love Me Do -- which
was about to be released that week.
I suppose I would have been about eight at the time.
Many years later, I ran into an old friend of an ex-girlfriend.
We'd been very close to this couple for a few years, and so
she was filling me in what had happened since we'd last
met. When she told me about the impact that John's death
had had on her, I was a little confused for a while, and the
more she talked, the more confused I became.
Eventually, I stopped to ask her to clarify, and it turned out
that she was John Lennon's half-sister, Jackie.
She'd always assumed that I'd known (because my girlfriend
would have told me). However, she'd always been very
discreet about it as she had a small child and we moved in
extremely dodgy circles, so she lived in fear that her son,
John, would be kidnapped.
As soon as she told me, I knew it was true, but I'd never
connected the dots. (ie, the visits to Aunt Mimi's house in
Bournemouth, the visits over to her sister Julia's house
when they were broke. The copy of 'The Primal Scream'
on the bookshelf.)
So that was kind of weird. John Lennon had been my hero
since the age of eight or nine, and it turned out that I'd
known his sister for years, but never actually *knew*
that she was his sister, until he was dead.
Anyway, my favourite five (in no particular order):
Norweigian Wood
In My Life
Paperback Writer
The Night Before
She's Leaving Home
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:45 AM on August 8, 2005
oh yeah, my faves:
I'm Looking Through You
Baby's In Black
I'm Down
Money (it's a cover, but John never sang better than on this)
Savoy Truffle
posted by jonmc at 6:49 AM on August 8, 2005
I'm Looking Through You
Baby's In Black
I'm Down
Money (it's a cover, but John never sang better than on this)
Savoy Truffle
posted by jonmc at 6:49 AM on August 8, 2005
The first thing I ever bought with my own money was a collection of all the original Beatles LPs on vinyl (and I certainly got my $160 worth!) The box contained all the original British releases (the 14 song albums, not the butchered American ones) and an album called Rarities which contained, ummm, rarities like "Komm Gib Mir Deine Hand" and "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number.)"
I still have the collection, but haven't heard the vinyl since I haven't owned a turntable in years. Though I've replaced each of the LPs over the years with CDs, (and also converted them to MP3, which doesn't sound as good), the Beatles songs in my memory still feature the skips in the original vinyl I loved as a kid.
"Yesterday, all my Yesterday, all my Yesterday, all my..."
posted by edverb at 6:53 AM on August 8, 2005
I still have the collection, but haven't heard the vinyl since I haven't owned a turntable in years. Though I've replaced each of the LPs over the years with CDs, (and also converted them to MP3, which doesn't sound as good), the Beatles songs in my memory still feature the skips in the original vinyl I loved as a kid.
"Yesterday, all my Yesterday, all my Yesterday, all my..."
posted by edverb at 6:53 AM on August 8, 2005
Here's a better Beatles site that also covers the anomalies.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:58 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:58 AM on August 8, 2005
I was about to go nuts downloading the wav files, untill I noticed they are only at 88 kbs.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:00 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:00 AM on August 8, 2005
> The first thing I ever bought with my own money
The first record I ever bought myself was a copy of 'Can't
Buy Me Love/You Can't Do That' on Parlophone for the
grand price of 6/9 (that's six shillings and ninepence) back
in 1964.
I would have been nine, I suppose.
For my tenth birthday, I got the Revolver album, and for my
thirteenth, I got the White Album. On the last day of term,
before I left Primary School and went to Grammar School, I
remember our teacher bringing in a copy of Sgt. Peppers.
While the boys hung out talking about football, I hung out
with the girls, talking about the relative merits of the
various Beatles. (Paul vs. John), and the Monkees (Davy vs.
Mickie) then The Beatles vs. The Monkees. (Most girls
preferred the Monkees. The Beatles were too hairy by this
point.)
The first album I ever bought with my own money was
the Plastic Ono Band/Live Peace in Toronto.
The second was The Mother's of Invention, 'We're Only
In It For The Money.' I'd kind of outgrown the Beatles by
the time they broke up, preferring stuff that had more
of an edge -- but I was always interested in the stuff
that they found interesting, and I always had a soft
spot for them long after they'd stopped being cool.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:12 AM on August 8, 2005
The first record I ever bought myself was a copy of 'Can't
Buy Me Love/You Can't Do That' on Parlophone for the
grand price of 6/9 (that's six shillings and ninepence) back
in 1964.
I would have been nine, I suppose.
For my tenth birthday, I got the Revolver album, and for my
thirteenth, I got the White Album. On the last day of term,
before I left Primary School and went to Grammar School, I
remember our teacher bringing in a copy of Sgt. Peppers.
While the boys hung out talking about football, I hung out
with the girls, talking about the relative merits of the
various Beatles. (Paul vs. John), and the Monkees (Davy vs.
Mickie) then The Beatles vs. The Monkees. (Most girls
preferred the Monkees. The Beatles were too hairy by this
point.)
The first album I ever bought with my own money was
the Plastic Ono Band/Live Peace in Toronto.
The second was The Mother's of Invention, 'We're Only
In It For The Money.' I'd kind of outgrown the Beatles by
the time they broke up, preferring stuff that had more
of an edge -- but I was always interested in the stuff
that they found interesting, and I always had a soft
spot for them long after they'd stopped being cool.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:12 AM on August 8, 2005
And if I had to pick my favourite Beatles album today, as
opposed to my favourite Beatles song, then it would have
to be this one.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:15 AM on August 8, 2005
opposed to my favourite Beatles song, then it would have
to be this one.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:15 AM on August 8, 2005
I love the Beatles, and a good friend of mine was well into scary-fan territory for a time, and both of us were born after John Lennon's death--it's not just a generational thing.
But, ah, both of us are hippies at heart. The music calls to mind an era that I'd have liked to be a part of; and I believe that it stands on its own as truly good music. Revolver especially. Catchy as anything.
posted by Jeanne at 7:23 AM on August 8, 2005
But, ah, both of us are hippies at heart. The music calls to mind an era that I'd have liked to be a part of; and I believe that it stands on its own as truly good music. Revolver especially. Catchy as anything.
posted by Jeanne at 7:23 AM on August 8, 2005
Hard to defend the Beatles to someone who doesn't like them. Part of it is historical, yes, but only in the sense that you can hear the history in their music. I was born just after they broke up and I know their music backwards and forwards, so obviously you didn't have to be there.
I guess there's a certain exuberance about very creative people not just working at their peak but carrying quite an audience along with them. I would even suggest putting on the first British LP (Please Please Me) as it sounds great -- just ferocious, melodic rock 'n' roll. (The Ramones loved that record, by the way). But if you do go on from there you get a visceral feeling for the expansions and hopes and fascinations of the Sixties -- and not the candyass version that's being sold all over.
Plus many of the records just sound good. I had my ear pressed to the speaker when I was a kid, hearing the sounds come off the turntable. No, this isn't hiss-free or perfect stuff, but it sounds exciting, the way the early Chuck Berry or Motown stuff does. Even when they were a mess (as in Let it Be), they still sounded great.
posted by argybarg at 7:24 AM on August 8, 2005
I guess there's a certain exuberance about very creative people not just working at their peak but carrying quite an audience along with them. I would even suggest putting on the first British LP (Please Please Me) as it sounds great -- just ferocious, melodic rock 'n' roll. (The Ramones loved that record, by the way). But if you do go on from there you get a visceral feeling for the expansions and hopes and fascinations of the Sixties -- and not the candyass version that's being sold all over.
