The Beatles *sigh*

[JohnMill]

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.

See but that is exactly what I dig about Sinatra.  He was sort of this alpha male who not only possessed one of the great singing voices known to man but just had this aura about him that really defined the male of his generation.  I loved how he dressed, how he carried himself, the way he spoke.  His appeal is that he wasn't a regular guy walking down the street.  He was The Chairman Of The Board.  To me it is he not Steve McQueen who was The King Of Cool.  Unfortunately in Sinatra's case as is the case for most males of his generation have been written off as being somewhat stuffy or antiquated by today's standards but in reality during their era they were anything but.  I love The Rat Pack and I probably love them more for their persona than their individual or collective contributions to entertainment. 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

Since when does having an impact on blues, gospel, or country matter when evaluating a rock-pop band? Country was a genre that was so closed-minded and "traditional" that they did not allow either a drum set nor too much electricity in the form of guitars and whatnot on their main showcase stage, the Grand Ole Opry, until 1974. That's a fact that few today realize, especially since country has crossed over since the 60's - it was a very uptight and closed style of music. No drums allowed on the main stage until 1974 - can you imagine that? "Longhairs" like The Byrds were not allowed on that stage, then when they finally were they got jeered and heckled - despite members of the band like Gram Parsons loving country music with all their heart and soul and wanting to be a part of the legacy. But, no, the "image" didn't fit.

So The Beatles were expected to have an impact there?

Gospel music - a niche market. Those performers who say they were impacted and influenced by Gospel music outnumber those who actively buy the records, this has been the case since the 60's. Apart from Elvis' sacred albums, name one contemporary Gospel artist without consulting a Google search. Kirk Franklin, perhaps? That style is grounded in tradition, and traditional sounds, like The Five Blind Boys still feature. Again, how and why would a group like The Beatles influence a very specific, very niche style of music?

Blues - A very specific style with a specific set of rules. If you take to the blues stage and try to vary the formula by changing song structure or venturing too far outside the accepted song forms, rhythms, and chord structures which haven't changed since the 40's for the most part, you get shunned by the core audience. Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys didn't do blues at all, their legacy as influential musicians seems pretty secure. Are the Beatles a different standard?

I totally respect and honor the opinion if someone just doesn't feel as close to the music and says so. But there is a difference between doing that in a level-headed way, and going to the extremes which I have seen too often of trying to bash the band outright or tear down a musical legacy by applying certain criteria or for reasons based on something other than the history behind all this music.

And I'm not singling anyone out, but can we agree there is a difference between someone saying about any artist "they suck" versus "I never really got into the music"?  

[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.

See but that is exactly what I dig about Sinatra.  He was sort of this alpha male who not only possessed one of the great singing voices known to man but just had this aura about him that really defined the male of his generation.  I loved how he dressed, how he carried himself, the way he spoke.  His appeal is that he wasn't a regular guy walking down the street.  He was The Chairman Of The Board.  To me it is he not Steve McQueen who was The King Of Cool.  Unfortunately in Sinatra's case as is the case for most males of his generation have been written off as being somewhat stuffy or antiquated by today's standards but in reality during their era they were anything but.  I love The Rat Pack and I probably love them more for their persona than their individual or collective contributions to entertainment. 

And what you dig about Sinatra is exactly the difference between his generation of musicians and the Beatles generation and all that followed in their wake. You could walk, dress, and act like Sinatra to emulate him, but his aura remained untouchable no matter how much you applied yourself to working at doing what he did. His talents and his whole act was so removed from most people's reality, due to the fact that he was such a unique and gifted talent.

Compare that level of attainability to the thousands of teenagers watching Ed Sullivan in February 1964 who were inspired to start a band and play music, and with a few cheap instruments, some good friends, and a few chords they went ahead and started bands of their own.

I suggest it was because what they saw and heard in The Beatles was close enough to their own realities - as regular people if you will, not possessing incredible looks or sharp clothes or even a trained voice - that they felt a more personal connection. If you didn't look or sing like Elvis, if you couldn't sing or dance like Sinatra or even afford the clothes, you could still do what you saw The Beatles doing.

[Lonely Summer]

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.

That's how I feel about the Stones - or Nirvana, for that matter. For the most part, my tastes do not align with the critically acclaimed bands. You know, the ones that are in Rolling Stone every week.  I lived through the grunge era, I was in Seattle....couldn't escape it. and there were times I really wanted to! My taste in music leans more towards the softer side, hence, I became a fan of the melodic Beatles and Beach Boys and Byrds and Badfinger.

[JohnMill]

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.

