In Keeping With Recurring Beatles Threads........

nojazzhere

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Posts
17,260
Age
70
Location
Foat Wuth, Texas
This popped up on my Youtube offerings, and, while made by a "fanboy" and a little simplistic, this should be mandatory viewing for those who weren't actually THERE at the time. If you WERE there, and don't like The Beatles, that's fine. But if you weren't there, or not paying attention, sometimes it's hard to explain just how The Beatles "changed" things. Yes, The Beatles were influenced by other artists, and not everything they did is "out-of-nowhere" unique, even to the point of borrowing (stealing) licks and ideas, but they still get credit for most of it.
I'd like to dedicate this video to our dear, departed blowtorch. I hope he pops in and catches it. ;););)


Let the "flames" begin.
 

OmegaWoods

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Posts
1,025
Age
54
Location
East TN, USA
I am relatively ambivalent about the Beatles although I've been listening and enjoying their music my entire life. There is no question that they were in the right place at the right time and that they were bold experimenters. I've watched about 3/4 of the "Get Back" documentary and it has cemented what I've long believed about the Beatles.

  • I have always believed that Paul McCartney is an almost uniquely gifted songwriter and an excellent musician.
  • John and Paul working together are greater than the sum of their parts.
  • John's flakiness was a root cause of the Beatles dissolution.
  • George was a solid musician whose ego was inflated beyond his abilities and who was ill-fitted to stand in the massive shadows of Paul and John.
  • And, of course, Ringo was just happy to be along for the ride!
There are dozens of Beatles songs that I love and dozens more that I...don't love. The Beatles are a perfect representation of the times in which they were the biggest stars in the world. That's my 2 cents.
 

Marc Morfei

Friend of Leo's
Silver Supporter
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Posts
3,203
Age
56
Location
Wilmington, DE
I am relatively ambivalent about the Beatles although I've been listening and enjoying their music my entire life. There is no question that they were in the right place at the right time and that they were bold experimenters. I've watched about 3/4 of the "Get Back" documentary and it has cemented what I've long believed about the Beatles.

  • I have always believed that Paul McCartney is an almost uniquely gifted songwriter and an excellent musician.
  • John and Paul working together are greater than the sum of their parts.
  • John's flakiness was a root cause of the Beatles dissolution.
  • George was a solid musician whose ego was inflated beyond his abilities and who was ill-fitted to stand in the massive shadows of Paul and John.
  • And, of course, Ringo was just happy to be along for the ride!
There are dozens of Beatles songs that I love and dozens more that I...don't love. The Beatles are a perfect representation of the times in which they were the biggest stars in the world. That's my 2 cents.

Each of those points are debatable. But I would generally agree. They were all uniquely talented, and each probably would have succeeded individually to some degree without the others. The fact that they were all present in the same place and time is remarkable. As for the cause of their breakup, that topic has been analyzed and theorized for 50 years now. There are probably no new insights. (But I don't think it can be laid entirely on John.) :)
 

OmegaWoods

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Posts
1,025
Age
54
Location
East TN, USA
Each of those points are debatable. But I would generally agree. They were all uniquely talented, and each probably would have succeeded individually to some degree without the others. The fact that they were all present in the same place and time is remarkable. As for the cause of their breakup, that topic has been analyzed and theorized for 50 years now. There are probably no new insights. (But I don't think it can be laid entirely on John.) :)

Fair enough. I'm not a Beatles expert by any stretch. I do, however, think that John and Paul would have achieved superstardom with any number of non-A-list guitarists and drummers (or no additional guitarist at all).

And don't get me started on Yoko Ono...:rolleyes:
 

fendrguitplayr

Doctor of Teleocity
Silver Supporter
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Posts
17,933
Age
70
Location
New England
George married Pattie Boyd.

Point George (for a little while).

harrison-boyd.jpg
 

StrangerNY

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Posts
5,558
Location
Somewhere out on that horizon
I am relatively ambivalent about the Beatles although I've been listening and enjoying their music my entire life. There is no question that they were in the right place at the right time and that they were bold experimenters. I've watched about 3/4 of the "Get Back" documentary and it has cemented what I've long believed about the Beatles.

  • I have always believed that Paul McCartney is an almost uniquely gifted songwriter and an excellent musician.
  • John and Paul working together are greater than the sum of their parts.
  • John's flakiness was a root cause of the Beatles dissolution.
  • George was a solid musician whose ego was inflated beyond his abilities and who was ill-fitted to stand in the massive shadows of Paul and John.
  • And, of course, Ringo was just happy to be along for the ride!
There are dozens of Beatles songs that I love and dozens more that I...don't love. The Beatles are a perfect representation of the times in which they were the biggest stars in the world. That's my 2 cents.

Agree on everything except your George and Ringo points.

1. George was solid throughout, and as you can see in the documentary, he grew frustrated by being the 'little brother' to Lennon & McCartney, especially when it came to getting his songs recorded. He wasn't the greatest lead guitarist, but he definitely grew in the role as the Fabs' time went on. I think anyone would have gotten frustrated by that situation.

2. The Beatles couldn't get a recording deal until Ringo came on board, and he was the drummer for Liverpool's most popular band (Rory Storm & The Hurricanes) prior to joining the Beatles. He was the drummer in Liverpool. His groove and sense of the 'right' part for the song was and is underestimated. Imagine 'Come Together' with a different drum part - what he did was perfect for that song, and there are countless examples of him turning a beat from dull and straight into something unique throughout their catalog.