Plus many of the records just sound good. I had my ear pressed to the speaker when I was a kid, hearing the sounds come off the turntable. No, this isn't hiss-free or perfect stuff, but it sounds exciting, the way the early Chuck Berry or Motown stuff does. Even when they were a mess (as in Let it Be), they still sounded great.
posted by argybarg at 7:24 AM on August 8, 2005
Speaking from the heart here, as someone who plays, records, and produces death metal, to not give The Beatles their due -- as one of the premier rock bands in history -- is just folly. (I won't descend to insulting your intelligence or taste; I will note, however, that you're missing a very integral part of the evolution of the music you love and enjoy today.)
The Beatles were the forerunner to so much that is done today. And I would even argue the statement that a lot of what they did is being done better today. These days, bands are expected to stick within their given / chosen mold. The Beatles evolved with every record; for better or worse, they never wrote the same album twice. These days, that's commercial suicide.
Aside from their knack for writing excellent music (regardless of the songs' lyrical content), The Beatles wrote some very timeless music. Just yesterday at work, my bass player and I took turns swapping old-school thrash records in and out of the stereo. Then he randomly dropped in a homemade mix of Beatles tunes; we both locked eyes, smiled, nodded, and began singing each song word for word while we worked.
If you don't understand the importance of this band, that's fine. But you really ARE a minority. Any guitarists out there really owe a debt to George Harrisson -- among other greats -- for the evolution of their chosen instrument.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:33 AM on August 8, 2005
The Beatles were the forerunner to so much that is done today. And I would even argue the statement that a lot of what they did is being done better today. These days, bands are expected to stick within their given / chosen mold. The Beatles evolved with every record; for better or worse, they never wrote the same album twice. These days, that's commercial suicide.
Aside from their knack for writing excellent music (regardless of the songs' lyrical content), The Beatles wrote some very timeless music. Just yesterday at work, my bass player and I took turns swapping old-school thrash records in and out of the stereo. Then he randomly dropped in a homemade mix of Beatles tunes; we both locked eyes, smiled, nodded, and began singing each song word for word while we worked.
If you don't understand the importance of this band, that's fine. But you really ARE a minority. Any guitarists out there really owe a debt to George Harrisson -- among other greats -- for the evolution of their chosen instrument.
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:33 AM on August 8, 2005
danb - you just don't know what you want. You get confused every day.
posted by stevil at 7:43 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by stevil at 7:43 AM on August 8, 2005
Call me a young ruffian or whatever, but I've tried time and again to understand the magic behind The Beatles,
A good dose of psilocybe cubensis will reveal the hidden magic behind 'Sgt. Pepper' - except 'Getting Better'; nothing can save that.
posted by PurpleJack at 7:47 AM on August 8, 2005
A good dose of psilocybe cubensis will reveal the hidden magic behind 'Sgt. Pepper' - except 'Getting Better'; nothing can save that.
posted by PurpleJack at 7:47 AM on August 8, 2005
This site reminds me of my Beatle's phase, when I would obessivly read books about thei songs and them. Ugh, I love them, but I don't need to go back there. If anyone got me talking about the Beatles, I wouldn't start talking about them for a half hour. I had even gone on this tour when I vistited Liverpool.
I have a theory that kids who have the Beatles as their favorite band for a long time have a transition period where they get into on of the four's solo work. For me it was Lennon. There was a period where I olnly listened to him and thought "Yeah, fuck the the Beatles. John knew what was going on." This transition period (hopefully) lead s to a point where you can listen to a wider range of music.
posted by piratebowling at 7:55 AM on August 8, 2005
I have a theory that kids who have the Beatles as their favorite band for a long time have a transition period where they get into on of the four's solo work. For me it was Lennon. There was a period where I olnly listened to him and thought "Yeah, fuck the the Beatles. John knew what was going on." This transition period (hopefully) lead s to a point where you can listen to a wider range of music.
posted by piratebowling at 7:55 AM on August 8, 2005
1) No Reply
2) Baby You're a Rich Man
3) She Came in Through the Bathroom Window
4) Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite
5) Taxman
posted by swift at 7:58 AM on August 8, 2005
2) Baby You're a Rich Man
3) She Came in Through the Bathroom Window
4) Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite
5) Taxman
posted by swift at 7:58 AM on August 8, 2005
Looking over some of the comments above I guess I'm not surprised that some people want to reduce a band to a single track. Corporate radio and modern pop has degraded to the point where none of us can stomach the album format anymore. The idea of devoting 45 minutes to a listening experience sounds bizarre in this day of iPod shuffles, commercial radio and MP3 playlists.
Fact is though when you take a Beatles album like Sgt. Peppers or Revolver (which will forever have Pet Sounds nipping at its heels) or many of the other Beatles albums what you have is not a "cd" with a few good and a few bad "tracks" - what you have a is a complete spectrum of sound.
People who buy those Beatles compilations - they are missing the point of the Beatles. Music compilations are for people who don't listen to music - or worse - have movie soundtracks among their cd collection.
Saying that you like just one or two songs is akin to saying you like the nose on the Mona Lisa, but the rest you could do without. You have to take in the whole album to see the whole picture.
posted by wfrgms at 8:01 AM on August 8, 2005
Fact is though when you take a Beatles album like Sgt. Peppers or Revolver (which will forever have Pet Sounds nipping at its heels) or many of the other Beatles albums what you have is not a "cd" with a few good and a few bad "tracks" - what you have a is a complete spectrum of sound.
People who buy those Beatles compilations - they are missing the point of the Beatles. Music compilations are for people who don't listen to music - or worse - have movie soundtracks among their cd collection.
Saying that you like just one or two songs is akin to saying you like the nose on the Mona Lisa, but the rest you could do without. You have to take in the whole album to see the whole picture.
posted by wfrgms at 8:01 AM on August 8, 2005
Music compilations are for people who don't listen to music - or worse - have movie soundtracks among their cd collection.
*throws sharpened vinyl copy of Best Of The Animals at wfrgms's head*
posted by jonmc at 8:10 AM on August 8, 2005
*throws sharpened vinyl copy of Best Of The Animals at wfrgms's head*
posted by jonmc at 8:10 AM on August 8, 2005
And, for what it's worth, the White Album rules.
Best album cover for cleaning a seedy ounce of mexican ditch weed.
posted by three blind mice at 8:12 AM on August 8, 2005
Best album cover for cleaning a seedy ounce of mexican ditch weed.
posted by three blind mice at 8:12 AM on August 8, 2005
I was also born much too late to get into the Beatles the first time through, I remember Lennon being killed but didn't get why it was such a big deal. Eventually in college I got into a Beatles phase. Yay for me.
If you don't get it, that's cool, but kinda sucks for you.