See but that is exactly what I dig about Sinatra.  He was sort of this alpha male who not only possessed one of the great singing voices known to man but just had this aura about him that really defined the male of his generation.  I loved how he dressed, how he carried himself, the way he spoke.  His appeal is that he wasn't a regular guy walking down the street.  He was The Chairman Of The Board.  To me it is he not Steve McQueen who was The King Of Cool.  Unfortunately in Sinatra's case as is the case for most males of his generation have been written off as being somewhat stuffy or antiquated by today's standards but in reality during their era they were anything but.  I love The Rat Pack and I probably love them more for their persona than their individual or collective contributions to entertainment.  

And what you dig about Sinatra is exactly the difference between his generation of musicians and the Beatles generation and all that followed in their wake. You could walk, dress, and act like Sinatra to emulate him, but his aura remained untouchable no matter how much you applied yourself to working at doing what he did. His talents and his whole act was so removed from most people's reality, due to the fact that he was such a unique and gifted talent.

Compare that level of attainability to the thousands of teenagers watching Ed Sullivan in February 1964 who were inspired to start a band and play music, and with a few cheap instruments, some good friends, and a few chords they went ahead and started bands of their own.

I suggest it was because what they saw and heard in The Beatles was close enough to their own realities - as regular people if you will, not possessing incredible looks or sharp clothes or even a trained voice - that they felt a more personal connection. If you didn't look or sing like Elvis, if you couldn't sing or dance like Sinatra or even afford the clothes, you could still do what you saw The Beatles doing.

I guess I can appreciate it from both sides.  From a music perspective I'm far more in "Camp Beatle" than I am in "Camp Sinatra".  I actually think those who subscribe to the school of thought that once you've heard "Fly Me To The Moon", you've gotten gist of Sinatra aren't exactly wrong.  Much of his catalog sounds like well other songs in his catalog.  Also the fact that he didn't write his own music is a major strike mark against him in my book which is why I feel it's a pity that there was a generation back in the sixties who felt Sinatra's music was more serious or more important than the music of say The Beatles or The Beach Boys.  I understand why they felt this way but it's unfortunate not to mention more than arguably inaccurate.  The Beatles and The Beach Boys wrote their own material, Sinatra aside from a few credits did not.

However from a purely aesthetic point of view I'm in "Camp Sinatra" all the way.  It's probably what turned me off by and large to the grunge movement of the nineties despite the fact that in my opinion there were some great music to be found within that genre.  The thought that these musicians would show up onstage looking as if they were loaded out of their minds was a complete turn off to me.  I felt it to be extremely disrespectful to their audience who likely didn't care because for the most part they were just as loaded if not more so than the musicians on stage.  Likewise I'm a huge fan of Bruce Springsteen's catalog but it has often baffled me how someone who is worth millions of dollars can continually sing about hard luck?  To me Sinatra looked like a million bucks, carried himself like he was the alpha male of his generation and never pretended to be anything other than what he was.  That is why I respect the heck out of Sinatra.  Kind of dig where pop culture was at too when he was at his peak too.  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

Man...you're  not kidding about what it's like for a neophyte. I kind of 'cheated' and skipped ahead. Two things...right now, I'm not that crazy about Sgt Pepper. But...Revolver is fucking incredible. I'm going to go back, though, and go in order.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[LetHimRun]

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.

Man...you're  not kidding about what it's like for a neophyte. I kind of 'cheated' and skipped ahead. Two things...right now, I'm not that crazy about Sgt Pepper. But...Revolver is fucking incredible. I'm going to go back, though, and go in order.

Sgt. Pepper takes quite a bit of listens to "get" if you know what I mean. It grows on you, but hey, it definitely doesn't grow on everyone. I can pretty well do without When I'm 64 and Within You Without You (the better of the two, but a little too long in duration IMHO).

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

Man...you're  not kidding about what it's like for a neophyte. I kind of 'cheated' and skipped ahead. Two things...right now, I'm not that crazy about Sgt Pepper. But...Revolver is fucking incredible. I'm going to go back, though, and go in order.

I agree, Rubber Soul, Revolver and Abbey Road are all way better than Sgt. Peppers IMO.

Well, yes, Rubber Soul, Revolver and, in my view, The White Album are better albums than Pepper but I would still say that Pepper is a phenomenal album and certainly in my top 20 personal favourites. The ones I like best on the album are (perhaps in spots unconventionally) Pepper, Lucy, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home, Within You, Good Morning, Reprise, and, of course, Day in the Life. For some reason "Good Morning, Good Morning" gets put down a lot but I love the hazy rockers that Lennon was doing in this era: And Your Bird Can Sing, Good Morning Good Morning, and Baby You're a Rich Man are three great songs to listen to on a sunny, summer day.

