Beatles: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (128 of them)
the beatles aren't very innovative -- decent song writers (sometimes - - but very uneven). anything worth anything is probably from the second half of their lifespan. definitely overrated (but still wildly influential due to popularizing what other bands were doing better). fuck a band that made rock and roll safe for mum and dad.

jack cole, Saturday, 3 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

but jack: those 'mum and dads' were kids at the time. their mum and dads must've surely hated the beatles (maybe, don't know that for a fact).

Julio Desouza, Saturday, 3 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

i'm talking songs like "yesterday", etc. -- AOR rock that the mums and dads of the time could like. Ever seen the documentary, Salesman by the Maysles Brothers (made in the 60's) about travelling Bible salesmen? Theres a great scene where the main salesman the docu focuses on goes to a house and a 50ish year old man shows off "Yesterday" on his hi-fi. So, yeah, that's what I mean (and the same could also be said of the Beach Boys, too).

jack cole, Saturday, 3 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

DUD? You're probably upset because John Lennon boffed your mother.

Steve Morrissey, Saturday, 3 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Hey- just wanted to say two things:

1)I didn't actually write the original post that started this discussion-- someone (knowing that a)I love the Beatles and b)I would find a[nother] discussion of whether or not they are "overrated" intensely boring) posted under my name as a "joke," I guess. You all seem to be having a fine time with it anyway-- I'd never even looked at this board until a rarely-used mailbox of mine started filling up with responses...

2)Hey there, Jack Cole-- you're wrong about the Beatles, mums & dads and probably any number of other things, but I love you anyway.

Paul M. Ivey, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Judging a band on whether or not your parents might like it = such an unbelievably dud idea.

Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Judging a band on whether or not your parents might like it = such an unbelievably dud idea.

I like the Beatles a lot but I never have anything to say about them anymore. It's not that there's nothing new to say about them, I'm just looking for a new angle. I will say that the early stuff is actually quite underrated, and I always feel irritated when someone says that they didn't start being good until Rubber Soul. Then again, I think it's a bit silly to go the complete opposite and claim they never did anything good after Rubber Soul. Maybe the only interesting angle left is "Ringo was the true genius of the group. No, wait, it was Stu Sutcliffe."

A Hard Day's Night is probably the best pop movie I've ever seen.

Justyn Dillingham, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Classic. I think I'm close to DeRayMi's line of thinking, in that I don't listen to them as much as I used to, but I still love them. They're one of those bands that over the years, I find different reasons for loving them.

Let me also say that I don't think musicians could ask for a better existance than had the Beatles: they were hip (underground and overground), rich & famous, had the freedom to write and record whatever they wanted (and were subsequently praised for their ingenuity and artistry), didn't have to tour after a while, and have now been given credit for every sound under the sun. They may well have been the most successful musicians in history, by almost any definition.

dleone, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"the beatles weren't very innovative": well yeah they wrote rock'n'roll that mums and dads (of the time) cd like, at the same time as rock'n'roll that mums and dads (of the time) would HATE => no one else did that!! (a crime only for generation-gap purists and other victims of long-obsolete 50s marketing strategies: in the real world this is exciting and interesting)

if nothing else, they were exceptionally and uniquely innovative in SYNTHESIS from the very start, for example of what kind of songs one pop group was allowed to write: they covered a radically broad range, not just of styles in a shallow pick-and-mix sense, but of songs-as-ethos-as-style, and also quite soon began to crossbreed them... this wasn't a small thing, and it's a major reason why they weren't a small thing either

mark s, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

(There's more to say but right now, for Julio's sake, I'd like to point out that "Sexy Sadie" = "Karma Police". Thanks.)

Mitch Lastnamewithheld, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I still think the Red and Blue doubles are probably the greatest compilations ever done, simply by dint of the enormous amount of good and important music contained therein - they really are the best of the Beatles.

The Red album is a pretty good collection, but the Blue misses the boat in a number of ways. It is missing the following songs from the years it covers: Baby You’re a Rich Man; Lovely Rita; Rain; Paperback Writer [but was this originally released earlier?]; Dear Prudence; I’m So Tired; Julia; Yer Blues; Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey[!]; Sexy Sadie; Helter Skelter; Long, Long, Long; Two of Us; Dig a Pony; I Me Mine; I’ve Got a Feeling; One After 909.