I realize nobody cool ever picks Abbey Road but I love that album. The transition from the end of I Want You to Here Comes The Sun still gives me goosebumps.
posted by Bonzai at 8:15 AM on August 8, 2005
If you don't get it, that's cool, but kinda sucks for you.
I realize nobody cool ever picks Abbey Road but I love that album. The transition from the end of I Want You to Here Comes The Sun still gives me goosebumps.
posted by Bonzai at 8:15 AM on August 8, 2005
Stuffs OSTs for The Harder They Come and Quadrophenia into wfrgms's mouth.
posted by the cuban at 8:17 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by the cuban at 8:17 AM on August 8, 2005
The transition from the end of I Want You to Here Comes The Sun still gives me goosebumps.
Not raised on vinyl, obviously. That transition always included me flipping the disc over.
posted by argybarg at 8:20 AM on August 8, 2005
Not raised on vinyl, obviously. That transition always included me flipping the disc over.
posted by argybarg at 8:20 AM on August 8, 2005
Three blind mice for the win.
posted by loquacious at 8:49 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by loquacious at 8:49 AM on August 8, 2005
Music compilations are for people who don't listen to music - or worse - have movie soundtracks among their cd collection.
Movie soundtracks, as in, a collection of various artists. This is useful if you're a fan of the movie and the use of the music in that movie. If you listen to the soundtrack in that manner, it resembles the enjoyment of listening to a movie SCORE.
Compilations are useful if the songs included belong to songs that are in albums that lack thematic context. Why listen to an album of crap when only one or two songs are any good, and have no relevance to the crap packaged with it to make a 12 song album?
posted by linux at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2005
Movie soundtracks, as in, a collection of various artists. This is useful if you're a fan of the movie and the use of the music in that movie. If you listen to the soundtrack in that manner, it resembles the enjoyment of listening to a movie SCORE.
Compilations are useful if the songs included belong to songs that are in albums that lack thematic context. Why listen to an album of crap when only one or two songs are any good, and have no relevance to the crap packaged with it to make a 12 song album?
posted by linux at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2005
I was about to go nuts downloading the wav files, untill I noticed they are only at 88 kbs.
:) I wouldn't have posted this if those were real mp3s... real bad IP karma for that...
This is kinda what the official website should be... Other artists & the iTMS have 30 second samples at good fidelity, but I would prefer sampling the whole song at a crappier bitrate. These aren't good enough to keep, I don't think, but pretty close to how they sounded on the radio back in the day.
but I'm not sure why you think this [medley] is something created by the Beatles.
By the late 70s the Beatles weren't (anymore) on AOR or the light disco/rock stations I listened to, so that crappy disco medley ("Stars on 45") was my first introduction to their songs. Then the new wave era hit and my tastebuds were filled with REM, the B-52s, Talking Heads, U2, etc etc. and the Beatles were relegated to "irrelevancy" (even during the good ol' days with Limewire).
This is the first site I've seen that allows pretty easy browsing of their catalogue, and who knows, the RA streaming might even be legal to access from the land of the free.
I can see how the Beatles were in an arms race with the Stones, the Who, and Brian Wilson. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin came in later, more or less, and took over from them.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2005
:) I wouldn't have posted this if those were real mp3s... real bad IP karma for that...
This is kinda what the official website should be... Other artists & the iTMS have 30 second samples at good fidelity, but I would prefer sampling the whole song at a crappier bitrate. These aren't good enough to keep, I don't think, but pretty close to how they sounded on the radio back in the day.
but I'm not sure why you think this [medley] is something created by the Beatles.
By the late 70s the Beatles weren't (anymore) on AOR or the light disco/rock stations I listened to, so that crappy disco medley ("Stars on 45") was my first introduction to their songs. Then the new wave era hit and my tastebuds were filled with REM, the B-52s, Talking Heads, U2, etc etc. and the Beatles were relegated to "irrelevancy" (even during the good ol' days with Limewire).
This is the first site I've seen that allows pretty easy browsing of their catalogue, and who knows, the RA streaming might even be legal to access from the land of the free.
I can see how the Beatles were in an arms race with the Stones, the Who, and Brian Wilson. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin came in later, more or less, and took over from them.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:21 AM on August 8, 2005
Hard to defend the Beatles to someone who doesn't like them.
Not hard at all, actually. They were one of the most formidable songwriting teams the world's ever seen and they more or less invented modern pop music. They expanded (mainstream) rock & roll's palette to include psychedelic imagery, long-form conceptual work and multilayered orchestration. They were one of the first recording artists ever to use tape loops and what we now call sampling. They recorded (at least) several dozen songs that stand as genuine, globally recognized classics.
Mach3avelli wrote:
I would be very grateful if one of you Mefites would be so kind as to give me some understanding into the insight required to really appreciate The Beatles. Like, what album should I listen to first.
I'm happy to rise to this challenge. On your blog, you heap praise upon "Lola Stars & Stripes" by the Stills, which is indeed a nifty tune. So here's what you do: Listen to "Across the Universe." Then listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows." Then listen to "Revolution" (not Rev 1 or Rev 9, the one just titled "Revolution" that Nike once used). Now imagine an aural point in your mind at which those three songs intersect, and there you'll find "Lola Stars & Stripes." This is not quite a perfect triangulation, I'm doing it on the fly, but hopefully the point is clear: it quite simply wouldn't exist without the Beatles. (And as for Broken Social Scene, who you also praise, I can guarantee that every member of that band has worn their copies of Revolver clear through.) And that, plus the fact that all three of those songs are pure, blazingly innovative genius, is why the Beatles are so worth exploring.
And when you're done this little experiment, listen to Revolver in its entirety. And brother, if you aren't convinced by that, maybe you never will be, which would be unfortunate.
And for the record: I was born three years after the band broke up. And my Top 5 (which changes constantly):
1) A Day in the Life
2) I've Just Seen A Face
3) Tomorrow Never Knows
4) I Am the Walrus
5) We Can Work It Out
posted by gompa at 9:22 AM on August 8, 2005
Not hard at all, actually. They were one of the most formidable songwriting teams the world's ever seen and they more or less invented modern pop music. They expanded (mainstream) rock & roll's palette to include psychedelic imagery, long-form conceptual work and multilayered orchestration. They were one of the first recording artists ever to use tape loops and what we now call sampling. They recorded (at least) several dozen songs that stand as genuine, globally recognized classics.
Mach3avelli wrote:
I would be very grateful if one of you Mefites would be so kind as to give me some understanding into the insight required to really appreciate The Beatles. Like, what album should I listen to first.
I'm happy to rise to this challenge. On your blog, you heap praise upon "Lola Stars & Stripes" by the Stills, which is indeed a nifty tune. So here's what you do: Listen to "Across the Universe." Then listen to "Tomorrow Never Knows." Then listen to "Revolution" (not Rev 1 or Rev 9, the one just titled "Revolution" that Nike once used). Now imagine an aural point in your mind at which those three songs intersect, and there you'll find "Lola Stars & Stripes." This is not quite a perfect triangulation, I'm doing it on the fly, but hopefully the point is clear: it quite simply wouldn't exist without the Beatles. (And as for Broken Social Scene, who you also praise, I can guarantee that every member of that band has worn their copies of Revolver clear through.) And that, plus the fact that all three of those songs are pure, blazingly innovative genius, is why the Beatles are so worth exploring.
