The Beatles *sigh*

[Lonely Summer]

Resuming where I left off...

With the Beatles-

It won't be long- Fucking brilliant song. Blows away anything off of the debut, easily. One can hear how a band like, say, Nirvana, was influenced by this song. Love this track.

All I've got to do- Love the harmonies on this. Not as good as the opener, but few songs of this time period were. Already I hear a huge progression. 2 fo 2 here.

All My Loving- So far, this album has made me a believer. 3 for 3.

Don't Bother Me- Not bad, but my least favorite song so far. There are some cool parts here and there, but it sounds forced and lacks cohesion. 3 for 4.

Little Child- See previous track comments, although this is a bit better. It's okay. That's all I have to say, really. 3 for 5.

Til There was You- Love the opening. Nice vocals. Haven't heard the original, but this was nice. 4 for 6.

Please Mr Postman- Good cover, but can't top the original. It's good, but not my favorite. 4 for 7.

Roll Over Beethoven- Now this is better. George's vocals are better here, too. 5 for 8.

More later, but needless to say I MUCH prefer this to Please Please Me.

I don't hear ANY Beatles influence in Nirvana. That's one band I never "got". Just sounded like angry, depressed music from a guy that wanted to die. The Beatles always sounded joyful, especially the early stuff, such high energy, so much excitement.

[alf wiedersehen]

Resuming where I left off...

With the Beatles-

It won't be long- Fucking brilliant song. Blows away anything off of the debut, easily. One can hear how a band like, say, Nirvana, was influenced by this song. Love this track.

All I've got to do- Love the harmonies on this. Not as good as the opener, but few songs of this time period were. Already I hear a huge progression. 2 fo 2 here.

All My Loving- So far, this album has made me a believer. 3 for 3.

Don't Bother Me- Not bad, but my least favorite song so far. There are some cool parts here and there, but it sounds forced and lacks cohesion. 3 for 4.

Little Child- See previous track comments, although this is a bit better. It's okay. That's all I have to say, really. 3 for 5.

Til There was You- Love the opening. Nice vocals. Haven't heard the original, but this was nice. 4 for 6.

Please Mr Postman- Good cover, but can't top the original. It's good, but not my favorite. 4 for 7.

Roll Over Beethoven- Now this is better. George's vocals are better here, too. 5 for 8.

More later, but needless to say I MUCH prefer this to Please Please Me.

I don't hear ANY Beatles influence in Nirvana. That's one band I never "got". Just sounded like angry, depressed music from a guy that wanted to die. The Beatles always sounded joyful, especially the early stuff, such high energy, so much excitement.

It is an odd mesh of styles. What's even weirder, Kurt's favorite song was "If I Fell." He used to play it over the speakers at venues.

[Jay]

It's  worth it to mention that It Wont Be Long was actually recorded for the first album. I just thought it was kind of funny that Billy mentioned how much of an improvement it is over anything on the first record, because the song was first recorded for Please Please Me. The version issued as part of With The Beatles is a re-recorded version, but if I recall correctly there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

[MBE]

That's "Hold Me Tight" that was a remake not "It Won't Be Long".

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Resuming where I left off...

With the Beatles-

It won't be long- Fucking brilliant song. Blows away anything off of the debut, easily. One can hear how a band like, say, Nirvana, was influenced by this song. Love this track.

All I've got to do- Love the harmonies on this. Not as good as the opener, but few songs of this time period were. Already I hear a huge progression. 2 fo 2 here.

All My Loving- So far, this album has made me a believer. 3 for 3.

Don't Bother Me- Not bad, but my least favorite song so far. There are some cool parts here and there, but it sounds forced and lacks cohesion. 3 for 4.

Little Child- See previous track comments, although this is a bit better. It's okay. That's all I have to say, really. 3 for 5.

Til There was You- Love the opening. Nice vocals. Haven't heard the original, but this was nice. 4 for 6.

Please Mr Postman- Good cover, but can't top the original. It's good, but not my favorite. 4 for 7.

Roll Over Beethoven- Now this is better. George's vocals are better here, too. 5 for 8.

More later, but needless to say I MUCH prefer this to Please Please Me.

I don't hear ANY Beatles influence in Nirvana. That's one band I never "got". Just sounded like angry, depressed music from a guy that wanted to die. The Beatles always sounded joyful, especially the early stuff, such high energy, so much excitement.

That's crazy...songs like 'About a Girl' sound very much Beatle-esque (although it is more obvious in the acoustic version from Unplugged). Ignoring the lyrics and production...you can hear it in many of the key changes in their songs.