Abbey Road is my least favourite of the big five (RS, R, SP, WA, AR) though, again, it's a great album. Come Together is not my favourite hit - after a run of singles like Day Tripper, We Can Work It Out, Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, All You Need is Love, Hey Jude, and Get Back, I find that Come Together lacks a little something (though I could say the same for Hello Goodbye). Furthermore, the seventeen minute and a half run from Maxwell to I Want You is seventeen and a half minutes of lesser Beatles for that era, in my view. That still means that the music is better than most of what was being made at the time, but not necessarily at the standard set by the band, especially when compared to Side B of Abbey Road which may be the best album side they ever produced. Again, Abbey Road is probably in my top 25 albums (Side B, and Something are really crucial here though) so don't take these criticisms as severe. Also, AR is definitely a great sounding record. The band at their most pristine.

[Bean Bag]

Since when does having an impact on blues, gospel, or country matter when evaluating a rock-pop band?

Part of being a cultural force equates to reaching across boundaries of all sorts.  But you're right, that's a weak point as written.  I may have been reaching for something like "they didn't have an impact like --- or they ain't pillars like blues, gospel, country" -- they weren't that important.  Came out prematurely but... the rest of my post was really good!

...there is a difference between someone saying about any artist "they suck" versus "I never really got into the music"?  

Well, I agree with you there.  I hope I conveyed those ideals.  I would also add, it's lonely at the top.     Elvis took his fair share of lumps.  Was Clapton God?  Was Hendrix the best?  I think it's their turn to be tested... and generations come in and reevaluate.  As they should.  And we can't be there to defend it forever, if that's one's prerogative.  It would be interesting to see how well they hold up.

[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.

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.  

In 1964, my father would have been 20/21.  But his younger sister was/is the biggest Beatles fan on the planet.  But I don't know if that had much to do with it.  There was a line around that generation... Elvis, Beach Boys, and Doo-Wop golden oldies, malt-shop, 57 Chevys, Greasers.  Versus the younger kids that went for the Beatles, touchy feely, and more of the froo-froo, fluffy, puffy-shirt stuff of the later-60s.

Maybe it was the birth control pill?

I like both.  Perhaps I got more of a bond for the former (with a lot of huge exceptions).  Instinctively I relate to the less serious side of art.  I like Sha-na-na.  But... I have a firm sense (and need) of dabbling in the latter.  I don't think I could take either camp too long.  I usually listen to jazz anyway!   

[SMiLE-addict]

Sgt. Pepper takes quite a bit of listens to "get" if you know what I mean. It grows on you, but hey, it definitely doesn't grow on everyone. I can pretty well do without When I'm 64 and Within You Without You (the better of the two, but a little too long in duration IMHO).

Not sure how many people are aware of this, but When I'm 64 was deliberately put right after Within You Without You because the two songs are polar opposites. Side 2 opens with this mystical, dead-serious philosophical and exotic song, which is immediately followed by one of McCartney's "schmaltzy" songs. IMO it works great - the contrast and change in mood could not have been more drastic.

Personally I like When I'm 64, yes it's schmaltzy but in a good, catchy way. I particularly like the harmonies and woodwinds in the line, "You'll be older too." That and a couple other lines make the song a bit more than a standard schmaltzy tune.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard the Lennon-McCartney interview from 1967 just as Pepper is about to come out (I think)? It's the one where they call Within You, Without You the best thing that George has done. For some reason, this point sticks out for me. I still find it really interesting that a few years later when Lennon was being interviewed after Abbey Road with Something and Here Comes the Sun, he stated that he still thought Within You Without You was George's best song. I've always been a bit fascinated by what music Lennon and McCartney were into through this period and I wonder what it was about WYWY that appealed so much to them. Outside of WYWY, Lennon frequently downplayed Pepper as an album, in part probably because he didn't want any single thing defining him as an artist.

[guitarfool2002]

Since when does having an impact on blues, gospel, or country matter when evaluating a rock-pop band?

Part of being a cultural force equates to reaching across boundaries of all sorts.  But you're right, that's a weak point as written.  I may have been reaching for something like "they didn't have an impact like --- or they ain't pillars like blues, gospel, country" -- they weren't that important.  Came out prematurely but... the rest of my post was really good!

...there is a difference between someone saying about any artist "they suck" versus "I never really got into the music"?  

Well, I agree with you there.  I hope I conveyed those ideals.  I would also add, it's lonely at the top.     Elvis took his fair share of lumps.  Was Clapton God?  Was Hendrix the best?  I think it's their turn to be tested... and generations come in and reevaluate.  As they should.  And we can't be there to defend it forever, if that's one's prerogative.  It would be interesting to see how well they hold up.