And when you're done this little experiment, listen to Revolver in its entirety. And brother, if you aren't convinced by that, maybe you never will be, which would be unfortunate.
And for the record: I was born three years after the band broke up. And my Top 5 (which changes constantly):
1) A Day in the Life
2) I've Just Seen A Face
3) Tomorrow Never Knows
4) I Am the Walrus
5) We Can Work It Out
posted by gompa at 9:22 AM on August 8, 2005
They expanded (mainstream) rock & roll's palette to include psychedelic imagery, long-form conceptual work and multilayered orchestration. They were one of the first recording artists ever to use tape loops and what we now call sampling.
and (this is crucial) they managed to do all that while remaining a rock and roll band at core.
posted by jonmc at 9:24 AM on August 8, 2005
and (this is crucial) they managed to do all that while remaining a rock and roll band at core.
posted by jonmc at 9:24 AM on August 8, 2005
Actually, you should probably throw "I Feel Fine" into my triangulation above. A four-corned square of a triangle, if you will.
Goo-goo-ga-joob.
posted by gompa at 9:28 AM on August 8, 2005
Goo-goo-ga-joob.
posted by gompa at 9:28 AM on August 8, 2005
And by "four-corned" I of course meant four-cornered.
/Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna
posted by gompa at 9:31 AM on August 8, 2005
/Elementary penguin singing Hare Krishna
posted by gompa at 9:31 AM on August 8, 2005
*tips four-corned cap to argybarg, returns to feasting on yellow matter custard*
posted by gompa at 9:42 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by gompa at 9:42 AM on August 8, 2005
I think a big factor in getting The Beatles and not getting their music comes down to when you started listening to them. If you heard their music as your musical tastes were developing, it would be almost impossible to not like their music.
Beatles-Discography.com is another good site that has tidbits about the stories behind the songs.
posted by riffola at 9:55 AM on August 8, 2005
Beatles-Discography.com is another good site that has tidbits about the stories behind the songs.
posted by riffola at 9:55 AM on August 8, 2005
Mp3's don't rotate, which is only one of their drawbacks. Hobbacocka
They do now
posted by nomisxid at 10:03 AM on August 8, 2005
They do now
posted by nomisxid at 10:03 AM on August 8, 2005
My sisters discovered The Beatles at the start of the school year back in the '80s, so it was monsoon season, and since I was too young and reckless to be allowed to use the stereo, they'd hear their music, and I'd listen along while playing with my toys in the other room. Till today, a rainy day seems like the best day to hear their songs.
As for my five favourite songs, not ranked per se, just the five songs by them that I like the most:
As for my five favourite songs, not ranked per se, just the five songs by them that I like the most:
- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band [The Yellow Submarine: Songtrack 5.1 channel version is *fantastic*]
- I Will [Partly because of the vocal bass]
- In My Life
- Penny Lane
- You Know My Name (Look Up The Number) [Anthology version]
My mother was a jazz dj but in the 60s it was the Beatles I remember her playing at home. She never lectured me about which music was most original or who influenced what. She simply instructed me to listen and note when something made me respond.
The Beatles lyrics (usually John's, but also Paul's on occasion) are the key to my continued listening. Not as deep as Rilkie, but wonderful poetry of middle class boys who grew up too fast.
1. In My Life
2. I'm Looking Through You
3. Revolution 1 (in)
4. Rain
5. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
(Did anyone else notice how revisionist that site is? What's up with listing "McCartney/Lennon" as author on songs or not giving Lennon solo credit on "in My Life?" No, i don't believe Paul remembers that song origin correctly.)
posted by ?! at 10:20 AM on August 8, 2005
The Beatles lyrics (usually John's, but also Paul's on occasion) are the key to my continued listening. Not as deep as Rilkie, but wonderful poetry of middle class boys who grew up too fast.
1. In My Life
2. I'm Looking Through You
3. Revolution 1 (in)
4. Rain
5. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
(Did anyone else notice how revisionist that site is? What's up with listing "McCartney/Lennon" as author on songs or not giving Lennon solo credit on "in My Life?" No, i don't believe Paul remembers that song origin correctly.)
posted by ?! at 10:20 AM on August 8, 2005
Thank you, gompa.
Looking over some of the comments above I guess I'm not surprised that some people want to reduce a band to a single track. Corporate radio and modern pop has degraded to the point where none of us can stomach the album format anymore. The idea of devoting 45 minutes to a listening experience sounds bizarre in this day of iPod shuffles, commercial radio and MP3 playlists.
Well, also the fact that the concept album is becoming an extinct phenomenon these days too. It's not just the listener's fault.
Given that, I don't much mind focusing on just single songs. It just means I don't have to trudge my way through the mediocrity on an album (even concept albums have their meandering, postmodern bridges that are just as worthy of the skip button).
The Mona Lisa analogy was pretty bad because it would only hold true if the album was one track, 45 minutes long.
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:25 AM on August 8, 2005
Looking over some of the comments above I guess I'm not surprised that some people want to reduce a band to a single track. Corporate radio and modern pop has degraded to the point where none of us can stomach the album format anymore. The idea of devoting 45 minutes to a listening experience sounds bizarre in this day of iPod shuffles, commercial radio and MP3 playlists.
Well, also the fact that the concept album is becoming an extinct phenomenon these days too. It's not just the listener's fault.
Given that, I don't much mind focusing on just single songs. It just means I don't have to trudge my way through the mediocrity on an album (even concept albums have their meandering, postmodern bridges that are just as worthy of the skip button).
The Mona Lisa analogy was pretty bad because it would only hold true if the album was one track, 45 minutes long.
posted by Mach3avelli at 10:25 AM on August 8, 2005
Not liking The Beatles is like not liking chocolate. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
posted by redteam at 10:48 AM on August 8, 2005
posted by redteam at 10:48 AM on August 8, 2005
Fave album: Tie, "Rubber Soul" & "Revolver" - For me, that's the period where all the pieces really came together. And the songs are just so strong through both.
Fave rocker: "She Said, She Said" - Those crazy time changes and the bass line and the mid-tempo beat. Mm.
Fave "songwriter" song - "Here, There, and Everywhere" - I know it's kind of cheesy once you get the trick, but I stlll love the way they play with those three words for the verses and bridge.
Fave Beatles-related quote: "Not liking The Beatles? That's like not liking air." -- Bob Pollard
posted by merlinmann at 10:54 AM on August 8, 2005
Fave rocker: "She Said, She Said" - Those crazy time changes and the bass line and the mid-tempo beat. Mm.
Fave "songwriter" song - "Here, There, and Everywhere" - I know it's kind of cheesy once you get the trick, but I stlll love the way they play with those three words for the verses and bridge.
Fave Beatles-related quote: "Not liking The Beatles? That's like not liking air." -- Bob Pollard
posted by merlinmann at 10:54 AM on August 8, 2005
I was more of a Zeppelin/Stones fan but I always appreciated the Beatles. A friend of mine used to have this analogy of the Beatles' progress during their career: imagine if the Backstreet Boys evolved into R.E.M., then into Pink Floyd, then into U2. Their accomplishment was staggering and they broke up at precisely the right time, even if they didn't plan it that way.