[guitarfool2002]

And it was either Cobain himself or another Nirvana band member who said About A Girl was a deliberate attempt to write a song that sounded like the Beatles.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It was a Dave Grohl quote

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

It was a Dave Grohl quote, which is odd as he wasn't in the band at the time it was recorded!

[JohnMill]

Cobain loved The Beatles and as it has been mentioned was specifically influenced by With (Meet) The Beatles in particular.  I remember him citing "All I've Got To Do" as a favorite.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[runnersdialzero]

I just wish you weren't assaulted with them from the moment you're born. You can't have a conversation about music without it going back to "TEH BEAT-ULZ? OGH!" about 3/4 of the time (or more), every form of media references them endlessly (do you think it's clever to reference the same thing everyone else is referencing, or what?), the endless shitty cover versions litter television/the radio/public places (which isn't really their fault, but seriously, stop that sh*t), and the world demonizes you if you don't agree that they're the greatest band of all time or even if you have something negative to say about the band, which is obscenely annoying. It's just like enough, already, we all get it.

I know the music should speak for itself, but it's extremely off-putting. I do genuinely like a couple dozen of their songs, probably, but several others do nothing for me or I just outright dislike them. I find a lot of their stuff horribly dated in all the wrong ways, too.

Also, just wanted to say I get so tired of people putting down Paul in comparison to John when, to me, Paul was by far the better writer, performer and seemingly person, generally speaking. Lennon had some great songs and great performances but is part of the reason I'm put off by the band. A lot of his stuff just feels like a drug trip gone terribly wrong, to me. I feel like Paul gets put down solely because he wanted to write good songs and occasionally wrote "softer" material, thus this sentiment comes from a kind of macho, "classic rawk" asshole attitude that I absolutely loathe, all the while ignoring that plenty of Paul's songs had tons of balls in one way or another.

[SMiLE-addict]

I agree with you, the growth is really quick. I equate it to Surfin USA being so much better an album than Surfin Safari.

Good observation. And one step further, I find that Hard Day's Night is similarly the same kind of big leap over With the Beatles  that Surfer Girl  is over Surfin' USA.

IMO Hard Day's Night and Surfer Girl were arguably each band's biggest songwriting breakthroughs. Among other things, in both albums, both bands discovered the art of writing really nice ballads.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yeah, there are structural similarities but With The Beatles sounds like an album with a lot more care and money put into it.

[guitarfool2002]

The main difference sonically between Please Please Me and With The Beatles is overdubbing, specifically double tracking. The way certain vocals and other parts were double tracked added a fullness and a certain character which Please Please Me did not have. Ultimately because Please Please Me was hastily recorded, and was basically a recreation of the Beatles' live show, with minimal overdubbing and no double tracking.

If you listen specifically to the overall sound, you'll immediately hear the more full sound of With The Beatles.

There was more popularity behind the band, advance orders for With The Beatles set some kind of sales record in the UK, but the more advanced sound through studio technology combined with maturing songwriting abilities made it stand out.

And you cannot give it a full review without including the singles "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", specifically She Loves You which I've already raved about several times in this thread.

And I also break from tradition here by suggesting a listen to Meet The Beatles. The flow and energy of that album, combined with trimming some of the fat in the form of leaving off a few lesser covers (while saving one cover which was top-notch for a later US release), and adding the latest US single actually improves the overall flow...and gives it a boost in excitement. Even though it did offer less tracks than the UK original.

Well worth seeking out, the Meet The Beatles album, especially on old original (very thick) vinyl.

[Jay]

That's "Hold Me Tight" that was a remake not "It Won't Be Long".

Oops.  I thought something about that wasn't right. That'll teach me to post something before checking. 

[smilethebeachboysloveyou]

I just wish you weren't assaulted with them from the moment you're born. You can't have a conversation about music without it going back to "TEH BEAT-ULZ? OGH!" about 3/4 of the time (or more), every form of media references them endlessly (do you think it's clever to reference the same thing everyone else is referencing, or what?), the endless shitty cover versions litter television/the radio/public places (which isn't really their fault, but seriously, stop that sh*t), and the world demonizes you if you don't agree that they're the greatest band of all time or even if you have something negative to say about the band, which is obscenely annoying. It's just like enough, already, we all get it.

I know the music should speak for itself, but it's extremely off-putting.