Great post! The clarification of the first point was needed, I read it a certain way and reacted to that when your message was different than what I reacted to.

It's a solid point but at the same time I'd point out that The Beatles as a whole influenced all styles of music, and for proof of that look at the wide range of artists who covered Beatle tunes from jazz to soul to classical to country to Sinatra. And most musicians, of a certain age especially, will point to their music as a universal influence across any lines of style and genre.

I might say they are up there with those other styles.  Just like Sinatra, Ellington, Elvis etc..."Beyond Category".

On the second point, I agree, and I think some artists like Michael Jackson are due for a serious re-evaluation. Because as I posted earlier in this thread, I see his music which at the time it was released was not widely praised or beloved and in some cases was considered something of a letdown by his fans. Yet it seems in the shadow of a tragic death, his entire catalog is being praised...

...and it's just not that good. In fact in some cases, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and it didn't when it was still fresh in the record stores. Yet, the earlier Jackson 5 brings tears to my eyes because it's so good and Michael himself was too talented to be real, like a voice that's one in a billion from a little kid, basically, with the soul of a 40 year old, and of course Off The Wall and Thriller are and always will be essential albums for anyone's music library. *Essential*

But his death has seemingly wiped clean all of the things he did post-Thriller (let's say anything after 1987), and a lot of those things were not only embarrassing but also tarnished his legacy, his image, alienated all but the most devoted fans, and made a lot of people question his judgement, professional, personal, and musical. Be3cause pardon the pun, a lot of it was *bad*. 

Or maybe the negative imagery obfuscated some good songs? Some great songs? Or perhaps the negative reactions he got then were actually warranted, the music really was not that good?

There is a classic case for reevaluation.

I've noticed a shift in Clapton recently too. The music he made which fans thought was more cool or intense is perhaps not what they listen to regularly now. Goodfellas helped Layla's mojo and legacy immensely. Certain songs and solos may have held up as classic rock staples, but it's honestly hard to listen to some of Cream's extended jams, especially Ginger and Jack. And Clapton's 80's sound and tone? Didn't dig it then, don't dig it now.    No reevaluation necessary there.

Yet he was in the 80's one of my bigger influences while learning guitar, especially his Cream and early 70's era.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Will George be re-united with his ticker-tape machine?

[guitarfool2002]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard the Lennon-McCartney interview from 1967 just as Pepper is about to come out (I think)? It's the one where they call Within You, Without You the best thing that George has done. For some reason, this point sticks out for me. I still find it really interesting that a few years later when Lennon was being interviewed after Abbey Road with Something and Here Comes the Sun, he stated that he still thought Within You Without You was George's best song. I've always been a bit fascinated by what music Lennon and McCartney were into through this period and I wonder what it was about WYWY that appealed so much to them. Outside of WYWY, Lennon frequently downplayed Pepper as an album, in part probably because he didn't want any single thing defining him as an artist.

Have you read Geoff Emerick's book? I'm not one on assumptions but I'm assuming not because Emerick goes into some pretty deep detail about how and why he also felt Within You Without You was a very special song to record, from the musical to the technical, and even personal aspects of it. Or if you do have the book, go back to the sections on that song, they're very inspirational from a musical sense.

I'm not one to hector anyone into buying a book, so if you'd like the quotes maybe I can pull a few scans from the pages if it's not available online somewhere.

Basically Emerick, Martin, Lennon, McCartney, et al watched as a song blossomed from a dull, dirge-like song George demo'ed for them into something beautiful and unique, which had elements in the music literally no one else had done extensively or was doing. And that also includes the way certain traditional Indian instruments were recorded, and that is one factor of many in why Emerick won the Grammy for engineering the Sgt Pepper album.

Hint: Listen to what George Martin wrote for the strings to play, the technique and the way they attack certain notes. It was a totally new sound for classical strings, at least to that degree, and after WYWY it became a fad among other arrangers writing for strings and is now is common.

And listen to how close and how resonant  and vibrant some of the traditional Indian instruments were recorded and sound - that's Emerick's innovation, literally *no one* mic'ed nor recorded and processed/mixed those traditional instruments that way, and most engineers had never encountered them at all let alone devised new ways to capture their sound. After that, everyone wanted that sound from those instruments, which originated with Emerick and The Beatles in 66-67.

Again, that explains the Grammy Emerick got for his work on Pepper.  

But hearing certain things in 1967, it was new and different.