Top albums for me:
1. Abbey Road
2. The Beatles (White)
3. Sgt. Pepper
4. Revolver
5. Rubber Soul
posted by Ber at 11:28 AM on August 8, 2005
Top albums for me:
1. Abbey Road
2. The Beatles (White)
3. Sgt. Pepper
4. Revolver
5. Rubber Soul
posted by Ber at 11:28 AM on August 8, 2005
Back when I was a pre-teen, I hoped that my parents would give me a copy of Sgt Pepper for Christmas, and lucky me, they did.
(2 LPs for the price of one- how could they resist?)
posted by maryh at 11:48 AM on August 8, 2005
(2 LPs for the price of one- how could they resist?)
posted by maryh at 11:48 AM on August 8, 2005
PeterMcDermott, that's a fab story about your friend, Jackie. Where else can one bump into a friend of John Lennon's half-sister but the internet?
Let me know when you (and your ex?) write your book about her - I'll be sure to buy a copy! Quite seriously, I think you could set up a website selling a digital mini-book about your thoughts and experiences and whilst it might not set the world on fire, it would be a good little earner for very little effort over a long period. Just keep your URL in your signature when you post on Beatles forums.
posted by DirtyCreature at 11:52 AM on August 8, 2005
Let me know when you (and your ex?) write your book about her - I'll be sure to buy a copy! Quite seriously, I think you could set up a website selling a digital mini-book about your thoughts and experiences and whilst it might not set the world on fire, it would be a good little earner for very little effort over a long period. Just keep your URL in your signature when you post on Beatles forums.
posted by DirtyCreature at 11:52 AM on August 8, 2005
funny, I usually use "choosing a favorite Beatles album" as a metaphor for those things which can't be done.
the one just titled "Revolution" that Nike once used
AAAAAIiiiIIIRrrrrgghh!!
*kicks monitor off desk*
posted by petebest at 12:13 PM on August 8, 2005
the one just titled "Revolution" that Nike once used
AAAAAIiiiIIIRrrrrgghh!!
*kicks monitor off desk*
posted by petebest at 12:13 PM on August 8, 2005
I like the Beatles, don't know about favorite album but I think my favorite songs are a tossup between "Norwegian Wood" and "Blackbird".
posted by fenriq at 12:36 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by fenriq at 12:36 PM on August 8, 2005
I've tried (for my own sake as much as any one else's) to try to sum up what it is about the Beatles, in response to some of the above comments, and I have to say, it's impossible. These things are, of course, completely subjective.
That said, let's look at something a little more concrete about them: All of it, their entire catalog was written, recorded, and produced in - what, 7 years? There is very little repetition, constant development and expansion. I'm talking HUNDREDS of tunes.
And the presence of any one of those tunes in the catalog of one of today's crop would be a career-defining moment. Hell, people make careers out of re-writing Beatles tunes.
They are, in my opinion, the greatest pop-musicians ever. They are to pop music what Shakespeare is to poetry.
/sycophancy
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:12 PM on August 8, 2005
That said, let's look at something a little more concrete about them: All of it, their entire catalog was written, recorded, and produced in - what, 7 years? There is very little repetition, constant development and expansion. I'm talking HUNDREDS of tunes.
And the presence of any one of those tunes in the catalog of one of today's crop would be a career-defining moment. Hell, people make careers out of re-writing Beatles tunes.
They are, in my opinion, the greatest pop-musicians ever. They are to pop music what Shakespeare is to poetry.
/sycophancy
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:12 PM on August 8, 2005
Favourite song? Has to be Maxwell's Silver Hammer - a cheerful song about a homicidal maniac!
posted by arc at 1:18 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by arc at 1:18 PM on August 8, 2005
Hey f_o_f, fancy seeing you here.
Well, at the risk of being labeled a chocolate-hater or a musical ignoramous, I'll add my two cents...
While I certainly admire the Beatles and even like many of their songs, and I can understand why everyone (especially musicians) appreciates them and is in awe of their music. . . much of it just doesn't do anything for me. It sounds out-dated and "of a time" -- both musically and lyrically; and some of it sounds cliche (and, yes, I realize that's because everyone has been copying them).
I find that I dip in and out of their catalog and listen to my favorites, but they've never gripped me the way other artists have.
*shrug*
posted by papercake at 1:44 PM on August 8, 2005
Well, at the risk of being labeled a chocolate-hater or a musical ignoramous, I'll add my two cents...
While I certainly admire the Beatles and even like many of their songs, and I can understand why everyone (especially musicians) appreciates them and is in awe of their music. . . much of it just doesn't do anything for me. It sounds out-dated and "of a time" -- both musically and lyrically; and some of it sounds cliche (and, yes, I realize that's because everyone has been copying them).
I find that I dip in and out of their catalog and listen to my favorites, but they've never gripped me the way other artists have.
*shrug*
posted by papercake at 1:44 PM on August 8, 2005
Last New Year's Ever, a group of us were sat around the dinner table, and I asked what the first music everyone was aware of hearing. All but one of us chose The Beatles (for me it was Penny Lane on the car radio, 1967. I was two and a half), and the odd-one-out confessed that he'd misunderstood the question, thinking it was "what was the first record you ever bought", and that the first music he was aware of was, in fact, The Beatles.
(For some reason, no, no one said nursery rhymes or anything like that.)
I can't really name a favourite song or album, because I keep changing my mind.
posted by Grangousier at 2:14 PM on August 8, 2005
(For some reason, no, no one said nursery rhymes or anything like that.)
I can't really name a favourite song or album, because I keep changing my mind.
posted by Grangousier at 2:14 PM on August 8, 2005
I agree with PurpleJack. Dropped a couple of hits in my college days and spent part of the time listening to Sgt. Pepper, which was a beautiful experience. The boys really knew what they were doing and it was quite brilliant.
Of course, even if you don't like the Beatles, you have to at least appreciate them for one of the most amazing musical evolutions ever. From the teenybopper dreck of "I wanna hold your hand" to "Helter Skelter", its hard to believe it was the same band.
Maybe the John Birch Society was right and the Beatles were nothing more than a complex social experiment led by the Illuminati.
posted by pandaharma at 2:39 PM on August 8, 2005
Of course, even if you don't like the Beatles, you have to at least appreciate them for one of the most amazing musical evolutions ever. From the teenybopper dreck of "I wanna hold your hand" to "Helter Skelter", its hard to believe it was the same band.
Maybe the John Birch Society was right and the Beatles were nothing more than a complex social experiment led by the Illuminati.
posted by pandaharma at 2:39 PM on August 8, 2005
From the teenybopper dreck of "I wanna hold your hand" to "Helter Skelter", its hard to believe it was the same band.