This is more or less how I feel about them.  They were a good band and have an important place in the history of rock and roll, but it's all been blown out of proportion and I find that the reverence that the entire world seems to have for them has prevented me from having a personal connection to their music.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

They were a good band and have an important place in the history of rock and roll, but it's all been blown out of proportion

But, what has been blown out of proportion?

and I find that the reverence that the entire world seems to have for them has prevented me from having a personal connection to their music.

Why? You don't like to share you personal connections with others?

[Bean Bag]

I understand this and can perhaps explain it.  It's the "everybody's doing it" mentality.  That turns off a lot of people.  It's instinctual.  But it's not applied universally -- there's some things that strike one hard enough to crack that reflex.  I liked Elvis immediately.  The Beach Boys, too.

Personally, I thought the Beatles were just okay -- nothing special.  Until I heard their later stuff I never saw much of anything unique in their work.  So that very real, honest (and correct  ) reaction, then coupled with the "everybody LOVES Paul and The Beatles" pandemonium, and -- voila! -- you get a big "whatever" from a lot of solid "heterosexual" music fans.  (I threw that in for laughs).

Their later stuff was kinda cool though.  Their early stuff seemed more impulse and fad -- BUT, looking back on it -- those early albums are amazingly strong with barely any filler.  So in retrospect their catalog is almost unparalleled in terms of quality for that era -- and they were much better overall than I gave them credit for.

[guitarfool2002]

A point separate from the music discussion.

It's just a bit odd to be living in a pop culture driven society where so much of what gets promoted in music, film, heck entertainment as a whole is driven by and dependent on the notion of "everyone's doing it". Look at the demographic which is targeted by those marketing pop acts such as Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. All of those acts being marketed to the same audience of teenage girls, primarily, who were the same market that was driving early Beatlemania. All of the crushes, the tears, the screaming, the all-out worship from afar of these pop stars.

How do those marketing these acts successfully place them in front of their core audience, or at least those who would be most likely to be the core audience?

For the most part, can even those music lovers and listeners whose daily lives revolve around listening to music in some way name more than one song by Beiber, One Direction, etc? And I'm not singling them out, it's just that they are the most obvious examples right now and I'd say they may soon be replaced by another fresh-faced act as soon as they either grow to old to be innocent enough for girls to crush on or decide to explore a bad-boy image and start acting silly in public, as Beiber seems to be doing now.

Isn't it more than a little peer pressure involved? Someone 14 years old sees their peer group going nuts over a performer, therefore they go nuts over a performer. The actual music product is secondary to the aura and the appeal of sharing the adulation with their peer group.

Social media has made this literally explode in ways no one prior to the 2000's could imagine. Although the seeds were sown by those like Lew Pearlman and his stable of boy bands, and before him Maurice "The General" Starr with his groups New Edition and NKOTB.

Their shelf life was established ahead of time, let's face it they had an expiration date where they'd eventually outgrow the teen-crush stage, and if individual members had more talent or initiative to go out on their own, as perhaps Justin Timberlake best demonstrates, they could cross over and appeal to a wider audience. And those groups whose members never succeeded beyond the teen idol stage could later come back as adults and do a nostalgia trip for their fans who had grown up and were now looking for a nice trip into the past and had more money of their own to spend as working adults.

To lump the Beatles into that group, as just another band who was driven by teen idolatry and various fads and whatnot, is to me not only silly but completely wrong on so many levels.

Should the Beatles then be considered as disposable and flavor-of-the-month as The Jonas Brothers, Hanson, Beiber, etc? Is it better to consider them as just another pop act and then their place in history will be more accurately represented for future generations?

That mentality and the quickness to jump on various hip music-freak circles and try to "put them in their place" by saying they're not all that special is so misguided and so not based on a consideration of history and context that it's almost not worth addressing. Yet it keeps coming out, someone has to say how much they think the band is overrated, the music sometimes good but not that great, etc.

In favor of what, exactly? The freak-folk or beard-rock bands and artists that are all over critics' lists today? An endless line of acoustic singer-songwriters? Bands who do the psych-pop trip and use the exact same bloody techniques in the studio that The Beatles and BW among others pioneered in 19-freakin-66? Hip-hop as it exists in 2013? What, exactly, should those who feel a deep connection to Beatles music instead consider so we're not overstating the influence of The Beatles to the detriment of more worthy music?

I'll restate again, the music of The Beatles is the legacy, and people are smart enough as a whole to seek it out on their own terms and either gravitate to it or decide it's not for them, despite what the smarter-than-the-room revisionists and hip critics may try to say.