I would be willing to exchange some of those for many of the ones included on that compilation.

And if you have the red and blue albums, you still don't have any of the songs from Revolver, which means you don't really have the best that the Beatles did.

DeRayMi, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Not to mention the handful (at least) of very good alternate versions that appear on the anthologies. "Across the Universe" as it appears on Let it Be has been destroyed by the production, but the one in the anthology is quite nice.

DeRayMi, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I dunno which red and blue albums you're looking at, but my red album has both "Eleanor Rigby" and "Yellow Submarine", both from Revolver. Granted, Revolver is such an amazing album that you should have a copy of it anyhow. (And yes, "Paperback Writer" was on the red album.) Also, I think the blue album has a pretty good song choice...pretty much all of the big hits, which was really the point...again, the white album is probably worth having anyhow, so...

Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

''(There's more to say but right now, for Julio's sake, I'd like to point out that "Sexy Sadie" = "Karma Police". Thanks.)''

man, it's my birthday today, please don't spoil it!

I think sexy sadie is a beautiful tune and the piano arrangement is too good (wish I had it now so I could go on about this). Karma police has imcromprehensible giberish masquerading as lyrics (this can be a good thing but Thom Yorke lacks imagination to make it good) and the piano in the whole thing is set up to make you feel depressed. Radiohead cry all the way tot he bank...

Julio Desouza, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Sean, you're right about the Revolver songs, of course. I had just quickly scanned over the titles without thinking enough. Both of these songs from Revolver are ones that I was first familiar with in other contexts, long before I heard Revolver. (In fact, if I'm not mistaken "Eleanor Rigby" was on the American "Sgt. Pepper's," wasn't it? The vinyl is in a box in my closet.)

Yes, the blue album covers the hits, but in doing so it leaves off quite a few of my favorite songs, and includes some I would just as leave not hear again. (In general, I can do without the anthemic late songs like "All You Need Is Love" or "Let It Be," though they have their good points.)

DeRayMi, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"early cover songs were designed to smother a competitor's offering"

I wonder if Sean C will elaborate on this? It's an accusation I've never heard before.

Tracer Hand, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

happy birthday Julio!

Mr Noodles, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

In my early childhood, my parents owned, so far as I could tell, ONE piece of music: a reel to reel copy of a Sgt. Pepper LP given to them by a friend but later re-gifted. When Lennon was killed, my dad put on this tape, giving me my first real exposure to The Beatles and to pop/rock/whatever for that matter. Was the band was so pervasive that even non-fans like my folks were moved to acts of loyalty? Possibly, but I would now suspect b) the sentimental/emotional tendencies of my father. But in any case, I was taken with the album and their dub soon gave birth to a cassette copy which was the first album in my little portable recorder.

The Beatles legacy was exposed to me during a "Beatles A to Z weekend!!" on a local classic rock station. I made tapes of most of what I heard, starting somewhere in the middle of the B's. With a few exceptions, the early straight-ahead songs have never grabbed me. At this point I have Sgt. Pepper (obviously upgraded to a reissued LP), White Album, Hey Jude, Magical Mystery Tour, Rubber Soul, and two Abbey Roads. I would like to get Revolver, but might be slightly embarrassed to buy a copy.

I find it unfortunate that it's probably the aftershock of all the DUD! screamers which gives rise to my hesitation. There shouldn't be anything wrong with enjoying this band. Good songwriting, interesting studio experimentation, blah blah etc. I am by no means and avid fan, and the records dont often find their way onto the turntable anymore, but still i come down on the side of Classic.

Ron, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Google is gonna love this.

david h(0wie), Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

thanks noodles.

Julio Desouza, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I'm certain that we've covered (ahem) this topic once before somewhere on ILM, but my understanding is that the term is "cover" version because a record label would release another version of a song hot on the heels of the original in an effort to cover up the original version and take its sales. Unfortunately, what this meant in a lot of cases is a nice safe white artist covering a song originally performed by a black musician. (Maybe I'm getting the cause and effect wrong here, though...maybe it was called "cover version" because of the effect it had, not because that was the intent.) Anyhow, I can't find any documentation on this right now...anyone else who does, please feel free to post a link.

Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

ps. to Julio: THEY SAY IT'S YOUR BIRTHDAY! It's my birthday too! (not really)

Sean Carruthers, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

GONNA HAVE A GOOD TIME!!! (not really, am typing today) :(

Julio Desouza, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

They even wrote songs you could play on your Birthday!

DeRayMi, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Every year on my birthday, as tradition, I do The Ed Lover Dance to "Birthday". Classic.

Keiko, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Have to say I love them. My first exposure was in the early 70's through the cartoon series they had (which amazingly hasn't found it's way onto dvd) and singing yellow submarine in music lessons. So to a greater or lesser extent they've always been there so I never had this idea of them being great cultural touchstones to be treated with reverence. I grew up with them without the baggage and could listen to them with 'fresh' ears. Of course this all changed after Lennon's death when I realised what a giant shadow they cast over 20c culture, but it was too late by then. To not like them would be like not liking Morecambe and Wise or Bugs Bunny or Thunderbirds.

To me their work is a great rambling house. Some of the rooms are overfamiliar and comfortable, others are run down and neglected, others best avoided. Always though something worth exploring and coming back to, since there's always something new to discover.

Billy Dods, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Next we are going to do music, classic or dud or what? This definitely gets my vote of most pathetic thread ever. If the Beatles were dud what would all other bands be? Dud to the power of dud I guess. On second thoughts this can be topped. Let's do Bach Classic or Dud.

alex in mainhattan, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

i'm tempted to say: all classical music = dud, but i guess that's not really what i think. i don't like to listen to it, that's all.

Ron, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

The Doors' Crystal Ship = Karma Police just as easily. I wish Mark (who has given the best defense so far) would elaborate on "cross-breeding" and "song-as-ethos-as-song" as pertains to the band.

ciaran, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

"song-as-ethos-as-style"

ciaran, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

''Next we are going to do music, classic or dud or what? This definitely gets my vote of most pathetic thread ever.''

this is just the sort of hysterics that I encounter among Beatles fans that can really put a lot of ppl off. That's before I realised the 'fans' and what the band is are two quite diff things and should be considered separetely. There are no sacred cows, and that includes the Beatles. There is far too much good music that hasn't got the beatles' name attached to it OK!

Julio Desouza, Sunday, 4 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Ah - Monday morning and someone's saying the Beatles are duds.

No.

Nononononononono.

For all my reservatiuons about those boys, they wrote too many absolute classics to be written off as duds. Judging on musical impact alone, the Beatles have inspired far too many other musicians to ever be devalued. Alright, so the White Album is horribly overrated, Let It Be is crap and all the early stuff is bubblegum, it's the stuff like Soul, Revolver, Submarine and Road which gets me going - songwriting like that is never going to stop tickling people, surely.

As for experientation and innovation, The Beatles may not have been as out there as some of their more obscure comtemporaries, but esentially as a pop band, they proved that it was possible to simultaneously push the envelope and write incredible accessible music. A lesson which has invaluable ramifications for pop.

Basically, the Beatles have written some fucking good tunes. I was listening to Paperback Writer last night in fact and that snare crack after the first refrain to bring it in and that high bass trill from Paul is sheer brilliance. The Beatles oeuvre is littered with fantastic musical moments which undergo repeated scutiny without ever shedding their fascination.

Classic.

Roger Fascist, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Made a fantastic, unparallelled, endlessly fascinating and extraordinarily multi-faceted contribution to the art of music, if only ppl would stop (and never started) thinking of them as a 'rock' band

dave q, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Alex (and others) - if this question *can't* be asked, there is no point to this forum, or in talking about music in general.

That doesn't mean that the question should be answered "DUD!!", of course.

I still think the question probably shouldn't be answered because the responses are much less interesting than the usual c-or-d stuff.

Something that has come up - the Beatles-as-lullabies stuff. My parents owned a couple of Beatles recs and almost nothing else and I did spend a lot of my childhood listening to them, but for me I think that's where the root of my *non* fandom lies - the 'overfamiliarity' stuff as above, i.e. I'd be as likely to want to put on Sgt P as to put on "Puff The Magic Dragon".