If you consider "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," to be "teenybopper dreck," I'm going to have to assume that you are either deaf or simply a communist.
posted by jonmc at 3:22 PM on August 8, 2005
If you consider "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," to be "teenybopper dreck," I'm going to have to assume that you are either deaf or simply a communist.
posted by jonmc at 3:22 PM on August 8, 2005
day tripper
long, long, long
she came in through the bathrrom window
sexy sadie
here comes the sun
posted by oliver_crunk at 4:39 PM on August 8, 2005
long, long, long
she came in through the bathrrom window
sexy sadie
here comes the sun
posted by oliver_crunk at 4:39 PM on August 8, 2005
If you consider "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," to be "teenybopper dreck," I'm going to have to assume that you are either deaf or simply a communist.
Actually, I think a communist would find "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" merely counter-revolutionary, though not particularly worrisome. It's your blinkered fascist types who insist on dumping on it as "teenybopper dreck," possibly out of some kind of desire for increased self-importance.
posted by gompa at 5:00 PM on August 8, 2005
Actually, I think a communist would find "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" merely counter-revolutionary, though not particularly worrisome. It's your blinkered fascist types who insist on dumping on it as "teenybopper dreck," possibly out of some kind of desire for increased self-importance.
posted by gompa at 5:00 PM on August 8, 2005
There are those of us out there who do not like the Beatles, and as one of them, I can tell you that we lead full, rich lives.
I like chocolate, but I don't really like it without peanut butter. I need some salt to offset--and enhance--the sweetness.
In fact--and I don't know if this is so for other Beatles-haters--I hate the Beatles first and foremost because I don't like the way they sound: I don't like their harmonies, I don't like their words, and I think that most of their technical innovation had already been done better by lesser-known artists who are now mostly forgotten.
The most common argument I hear when I tell people that I don't like the Beatles is: "look at the influence they had on so many other musicians!"
Fine. I can *tell* when a musician has been influenced by the Beatles, and I generally don't like them, either.
I don't like eggs; they smell and taste like farts. I don't like cilantro; it smells and tastes like soap. I don't like the way the Beatles sound. I find them cloying and sappy.
I also really hate how--just by being a human being in a media-surrounded society--you have to hear the Beatles, somewhere, just about every day. The Beatles are still a huge industry, even forty years later, and it's in the interest of the giant corporations and rich people who own the Beatles' music to make sure that they're in constant play.
The second most common argument I hear is that the Beatles are great because they "practically invented pop music". Not only is this utter bullshit, it's like saying "you don't like Jack the Ripper? But he practically invented the art of killing prostitutes!"
I find their rhymes predictable and asinine, their harmonies overblown, and their melodies boring. If that makes me a communist, so be it. Give me some salt with my sweet; I don't like laying under a dump truck, having it pour milk chocolate into me, either.
posted by interrobang at 5:39 PM on August 8, 2005
I like chocolate, but I don't really like it without peanut butter. I need some salt to offset--and enhance--the sweetness.
In fact--and I don't know if this is so for other Beatles-haters--I hate the Beatles first and foremost because I don't like the way they sound: I don't like their harmonies, I don't like their words, and I think that most of their technical innovation had already been done better by lesser-known artists who are now mostly forgotten.
The most common argument I hear when I tell people that I don't like the Beatles is: "look at the influence they had on so many other musicians!"
Fine. I can *tell* when a musician has been influenced by the Beatles, and I generally don't like them, either.
I don't like eggs; they smell and taste like farts. I don't like cilantro; it smells and tastes like soap. I don't like the way the Beatles sound. I find them cloying and sappy.
I also really hate how--just by being a human being in a media-surrounded society--you have to hear the Beatles, somewhere, just about every day. The Beatles are still a huge industry, even forty years later, and it's in the interest of the giant corporations and rich people who own the Beatles' music to make sure that they're in constant play.
The second most common argument I hear is that the Beatles are great because they "practically invented pop music". Not only is this utter bullshit, it's like saying "you don't like Jack the Ripper? But he practically invented the art of killing prostitutes!"
I find their rhymes predictable and asinine, their harmonies overblown, and their melodies boring. If that makes me a communist, so be it. Give me some salt with my sweet; I don't like laying under a dump truck, having it pour milk chocolate into me, either.
posted by interrobang at 5:39 PM on August 8, 2005
Oh, and having millionaires tell you that "all you need is love" is just about the most absurd act of hypocrisy ever.
posted by interrobang at 5:42 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by interrobang at 5:42 PM on August 8, 2005
Four Ways of Saying Five. Or maybe Seven Hours Sleep.
Oh, no wait.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:05 PM on August 8, 2005
Oh, no wait.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:05 PM on August 8, 2005
And they're boring.
posted by luckypozzo at 6:39 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by luckypozzo at 6:39 PM on August 8, 2005
Okay, I guess I am older than a lot of you folks if not most of you. I remember the Ed Sullivan Show and their first US tour. The day after the first Ed Sullivan Show all of guy at school combed what little hair they had down on their foreheads. It was the silliest thing.
I suppose you had to live thur the times...the only comparision that I can think of is a bicycle with training wheels to a Harley with a long fork extension chopper. That was what the evolution of Beatles musics seems like to me.
I really don not have one favorite tune but am partial to Lady Madonna and Sexy Sadie.
posted by bjgeiger at 6:59 PM on August 8, 2005
I suppose you had to live thur the times...the only comparision that I can think of is a bicycle with training wheels to a Harley with a long fork extension chopper. That was what the evolution of Beatles musics seems like to me.
I really don not have one favorite tune but am partial to Lady Madonna and Sexy Sadie.
posted by bjgeiger at 6:59 PM on August 8, 2005
imagine if the Backstreet Boys evolved into R.E.M., then into Pink Floyd, then into U2.
I think that's a pretty poor analogy. The Beatles were never a boy band, for one, as clever as some people think it is to call them that. Their early work shows a good deal of compositional ingenuity, even if the lyrical themes were basic and the arrangements mostly safe.
Top 5 songs:
Yesterday
In My Life
For No One
Strawberry Fields Forever
You Won't See Me
posted by ludwig_van at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2005
I think that's a pretty poor analogy. The Beatles were never a boy band, for one, as clever as some people think it is to call them that. Their early work shows a good deal of compositional ingenuity, even if the lyrical themes were basic and the arrangements mostly safe.
Top 5 songs:
Yesterday
In My Life
For No One
Strawberry Fields Forever
You Won't See Me
posted by ludwig_van at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2005
Oh, and I'm 20 and would consider them my favorite band of all time.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 7:38 PM on August 8, 2005
There are those who like the Beatles, get the Sex Pistols, and love the Dandy Warhols. For everyone else its just masturbation.
posted by shockingbluamp at 7:49 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by shockingbluamp at 7:49 PM on August 8, 2005
I, too was too young to fully experience the Beatles, if you don't get them at all, it's probably because you grew up in their wake. It won't get you any closer emotionally, but intellectually, listen to what was "top of the pops" in 1961 or 1962, and then listen to Rubber Soul; and consider that this transformation took place in three years! It's partially the music; partially the mass acceptance of transformation.