And since the original Beatlemania teen idol hype itself went stale as soon as they grew moustaches and beards, the music is and will continue to be the ultimate legacy. Just as it is with the Beach Boys no matter how many odd twists and turns the personal issues of the band go through...people will hear the music and the legacy will continue based on that music.

And if the music were not of such a high quality, there would not be all ages and demographics today seeking it out.

[JohnMill]

A point separate from the music discussion.

It's just a bit odd to be living in a pop culture driven society where so much of what gets promoted in music, film, heck entertainment as a whole is driven by and dependent on the notion of "everyone's doing it". Look at the demographic which is targeted by those marketing pop acts such as Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. All of those acts being marketed to the same audience of teenage girls, primarily, who were the same market that was driving early Beatlemania. All of the crushes, the tears, the screaming, the all-out worship from afar of these pop stars.

How do those marketing these acts successfully place them in front of their core audience, or at least those who would be most likely to be the core audience?

For the most part, can even those music lovers and listeners whose daily lives revolve around listening to music in some way name more than one song by Beiber, One Direction, etc? And I'm not singling them out, it's just that they are the most obvious examples right now and I'd say they may soon be replaced by another fresh-faced act as soon as they either grow to old to be innocent enough for girls to crush on or decide to explore a bad-boy image and start acting silly in public, as Beiber seems to be doing now.

Isn't it more than a little peer pressure involved? Someone 14 years old sees their peer group going nuts over a performer, therefore they go nuts over a performer. The actual music product is secondary to the aura and the appeal of sharing the adulation with their peer group.

Social media has made this literally explode in ways no one prior to the 2000's could imagine. Although the seeds were sown by those like Lew Pearlman and his stable of boy bands, and before him Maurice "The General" Starr with his groups New Edition and NKOTB.

Their shelf life was established ahead of time, let's face it they had an expiration date where they'd eventually outgrow the teen-crush stage, and if individual members had more talent or initiative to go out on their own, as perhaps Justin Timberlake best demonstrates, they could cross over and appeal to a wider audience. And those groups whose members never succeeded beyond the teen idol stage could later come back as adults and do a nostalgia trip for their fans who had grown up and were now looking for a nice trip into the past and had more money of their own to spend as working adults.

To lump the Beatles into that group, as just another band who was driven by teen idolatry and various fads and whatnot, is to me not only silly but completely wrong on so many levels.

Should the Beatles then be considered as disposable and flavor-of-the-month as The Jonas Brothers, Hanson, Beiber, etc? Is it better to consider them as just another pop act and then their place in history will be more accurately represented for future generations?

That mentality and the quickness to jump on various hip music-freak circles and try to "put them in their place" by saying they're not all that special is so misguided and so not based on a consideration of history and context that it's almost not worth addressing. Yet it keeps coming out, someone has to say how much they think the band is overrated, the music sometimes good but not that great, etc.

In favor of what, exactly? The freak-folk or beard-rock bands and artists that are all over critics' lists today? An endless line of acoustic singer-songwriters? Bands who do the psych-pop trip and use the exact same bloody techniques in the studio that The Beatles and BW among others pioneered in 19-freakin-66? Hip-hop as it exists in 2013? What, exactly, should those who feel a deep connection to Beatles music instead consider so we're not overstating the influence of The Beatles to the detriment of more worthy music?

I'll restate again, the music of The Beatles is the legacy, and people are smart enough as a whole to seek it out on their own terms and either gravitate to it or decide it's not for them, despite what the smarter-than-the-room revisionists and hip critics may try to say.

And since the original Beatlemania teen idol hype itself went stale as soon as they grew moustaches and beards, the music is and will continue to be the ultimate legacy. Just as it is with the Beach Boys no matter how many odd twists and turns the personal issues of the band go through...people will hear the music and the legacy will continue based on that music.

And if the music were not of such a high quality, there would not be all ages and demographics today seeking it out.

I think a lot of what you speak of can be written off as the generation gap when it comes to music that has been going on forever and will continue to persist long after all of us have perished from this earth.  Lets go back to the era of "Beatlemania" for a minute and look at how society at the time regarded them which today really can be seen laid bare as nothing else than a lost opportunity.  Perhaps Derek Taylor put it best in the "Anthology" when he stated as a critic he didn't follow or write up on any pop acts because there was no rhyme or reason to them and none had any longevity.  The Beatles obviously changed that and when Taylor came into contact with them obviously also shifted his career in an entirely different direction.  However, those were the attitudes at the time, "The Silent Generation" as they have been deemed just didn't understand "Beatlemania".