I think I will buy a Beatles record. The compilation albums are too expensive though.

Tom, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

'Rubber Soul'

dave q, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Or 'Road.

Roger Fascist, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I still think the question probably shouldn't be answered because the responses are much less interesting than the usual c-or-d stuff.
You have to explain this Tom. What is the point in asking a question if it shouldn't be answered?
If you buy one album Tom, I'd suggest The White Album. It shows the whole spectrum of the Beatles music. There are a couple of misses (Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da being the most obvious one) but just Julia, my favourite love song of all-time, justifies the purchase of this album.
BTW I have never been a fan of The Beatles, Julio. But what Tom said is right. If there is anything dud about The Beatles it is this thread. The answers are not interesting and not convincing. On the other hand why should I try to convince people that The Beatles are classic (that would be like supporting Goliath)? I think people can find out for themselves.

alex in mainhattan, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

julia = HIS MUM!! do you SEE!!

tom you should buy RUBBER SOUL first, and listen to it while reading the AESTHETICS OF ROCK and eating smoked oysters dipped in chocolate

sgt pepper = 7th beatles LP out on the 7 june 1967 my seventh birthday DO YOU SEE!! DO YOU SEE!!??

mark s, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I know that Julia was Lennon's mum, Mark. So what? That is actually the most fascinating thing about that song.
"Half of what I say is meaningless but I say it just to reach you Julia...". The most poetic lyrics by Lennon!

alex in mainhattan, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

A variation on the lullaby theme - we always had to sing/perform Beatles songs during music lessons at school - another way of making them overfamiliar and NOT LIKE ROCK.

Andrew L, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

sorry alex i wasn't shouting at you, it is just a missing part of my "julia lennon theory of who's in the band": i like that song too, tho i think white album is in general a bit TOO diffuse (= they were no longer writing songs to impress/amaze each other, but had actually broken back into their constituent individual parts)

ps anyone who thinks ringo is not a perfect pop drummer is some kind of devolving zappa-fan imo

mark s, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

''BTW I have never been a fan of The Beatles, Julio. But what Tom said is right. If there is anything dud about The Beatles it is this thread. The answers are not interesting and not convincing.''

but when was a classic or dud thread ever any good anyway in terms of saying something that could change your mind in a 180 degree fashion. It can make you think abt soemthing on x artist but really that's as much as you're going to get (most of the time anyway). It's either classic or dud or somewhere in between. There can be some interesting arguments but if you heard an alb and you make up yr mind no thread on x artist will change anything drastically surely.

but I'm not interested in reading about them but i think this is a good replacement for that.

''I think I will buy a Beatles record. The compilation albums are too expensive though.''

You don't have to buy them surely. You can just borrow it from the local library (80p for 2 weeks at mine) and then just copy it onto tape. Most beatles recs should be there (unless you actually value holding them in which case just borrow a few and see which is the best one). I wish they did the same thing w/Sun ra (now THAT would have been worthwhile).

''Julia, my favourite love song of all-time, justifies the purchase of this album.''

At a time I first heard it there this new acoustic movement that NME invented (badly drawn boy etc.). This is surely the sort of thing they were up against. Heard some tracks on the radio and none of the bands came with as good a song.

''i like that song too, tho i think white album is in general a bit TOO diffuse (= they were no longer writing songs to impress/amaze each other, but had actually broken back into their constituent individual parts)''

very 'eclectic' i think...they try to go through a lot of types of arrangements with mixed results. It's part of the flaw and part of its goodness.

Julio Desouza, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

>>> if this question *can't* be asked, there is no point to this forum, or in talking about music in general.

That doesn't follow. You could think the Bs were beyond criticism, but still think lots of other pop worth talking about. (My own position is not a million miles from this)

the pinefox, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

(= they were no longer writing songs to impress/amaze each other, but had actually broken back into their constituent individual parts)

There's something to that -- BUT they still impressed me. Furthermore, I think the only real degradation in quality post-Pepper for the Beatles was related to the craft of writing, because the actual output never really stopped being interesting (think "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" vs "Help"). But then, I think they're classic.

dleone, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Saying 'The Beatles are beyond criticism' though opens up other (critical) questions - as does saying 'The Beatles are the best band ever'. The questions opened up are the same as in any C-or-D thread - what do we value in music (and how well does this particular artist do it)?