That said, I sufficiently sick of Beatles music that I don't own any, and usually change the station when I hear them.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:09 PM on August 8, 2005
That said, I sufficiently sick of Beatles music that I don't own any, and usually change the station when I hear them.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:09 PM on August 8, 2005
Magical Mystery Tour and Abbey Road; particularly when played as LPs.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:12 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by ParisParamus at 8:12 PM on August 8, 2005
Even though the Beatles defined my teen listening years, I can understand why John Waters (who is more brilliant as a speaker than a filmmaker, IMO), thinks the Beatles ruined pop (or did he say rock?) music. He was speaking, of course, as one for whom pop music was Fats Domino, Little Richard (especially Little Richard), James Brown, and Chuck Berry.
posted by kozad at 6:18 AM on August 9, 2005
posted by kozad at 6:18 AM on August 9, 2005
He was speaking, of course, as one for whom pop music was Fats Domino, Little Richard (especially Little Richard), James Brown, and Chuck Berry.
The Beatles (ironically) shared Waters' veiw of pop music.
"Interviewer: What Kind of music do you like?
John Lennon: Stuff like 'a-wop-bob-a-loo-bop.' I don't think anyone's ever done anything better that 'A Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On.' "
-Rolling Stone magazine, 1971
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on August 9, 2005
The Beatles (ironically) shared Waters' veiw of pop music.
"Interviewer: What Kind of music do you like?
John Lennon: Stuff like 'a-wop-bob-a-loo-bop.' I don't think anyone's ever done anything better that 'A Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On.' "
-Rolling Stone magazine, 1971
posted by jonmc at 8:20 AM on August 9, 2005
John Lennon's more boring solo output reflected his hangup on straight-ahead rock 'n roll.
posted by ludwig_van at 11:58 AM on August 9, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 11:58 AM on August 9, 2005
Fuck it. I grew up in a Beatle-less household, and I keep expecting my father (who's a user here) to leap in with his polemic about the Beatles.
See, I both understand how much they changed popular music and that they had some really great songs, but the endless historical blowjob they're offered is total bullshit. To pretend that every turd they dropped is the Golden Pop Beauty of the Universe is to reveal yourself as someone with absolutely no critical faculties.
While everyone likes to offer that whole "Well, they invented pop music," you don't see anyone in this thread talking about how they reinvented pop mediocrity. You know what? Blackbird is a shitty, boring song. Paul McCartney showed his true colors in Wings. Lennon was better when he was in the Plastic Ono Band. Harrison was a meandering sop with a taste for treacle and a head for whatever mishmash of LSD and fraudulent philosophy could be pumped in there by someone calling themselves Maharishi.
And that's not to say that Come Together wasn't genius, or that Helter Skelter didn't prove that Paul had balls hidden somewhere deep inside of him (just that they were usually in hock in order to write shit like Hey Jude).
The only explanation for kids these days who didn't have the pre/post Beatles dichotomy saying that The Beatles are the best band ever or that everything they did was brilliant is that they haven't heard enough music. The Beatles are a good gateway, but when you decide that they're the be-all and end-all, that's really an admission of supreme laziness and a willingness to settle. It's like declaring Kraft Mac&Cheese the best dinner ever. It's a fine dinner, it's a popular dinner, it's one that I've enjoyed many a time, but it's not the Alpha and Omega of dining. Christ, try some jazz. Try some heavy psych. Try the Velvet Underground (and start a band). Everyone should listen to and enjoy the Beatles at some point, but no one should ever announce them as either their favorite band or the best band ever unless they want to look like they're fresh off of the turnip truck.
The only other possibility? They haven't done enough drugs. The Beatles are pretty decent druggy music for straight people, but once you've actually done some drugs (more than ditch weed), you need to get the fuck out of their catalog and into something that will utilize the full range of a drug, not try to tell you that Rocky Raccoon and Maxwell's Silver Hammer are somehow "out there." Oh, and fuck Sgt. Pepper's too. That's an unlistenable stew of wankery and drug-addled gibberish. Might as well be listening to a fucking jam band meander.
I've had roommates try to get me into the Beatles before. On ever album (except Sgt. P.), there's four or five good songs, and an assload of filler that must have sounded exciting at the time, but is absolute drivel now. Oh, and Yellow Submarine's retarded. The whole thing.
But hey, I guess I'm just gonna fall on the Stones-Kinks side of any Britpop debate. Hell, the Stones never had an original thought in their lives, but Beggar's Banquet is a better album than Let It Be, and Out of Our Heads is better than Rubber Soul.
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 PM on August 9, 2005
See, I both understand how much they changed popular music and that they had some really great songs, but the endless historical blowjob they're offered is total bullshit. To pretend that every turd they dropped is the Golden Pop Beauty of the Universe is to reveal yourself as someone with absolutely no critical faculties.
While everyone likes to offer that whole "Well, they invented pop music," you don't see anyone in this thread talking about how they reinvented pop mediocrity. You know what? Blackbird is a shitty, boring song. Paul McCartney showed his true colors in Wings. Lennon was better when he was in the Plastic Ono Band. Harrison was a meandering sop with a taste for treacle and a head for whatever mishmash of LSD and fraudulent philosophy could be pumped in there by someone calling themselves Maharishi.
And that's not to say that Come Together wasn't genius, or that Helter Skelter didn't prove that Paul had balls hidden somewhere deep inside of him (just that they were usually in hock in order to write shit like Hey Jude).
The only explanation for kids these days who didn't have the pre/post Beatles dichotomy saying that The Beatles are the best band ever or that everything they did was brilliant is that they haven't heard enough music. The Beatles are a good gateway, but when you decide that they're the be-all and end-all, that's really an admission of supreme laziness and a willingness to settle. It's like declaring Kraft Mac&Cheese the best dinner ever. It's a fine dinner, it's a popular dinner, it's one that I've enjoyed many a time, but it's not the Alpha and Omega of dining. Christ, try some jazz. Try some heavy psych. Try the Velvet Underground (and start a band). Everyone should listen to and enjoy the Beatles at some point, but no one should ever announce them as either their favorite band or the best band ever unless they want to look like they're fresh off of the turnip truck.
The only other possibility? They haven't done enough drugs. The Beatles are pretty decent druggy music for straight people, but once you've actually done some drugs (more than ditch weed), you need to get the fuck out of their catalog and into something that will utilize the full range of a drug, not try to tell you that Rocky Raccoon and Maxwell's Silver Hammer are somehow "out there." Oh, and fuck Sgt. Pepper's too. That's an unlistenable stew of wankery and drug-addled gibberish. Might as well be listening to a fucking jam band meander.
I've had roommates try to get me into the Beatles before. On ever album (except Sgt. P.), there's four or five good songs, and an assload of filler that must have sounded exciting at the time, but is absolute drivel now. Oh, and Yellow Submarine's retarded. The whole thing.
But hey, I guess I'm just gonna fall on the Stones-Kinks side of any Britpop debate. Hell, the Stones never had an original thought in their lives, but Beggar's Banquet is a better album than Let It Be, and Out of Our Heads is better than Rubber Soul.
posted by klangklangston at 12:48 PM on August 9, 2005
Instant karma’s gonna get you
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin’
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin’ at fools like me
Who in the hell d’you think you are
A super star
Well, right you are
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
- John Lennon - Instant Karma
posted by PaulWilliams at 12:56 PM on August 9, 2005
Gonna look you right in the face
Better get yourself together darlin’
Join the human race
How in the world you gonna see
Laughin’ at fools like me
Who in the hell d’you think you are
A super star
Well, right you are
Well we all shine on
Like the moon and the stars and the sun
- John Lennon - Instant Karma
posted by PaulWilliams at 12:56 PM on August 9, 2005
Blackbird is a shitty, boring song.