To be fair given the somewhat repressive and conformative culture especially in the United States in the early sixties I'm sure "Beatlemania" seemed very strange to the majority of society.  So what you had were dismissive attitudes alongside attitudes of sheet bewilderment to how pop culture was about to change the world.  It's truly unfortunate that nobody in the sixties had the foresight to sit John Lennon and Paul McCartney down for an in depth interview about the meanings/stories behind their songs or any type of intellectual discussion about their music at all.  Instead most of society was more preoccupied with aesthetics in particular their haircuts and other banal topics of discussion.

I must admit it does bother me for example that when listening to "The Silent Generation" speak of the pop groups of the sixties how dismissive they are of their talents.  Now I have a great deal of admiration for Frank Sinatra and the era of the big band music but I'm also realistic in understanding that The Beatles, The Beach Boys and a number of their contemporaries easily surpassed the talents of the artists' of the previous generation in terms of overall talent.  So it is a shame that society at the time aside from the burgeoning baby boomer generation missed out on probably the greatest music revolution since the days of the classical composers.  Even sadder is that the reason they missed out was due to sheer ignorance.

But again to be fair there are a lot of baby-boomers today and music fans of subsequent generations who prefer the music of the sixties who are openly dismissive of other forms of music such as rap or even the aforementioned Justin Timberlake.  Now some of that comes down to personal taste while some of it comes down having extremely high standards in terms of appreciating music.  Whatever it is it persists onwards.

However, I am not as sure that generations from now the majority of people will still harken back to the music of the sixites.  I think we are already starting to see The Big Band era of music being forgotten or looked upon as antiquated as aside from hardcore music lovers there really isn't a market anymore for the music of that era outside of being the soundtrack to your local Olive Garden restaurant.  It's also important to remember since we are talking about The Beatles that around two decades ago, the band got a huge shot in the arm with the "Anthology" project which although did not replicate the original wave of "Beatlemania" still made a lot of people who were not part of the baby boomer generation fans of the group and many of them remain fans to this day due large in part to the "Anthology era".  I often wonder if there was no "Beatles Anthology" what would the state of The Beatles brand be today?  I'm sure it would be healthy but perhaps not as marketable as it is today.  So in essence from where I stand "The Beatles: Anthology" project extended the group's shelf life for at least another several decades but I can't write off the possibly that much like the music of the big band era, that The Beatles and their contemporaries will one day fail to reach an audience outside of those aforementioned hardcore music lovers.

[JohnMill]

Back to The Beatles (and a lot of ground to cover:)

John Lennon: Saying that Paul McCartney was by far the better songwriter than John Lennon is far from fact.  That isn't putting McCartney down by any means especially on my part as it is his music which I personally tend to gravitate to when it comes to The Beatles (especially the solo years).  However, John Lennon was an amazing songwriter arguably the best of his generation and that can't be dismissed by any stretch of the imagination.  He also possessed one of the most amazing voices in the history of rock music with an uncanny ability to take the rock and roll standards he grew up with and elevate them to another level from his sheer vocal delivery.  He was a man who wore his heart on his sleeve, was unafraid of sharing his passions with the world and is someone to this day is discussed by Beatles fans more as if they lost a friend or a brother than an entertainer they never knew personality.  John Lennon was an incredible touchstone, the soul of The Beatles and his loss I still rank as the most profound loss that the generation whom he help shape have probably ever experienced.  The assassination of John F. Kennedy from where I stand signaled the symbolic end of one generation, the murder of John Lennon, the end of the next.  

Paul McCartney: There is little doubt (in fact no doubt) that revisionist history has not been at all kind to Paul McCartney.  For many of the reasons "Cried So Hard..." stated Paul McCartney has been destined to be looked upon by history as somewhat of a saccharine balladeer, nowhere near the creative genius of his late songwriting partner John Lennon.  This is obviously false in every way and what is truly upsetting is how the truth of the matter has been obscured by history.  The truth being that it was McCartney not John Lennon who was the member of The Beatles who was a part of the "swinging London" scene, who jetted over to the United States to pick up on the pop culture and revolution that was encompassing Los Angeles in 1966.  It was McCartney who brought records by groups such as The Beach Boys, The Byrds and The Lovin' Spoonfull to the attention of his mates although to John Lennon's credit he apparently was the member of the group to first discover Bob Dylan.