That's the hint.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Thanks GF! Personally, I love the song. Emerick's book is always one I've wanted to read but has forever slipped through the grates. I should get to it. Don't recall the Lennon/McCartney interview from the time, do you? It was on youtube at one point but I can't find it now. I think there were bits of it on the "Making Of" sections on the remasters a few years back where Lennon is talking about the variety of music on the album, ending with the description of a "happy go lucky Northern song," which I always assumed was 64.

[guitarfool2002]

I'll have to look for that interview, it does sound vaguely familiar but it's not one that you see as often as others. Very cool!

And I left out one key part of that last post - Beatle George! 

He could have been credited as both co-arranger and co-producer on that song. Up to that point, he was sort of in the shadows, he was of course a Beatle and contributed what he did, which in some cases were key to the songs, but at the same time he was a shadow figure when it came to creating the songs and being actively involved.

On Within You Without You, he blossomed musically. He acted as both a musical translator and arranger for the Indian musicians, and as a tutor of sorts for George Martin, who was classically trained but did not have the knowledge of the music that Harrison had and could not offer much in the way of direction for the Indian players. So Harrison took the baton, so to speak.

Indian music in many ways is different both in structure and foundation from Western music, in that it is based on cyclical rhythms and relies on a different way of time-keeping and ensemble playing, as well as the way notes are phrased and "attacked" in those phrases. Different than a group of symphony string players, let's say.

So there was George Harrison, the silent Beatle, instructing the Indian players on how to play within a more Western song structure yet retain their unique rhythmic and ensemble interplay, and basically instructing George Martin on what they were doing and helping Martin fit a Western string arrangement into the Indian song form.

It was a *huge* leap musically for a guy in his early 20's to go from twanging a few sitar notes on Norwegian Wood to basically constructing what at the time was one of the first blends of traditional Indian and Western pop and classical music. It was the fruit of his studies of Indian music leading up to this, and showed everyone including his bandmates that he was in fact not only devoted to those studies but actually had developed a skill and understanding of the foundations of that music that allowed him to construct such a grand piece of music.

That info changed my perspective of the song, as well as my opinion, and now I enjoy it very much and can see where John and the others would have such high praise for it.

One of George Harrison's shining moments as a Beatle.

[zachrwolfe]

‍

[LetHimRun]

Sgt. Pepper takes quite a bit of listens to "get" if you know what I mean. It grows on you, but hey, it definitely doesn't grow on everyone. I can pretty well do without When I'm 64 and Within You Without You (the better of the two, but a little too long in duration IMHO).

Not sure how many people are aware of this, but When I'm 64 was deliberately put right after Within You Without You because the two songs are polar opposites. Side 2 opens with this mystical, dead-serious philosophical and exotic song, which is immediately followed by one of McCartney's "schmaltzy" songs. IMO it works great - the contrast and change in mood could not have been more drastic.

Personally I like When I'm 64, yes it's schmaltzy but in a good, catchy way. I particularly like the harmonies and woodwinds in the line, "You'll be older too." That and a couple other lines make the song a bit more than a standard schmaltzy tune.

I can definitely see them doing that for a point such as that. I don't think either are bad songs. When I'm 64 is definitely catchy, but there is just something about it, I don't know. If I listen to the album straight through, I don't skip either song. I guess in terms of the rest of the album, they are my "least" favorite and even though I say I can do without it, I pretty well always sit through all of Within You Without You and get into it. The 5+ minutes is a bit much, that was my only quibble. I'm a big fan of George's love for the Sitar (the droning sound in WYWY is great) and the sounds he used that were influenced by India all the way through The Inner Light.

[Jay]

I love The Inner Light. I must have listened to that song every day for about six months after he died.

[Lonely Summer]

I love The Inner Light. I must have listened to that song every day for about six months after he died.

That's my favorite of George's Eastern-influenced tracks. I didn't even know what those sounds were when I first heard it - it was just the song on the b-side of Lady Madonna, but I loved it from the start.

[Amazing Larry]

I had trouble "getting" Sgt. Pepper until I heard the mono mix. All of the hype for it is justified. The tonality and balance in the mix is PERFECT.

[Please delete my account]

I'm left hanging here. What did Billy think of side 2 of "With The Beatles"? I have to know.

[BiNNS]

I had trouble "getting" Sgt. Pepper until I heard the mono mix. All of the hype for it is justified. The tonality and balance in the mix is PERFECT.

I was never a huge Beatles fan, but when I first heard the mono box set a few years back I was blown away. It gave me a whole new appreciation for their work. I rarely ever, (minus the last two albums), listen to their stereo mixes. Seriously, anyone who hasn't bothered giving the mono set a listen is truly missing out.