Blackbird is a beautiful song. But you think The Decemberists and Sufjan are boring too, so there's probably no hope.
The Beatles are the best band ever or that everything they did was brilliant is that they haven't heard enough music. The only other possibility? They haven't done enough drugs.
I've done enough drugs and listened to enough music and my opinion is that The Beatles were the best pop band. Just curious: have you studied music formally? Do you write it?
posted by ludwig_van at 1:35 PM on August 9, 2005
Blackbird is a beautiful song. But you think The Decemberists and Sufjan are boring too, so there's probably no hope.
The Beatles are the best band ever or that everything they did was brilliant is that they haven't heard enough music. The only other possibility? They haven't done enough drugs.
I've done enough drugs and listened to enough music and my opinion is that The Beatles were the best pop band. Just curious: have you studied music formally? Do you write it?
posted by ludwig_van at 1:35 PM on August 9, 2005
I've done enough drugs and listened to enough music and my opinion is that The Beatles were the best pop band.
I'm with ludwig van (it's a kodak moment). They're not my favorite band, but they are certainly the most important. And no matter how far I meander musically, I always find myself coming back to them.
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on August 9, 2005
I'm with ludwig van (it's a kodak moment). They're not my favorite band, but they are certainly the most important. And no matter how far I meander musically, I always find myself coming back to them.
posted by jonmc at 1:43 PM on August 9, 2005
John Lennon's more boring solo output reflected his hangup on straight-ahead rock 'n roll.
Well, that "hangup" was a vital part of what the Beatles were. And McCartney was a Little Richard obsessive as well. They always had a core of straight up rock and roll energy, even in their most far out stuff.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on August 9, 2005
Well, that "hangup" was a vital part of what the Beatles were. And McCartney was a Little Richard obsessive as well. They always had a core of straight up rock and roll energy, even in their most far out stuff.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on August 9, 2005
Ludwig: "I've done enough drugs and listened to enough music and my opinion is that The Beatles were the best pop band. Just curious: have you studied music formally? Do you write it?" Not really and no. Why? Gonna make some tired argument about how if I did, I'd really understand the Beatles and how great their arrangements were, man?
Yeah, Sufjan Stevens and the Decemberists are fucking boring. They're mid-tempo bullshit that coasts on being "literate" instead of interesting. You're free to mince around to them if you like, but, well, you think the Beatles are the best band ever. So excuse me if I gotta dismiss your ability to tell diamonds from dross. (I mean, at least fellow indie darlings Spoon know how to write hooks). You probably get all pantymoist thinking about the Arcade Fire too.
Jonmc: I have no problem with saying that the Beatles were the most important pop band ever. But Steven King is the most important pop writer ever, and I don't think that his popularity is related to his quality as a writer.
posted by klangklangston at 2:29 PM on August 9, 2005
Yeah, Sufjan Stevens and the Decemberists are fucking boring. They're mid-tempo bullshit that coasts on being "literate" instead of interesting. You're free to mince around to them if you like, but, well, you think the Beatles are the best band ever. So excuse me if I gotta dismiss your ability to tell diamonds from dross. (I mean, at least fellow indie darlings Spoon know how to write hooks). You probably get all pantymoist thinking about the Arcade Fire too.
Jonmc: I have no problem with saying that the Beatles were the most important pop band ever. But Steven King is the most important pop writer ever, and I don't think that his popularity is related to his quality as a writer.
posted by klangklangston at 2:29 PM on August 9, 2005
Not really and no. Why? Gonna make some tired argument about how if I did, I'd really understand the Beatles and how great their arrangements were, man?
No, you just don't sound like a musician. I don't think everything The Beatles did was gold. I've had good discussions with Beatle-loving musicians about the band's shortcomings and weak points. But you sound overly bitter and a bit a bit in-the-dark to me.
But yeah, who ever thought that studying music and understanding how it's written would help one to appreciate the gifts of two of the best songwriters of the 20th century? What a stupid idea, man.
I didn't say The Beatles were the best band, I said the best pop band. If you're going to discout the opinions of everyone who would argue for as much, you're going to be doing a lot of ignoring. But you seem perfectly happy with your current tastes, and that's good for you.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:42 PM on August 9, 2005
No, you just don't sound like a musician. I don't think everything The Beatles did was gold. I've had good discussions with Beatle-loving musicians about the band's shortcomings and weak points. But you sound overly bitter and a bit a bit in-the-dark to me.
But yeah, who ever thought that studying music and understanding how it's written would help one to appreciate the gifts of two of the best songwriters of the 20th century? What a stupid idea, man.
I didn't say The Beatles were the best band, I said the best pop band. If you're going to discout the opinions of everyone who would argue for as much, you're going to be doing a lot of ignoring. But you seem perfectly happy with your current tastes, and that's good for you.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:42 PM on August 9, 2005
Well, that "hangup" was a vital part of what the Beatles were.
Of course, but they were more than just your average 60s rock band because they synthesized their influences and took them to previously unexplored territory. In his post-Beatles career, Lennon often seemed too content with simply regurgitating a lot of basic 12-bar blues material without injecting it with anything clever or fresh.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:44 PM on August 9, 2005
Of course, but they were more than just your average 60s rock band because they synthesized their influences and took them to previously unexplored territory. In his post-Beatles career, Lennon often seemed too content with simply regurgitating a lot of basic 12-bar blues material without injecting it with anything clever or fresh.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:44 PM on August 9, 2005
Actually, replace "often" with "sometimes." I like Lennon solo, it's just that I think you can tell that he wasn't trying very hard at times.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:45 PM on August 9, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 2:45 PM on August 9, 2005
At the risk of giving credibility to klangklangston's close-mindedness, I'd argue that part of Paul McCartney's genius lies in his ability to write such dissimilar songs as "Helter Skelter" and "Hey Jude" (my vote for greatest stand alone melody EVER) (not to mention "She's Leaving Home", "Blackbird", "Lady Madonna", etc).
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:41 AM on August 10, 2005
posted by fingers_of_fire at 7:41 AM on August 10, 2005
I agree, fingers. Paul's songs tend to be my favorites, and I think he was the best musician in the band as well.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:46 AM on August 10, 2005
posted by ludwig_van at 7:46 AM on August 10, 2005
She came in through the bathroom window.
Abbey Road is unbelievably good.
posted by mr.dan at 1:17 AM on August 13, 2005
Abbey Road is unbelievably good.
posted by mr.dan at 1:17 AM on August 13, 2005
I love The Beatles
posted by growabrain at 2:31 AM on August 14, 2005
posted by growabrain at 2:31 AM on August 14, 2005
« Older CIA Electronic Reading Room | Posted while sober Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Anyhoo, I've found my top 5 to be:
1. Nowhere Man
2. Here Comes the Sun
3. Tomorrow Never Knows
4. Revolution
5. Strawberry Fields
odd that no McCartney songs made my top 10.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:28 AM on August 8, 2005