Macca was also equally if not moreso intrigued by experimental music than John Lennon.  According to Barry Miles both he and McCartney set up a small recording studio in Ringo Starr's abandoned flat in Montague Square with the hopes of recording experimental music there intended for release.  Obviously nothing came of this other than the fact that there is little doubt that these projects certainly influenced the unreleased McCartney sound collage "Carnival Of Light" recorded by The Beatles at EMI in early 1967, a full year and a half before Lennon's "Revolution 9" sound collage was committed to tape.  However these facts go largely unknown by the general public and despite McCartney's recent efforts to paint his craft in a somewhat broader light, most fans still want to hear him play "Yesterday".  

I should also state at this point that it is my belief that Paul McCartney did himself an incredible and perhaps immeasurable amount of harm with the infamous press release issued alongside the "McCartney" album where he announced to the world in extremely terse terms that he had left The Beatles.  The press at the time simply had a field day with this piece and demonized McCartney for breaking up the world's greatest act when in reality it was McCartney himself who tried the hardest to keep The Beatles intact in the waning days of the band.  This press release put McCartney in a bad odor for the first few years of his solo career where it became suddenly acceptable for critics to bash McCartney's musical endeavors without second thought.  Jon Landau most notably the producer of Bruce Springsteen's records upon the release of the "RAM Deluxe Edition" last year suddenly found himself having to answer for a scathing review he gave of the record back in 1971 when he was a music critic.  Landau's trouncing of a record which many now regard as one of McCartney's finest works can be seen as nothing other than a vendetta shared by many critics at the time looking to harshly trounce "the man who broke up The Beatles".  Forty years afterwards Landau at least had the decency to come forth and retract his review.  Others have never had to answer for their cutthroat actions.

Unfortunately as time (and years) went on it almost became acceptable for critics to continually tear shreds off of McCartney instead of paying homage to the great musician that was in their midst.  These type of reviews persisted until McCartney reached "Living Legend" status sometime in the mid nineties as one of rock's elder statesmen.  However the tributes and the respect paid to McCartney in this fan's opinion has come years too late and has unfortunately presented somewhat of an alternate reality as it pertains to McCartney's career.

A Hard Day's Night:  Easily the first classic Beatles album although that isn't to say the first two are all that shabby either.  To think that the majority of "Please Please Me" was recorded in one day at EMI Studios is still something that should boggle the mind of most music fans given some of the high quality songs on that record.  The covers in particular on "Please Please Me" are stunners with John Lennon in particular interpreting his idols with particular aplomb.  George Harrison isn't too shabby here either as "Chains" is absolutely FAB and "Do You Want To Know A Secret?" an underrated pop song.  

Overview: While The Beatles will always be my first and foremost musical love, I must admit that in the past several years their music has gotten a little bit stale for me.  In my opinion Apple has fallen behind the times and their line of thinking is nowhere near those in charge of marketing the music of The Beatles contemporaries.  Dylan's "Bootleg Series", The Beach Boys' endless archival releases as well as myriads of others sixties acts still releasing rare and previously unheard product to their fanbases have all done their legacy a far better service than what Apple has done for The Beatles.

In essence what I'm saying here is almost twenty years removed from "Anthology" it's time for some new Beatles music.  If not a box set on the level of MIC, then a two disc "Hawthorne" type package filled with rarities and obscurities that have still yet to reach even the most hardcore Beatles fan.  Heck go in and finish "Now And Then" if you so please Macca as I'd like to hear a "new Beatles song" on the radio.  The bottom line is there are only so many times you can listen to "Rubber Soul", "Sgt. Pepper" and "The White Album" before they all become routine.  I should know as I spent a period of around fifteen years listening to all of The Beatles' records on a regular basis.  That being said I envy people such as our Global Moderator who are just getting into the band as there are many beautiful discoveries to be found within their catalog.  They are in no way shape or form overrated and their legacy has not been blown out of proportion due to the simple reason that even if you don't care for how the public views their catalog, it's very hard to knock the catalog itself in any way, shape or form.

[Bean Bag]

I keep seeing the term "revisionist history" -- but, just to qualify it for me, there were a lot of people who didn't think the Beatles were all that.  I was born after they broke up, but my father's opinion at the time was "I liked them for 5 minutes."  They grated on him and sounded whiny.  30 years later, this was my opinion of them too -- and to this day.  There's nothing revisionist about that -- just so it's clear.