By saying The Beatles are the Best Ever it seems to me that assumptions are being made that what the Beatles were very good at doing - melodies, harmonies, use of the studio - are better or higher qualities than what the Beatles were OK or not very good at doing - 'funkiness' or 'aggression' or arguably lyric-writing, say. It also shuts off the things the Beatles couldn't/didn't do (sample or use computers, for instance). This is kind of what I meant by "rock criticism evolved as a way to talk about the Beatles" (and it's also kind of what is meant by "rockism"). It is a completely reasonable perspective - but not one that's 'beyond' argument.

Tom, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Alex - saying a question 'can't' be asked is saying at worst that the question should be censored (obv nobody here is doing this), at best that the question is invalid because the answer is already known.

Saying a question 'shouldn't' be asked is merely suggesting that while the question may be a valid one the discussion resulting is likely to be unproductive.

It's been my experience in talking about the Beatles that nobody on either side is able to muster very convincing arguments. No Beatles hater has ever been able to make me doubt the excellence of "A Day In The Life", just as no Beatles lover has been able to make me want to re-listen to "Hey Jude" and try and find something bearable in it.

(I'm someone who regularly goes back to music with fresh ears after reading about it, btw - I know some of you aren't).

Tom, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

no Beatles lover has been able to make me want to re-listen to "Hey Jude" and try and find something bearable in it.

Hmm...I think I have a goal.

Michael Daddino, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Classic, because: songwriting (too many classic songs to list: hummable, melodic, well-constructed, etc.), willingness to evolve (success makes many artists more conservative because they're afraid to kill the chicken that's laying the golden eggs, but it only made the Beatles get weirder), formal innovation (each new album wasn't just a collection of new songs, it was a new definition of what an album could be - e.g., "Sgt Peppers" as psychedelic music theater, "White Album" as kaleidoscopic pop pastiche, the medley on the 2nd side of "Abbey Road"), using celebrity as a "bully pulpit" to introduce marginalized topics into mainstream discourse (eg., Eastern religion, drugs).

o. nate, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Tom E - I still don't really agree. My disagreement is not significant or hostile, just pedantic. I think a) it's possible to think the Bs beyond criticism, but still want to talk about them, and b) it's possible to want to criticize them (or, as you say, to point out certain things they did less obviously well than others), but to think that raising the possibility of their being 'dud' is wrong.

So perhaps this is really a sense of the limits of 'C/D', rather than a disagreement re. whether we should talk about the Bs.

Once again, I think I very much agree with you about the typical *pointlessnes* of debates re. Beatles. (Possibly, though, I find all pop debates pointless in a way - no one has ever convinced me of anything in a pop debate, and vice versa.)

the pinefox, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

I bought an appalling book called "In My Life: Encounters with The Beatles" (edited Cording et al). Most of the writing in it should be avoided at all costs. But there is a very good essay by the composer James Russell Smith, one of the few contributors who isn't a professional writer. He makes as powerful a case for the greatness of The Beatles as I've read. Much better than Ian McDonald did at book length in "Revolution in the Head", because he doesn't show the same nervous fear of the academy (and of course he doesn't have anything like McDonald's beyond-parody-awful introductory essay).

ArfArf, Monday, 5 August 2002 00:00 (twenty-one years ago) link

Sounds about right!

Bougy! Bougie! Bougé! (Eliza D.), Wednesday, 11 March 2020 16:05 (four years ago) link

the WWI restoration footage thing he did was incredible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcgceA64aAI

Webcam Du Bois (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 11 March 2020 16:07 (four years ago) link

really looking forward to this

Webcam Du Bois (Hadrian VIII), Wednesday, 11 March 2020 16:08 (four years ago) link

xxxp me too, except They Shall Not Grow Old was pretty good

ha, fuck, beaten to it

Wuhan!! Got You All in Check (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Wednesday, 11 March 2020 16:08 (four years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.