Their stardom is generally pretty well established as is their longevity and appeal to today's audience.  I don't think anyone's really arguing with that.  I think what some may be saying -- or I may infer based on my own opinion -- is that despite their obvious and wide appeal -- their music doesn't match the stature.  They had no impact on blues, gospel, country -- pillars of rock.  I would even suggest that their legacy may lessen over time as baby boomers and their offspring vacate the globe.  That's arguable... and I'm not sure I even care much to defend that opinion, cuz I don't care.

That said, I like the Beatles and get into them (for some reason in the fall??) and play the mono box a lot when I am.  Then I quickly get over it (2-3 weeks) and leave the experience no greater than I was -- and unable to really stomach much interest during the "off-season."

   It's like fast food or something -- it's tasty but I don't want to write a book about it.  They're cute.  In the end, I think it helps if one relates to the artist in some way.  Feels what they're saying.  Is moved by the under-toe.  I usually don't feel anything deeply moving in their music -- and without a whole lot of nostalgia and emotional ties to their ride -- I'm good with the few times a year I dive in.

[Heysaboda]

....... In my opinion Apple has fallen behind the times and their line of thinking is nowhere near those in charge of marketing the music of The Beatles contemporaries.  Dylan's "Bootleg Series", The Beach Boys' endless archival releases as well as myriads of others sixties acts still releasing rare and previously unheard product to their fanbases have all done their legacy a far better service than what Apple has done for The Beatles.

In essence what I'm saying here is almost twenty years removed from "Anthology" it's time for some new Beatles music.  If not a box set on the level of MIC, then a two disc "Hawthorne" type package filled with rarities and obscurities that have still yet to reach even the most hardcore Beatles fan.  Heck go in and finish "Now And Then" if you so please Macca as I'd like to hear a "new Beatles song" on the radio.  The bottom line is there are only so many times you can listen to "Rubber Soul", "Sgt. Pepper" and "The White Album" before they all become routine........... 

VERY VERY nicely said, John.  I agree 100%!

-- David

[guitarfool2002]

I'll try to keep this shorter than before...

There was a mention of big band music as a style that got pegged as coming from a previous generation. I agree, however I think a key element is being missed for what will prevent the Beatles and bands of the 60's generation from falling into the same category.

Attainability combined with relatability.

I'm speaking as a musician who also teaches young musicians, and it's part of how I keep up with what younger listeners are interested in.

Big band music has become as much nostalgia as it became impractical. If you were (or are) a musician interested in big band, where is your outlet? Are there many big bands out there to join? Are there many recording and actively touring and performing? Can a random trumpet player decide to form a big band and after making a few calls and calling rehearsals make it a reality?

Then you see the self-contained bands like The Beatles. They look like people around you, regular guys in other words. No super-human aura or unreachable celebrity status like Elvis, or even Michael Jackson in his superstar years. These were four regular looking lads who played two guitars, bass, and drums. If you wanted to be like the Beatles, grab three musician friends and start playing songs together. And write some too, if you could.

Most bands from the Beatles onward had that same element, the fact that you did not need to join a union, practice sight reading and learn a book full of dusty standards before you could even think of joining a working big band. Non-musicians watching the Beatles saw four guys playing music, whereas when you'd see Elvis or even Sinatra doing the same thing, you saw either a full-on stage production, choreographed to the nines, or in Elvis' case a very talented guy with great looks that made him appear like he was too good to be real.

Also the aspect non-musicians may not realize: The sounds many artists in 2013 are still chasing on their recordings are nearly the same sounds that bands like the Beatles and their peers developed in the 60's. Look at the hype around a band like Tame Impala...I'd argue they're chasing those sonic elements from all the usual 60's landmark albums and songs.

The sounds survived every generation, people in their teens still want to hear certain things and will gravitate to them.

Yet, sounds and certain sonic gimmicks alone cannot sustain a style of music that lacks in songwriting. Look at dubstep - it's already stagnant in many ways. It was new, bold, trailblazing, fresh...then people noticed they were hearing a lot of rehashes of similar themes built around a sonic hook known as the "bass drop". How can you sustain an entire genre of music based on one sonic element?

Short answer, you can't. Just like you cannot keep a style like big band (as much as I love it) vital and marketable by rearranging the same Ellington charts and songbook numbers which have been on bandstands since the 1930's. There is only so much you can do with the same old material.

And eventually anything new in such a style will sound so close to the benchmarks of the original golden-age of that style that folks will go back to the originals. How many ways can you rework "Satin Doll" so it sounds like something other than "Satin Doll"?

How many tracks can a dubstep artist release with the same bass-drop hooks and structure before it becomes rote formula?

Look at two of the bigger summer hits of 2013 - Daft Punk and at least in the US, Robin Thicke. Radio-friendly, catchy as hell, great grooves, sound great on any system as party jams. But they're essentially records from 1978. The Thicke single is a near-copy of Marvin Gaye's record which formed the sample to make the groove. Not saying it's not a cool production, but if you can play the Marvin Gaye record and get the exact same groove and basically the same good-time vibe, is the singer Thicke anything more than a guest artist on a Marvin Gaye record?

I'm just saying if the majority of hit records today were using similar sounds as big band, and if big bands were something more attainable, perhaps the style would not be considered as old-fashioned and retro.

On the flip side, the fact that you can listen to any number of rock, alternative, country, etc songs and hear sounds and certain grooves that were on records from the Beatles and other 60's artists, it remains a vital sound. It isn't nostalgia if you hear a band in 2013 with a hit record featuring drum sounds from Sgt Pepper, or a certain guitar sound from Revolver.

As long as the sounds remain current and marketable (and attainable), the bands which pioneered those sounds will remain in the public eye. And deservedly so, because unlike styles like big band, or bossa nova, or doo-wop, or acid jazz, or whatever else, they have longevity and staying power through the timeless elements of their music.

If I didn't have younger students on a weekly basis who are excited about Beatles, Who, Stones, etc music, I'd say that perhaps the style/genres of the 60's bands could fall into the nostalgia category very soon. But I don't see that happening.

[JohnMill]

I keep seeing the term "revisionist history" -- but, just to qualify it for me, there were a lot of people who didn't think the Beatles were all that.  I was born after they broke up, but my father's opinion at the time was "I liked them for 5 minutes."  They grated on him and sounded whiny.  30 years later, this was my opinion of them too -- and to this day.  There's nothing revisionist about that -- just so it's clear.

How old is your father by chance?  Because that is another issue I wanted to address but forgot about in my last post.  The point being that during the era of "Beatlemania" that the girls were much more easily won over than the boys.  History however has written it that the day after The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, tons of teenage males went out, bought guitars and formed garage bands thereby hothousing most of the rock acts that would dominate the decade of the seventies.  I'm not saying that this didn't happen and in fact there is evidence that youngsters by the names of Steven Tyler, Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen did just that in the wake of The British Invasion.  However, I think the average teenage male living in The United States at the time of The Beatles' appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" weren't as widely won over as history would like us to think.

I think the reason being is there were a couple of factors at play.  My father for instance in 1964 was just recently enrolled in the Peace Corps and just starting to put his feet out into the adult world as it were.  He has told me on several occasions he remembers Derek Taylor's "The Beatles Are Coming" campaign of late 1963/early 1964 but can honestly not remember much else firsthand about The Beatles other than their music was all over the radio in the following months.  He wasn't a fan.  He and a lot of his friends (all in their very late teens to early twenties at the time) were all into folk music and more of the non confrontational folk music of the era (read: Not Bob Dylan).  From where I stand from the stories he's told me, he and his friends were kind of squares.  They wore madras shirts and stuff like that.  None of them to my knowledge wore The Beatle haircut.  The point being that there was this pocket of the baby boomer generation that didn't necessarily go mad for The Beatles.  My opinion is they felt they were a bit beyond all that and "Beatlemania" was for the girls.  My dad did dig The Beach Boys though and has told me a story about being pulled over by a copper for speeding along to "Fun Fun Fun".  So maybe not as above it as they thought.

I think though even if you watch that "Ed Sullivan Show" you'll see some teenage guys in the audience and they are nowhere near as going as nuts for The Beatles as the girls are.  In fact they are pretty stoic perhaps regarding The Beatles the way many of us regard Justin Bieber today.  

Another factor is and I believe this to be true is that The Beach Boys by early 1964 had already cultivated quite a loyal fanbase.  I have a friend whose father grew up in New York at the time we are discussing and he says that his youth wasn't dominated by The Beatles or The British Invasion but The California Sound.  He loved The Beach Boys, Jan And Dean and all that stuff.  Even the somewhat more obscure surf groups.  So my feeling is there had to be others like him at the time that really remained loyal to The Beach Boys and the bands like them even in light of Beatlemania.  Of course this pocket of fans was easily dwarfed by the majority (including my mother) who loved both The Beach Boys and The Beatles.