- D
 

David Barnett

Doctor of Teleocity
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Posts
16,675
Age
65
Location
The Far-Flung Isles of Langerhans
2. The Beatles couldn't get a recording deal until Ringo came on board, and he was the drummer for Liverpool's most popular band (Rory Storm & The Hurricanes) prior to joining the Beatles. He was the drummer in Liverpool. His groove and sense of the 'right' part for the song was and is underestimated. Imagine 'Come Together' with a different drum part - what he did was perfect for that song, and there are countless examples of him turning a beat from dull and straight into something unique throughout their catalog.

They had the recording deal before Ringo. George Martin signed them to Parlophone on June 18, 1962. Ringo started with the Beatles on August 18.
 

telleutelleme

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Posts
21,376
Location
Houston
I was there from before the beginning. My opinions, likes and dislikes were formed way back then and i've seen nothing added since they ended as a band to change them.

I bought their releases on vinyl. I listened through an analogue sound system mostly through Koss headphones. They were mono until I could afford stereo. They evolved when it was uncommon to do so. There's nothing new in all this new stuff.
 

OmegaWoods

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Posts
1,025
Age
54
Location
East TN, USA
Agree on everything except your George and Ringo points.

1. George was solid throughout, and as you can see in the documentary, he grew frustrated by being the 'little brother' to Lennon & McCartney, especially when it came to getting his songs recorded. He wasn't the greatest lead guitarist, but he definitely grew in the role as the Fabs' time went on. I think anyone would have gotten frustrated by that situation.

2. The Beatles couldn't get a recording deal until Ringo came on board, and he was the drummer for Liverpool's most popular band (Rory Storm & The Hurricanes) prior to joining the Beatles. He was the drummer in Liverpool. His groove and sense of the 'right' part for the song was and is underestimated. Imagine 'Come Together' with a different drum part - what he did was perfect for that song, and there are countless examples of him turning a beat from dull and straight into something unique throughout their catalog.

- D
I bow to your superior Beatles knowledge.

As I said, just my opinions and who's to say what would've happened if George and Ringo hadn't been two of the fab four.
 

pdxjoel

Tele-Holic
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Posts
596
Location
Portland, OR
Yes, and...

I took on the task of reading biographies on each of the Beatles this last year, and throughout each it was clear how much George consistently elevated and improved his craft during his time with the Beatles, and how much his songwriting chops went unrecognized by L&M. Add to that mix his reluctant entry into super-stardom, and small wonder he was burned out by the time the band dissolved.

While it's tempting to rest the Beatles' breakup on one or two sets of shoulders, in truth there were so many sources of negative energy in the band that amplified after Epstein's death. More than one author made the assertion that the interpersonal and artistic issues that finally broke the band were pretty standard ones to have in a band of that caliber and experience, and that the right manager could have handled them skillfully to preserve the group. While Epstein's business acumen is definitely up for debate, it sounded from each of the biographies that Epstein's love for and love by the Beatles meant he had the position to navigate those waters. Lennon and McCartney both publicly admitted that Epstein's death was the beginning of the end.

It's taken many years as a gigging and recording musician to fully appreciate point 2: Ringo had the experience and maturity as a professional to recognize he was surrounded by 3 other musicians with some serious vocal and instrumental chops, and knew both when and how to stay out of the way. It's not that he's not a good drummer - he's a terrific drummer that doesn't overplay and knows how to elevate everyone else in the band. As a rhythm guitarist, those are my favorite drummers to play with because there's so much room to communicate in the rhythm section.
 

Lockback

Tele-Meister
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Posts
296
Location
Central Ohio
I feel sorry for the young and/or uninformed who don’t know what pop music was like pre-Beatles. In a word: boring. Percy Faith’s “A Summer Place” being a nice example (actually, I love the song but the energy level of a biscuit).
On 02/09/64, in the U.S., a fresh, brazen, energetic, happy, original, harmonic monster was released on the Ed Sullivan Show: four guys in suits and smiles, beaming out such infectious and clever songs, they couldn’t be ignored.
I thought they were brilliant but would quickly disappear. Boy was I wrong.
Opinions: Harrison was (and is), a hugely underrated guitar player and composer.
Lennon & McCartney are the best songwriters in the history of pop music. Period.
Oh. And Ringo was a TERRIFIC drummer.
 

schmee

Doctor of Teleocity
Silver Supporter
Joined
Jun 2, 2003
Posts
18,096
Location
northwest
The Beatles were a long part of one semester's music class in college when my wife went.
It was that revolutionary.
Like em today or hate em.... they changed things ....a lot.
 

ArcticWhite

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Posts
1,477
Location
Portland Oregon
I feel sorry for the young and/or uninformed who don’t know what pop music was like pre-Beatles. In a word: boring. Percy Faith’s “A Summer Place” being a nice example (actually, I love the song but the energy level of a biscuit).
On 02/09/64, in the U.S., a fresh, brazen, energetic, happy, original, harmonic monster was released on the Ed Sullivan Show: four guys in suits and smiles, beaming out such infectious and clever songs, they couldn’t be ignored.
I thought they were brilliant but would quickly disappear. Boy was I wrong.
Opinions: Harrison was (and is), a hugely underrated guitar player and composer.
Lennon & McCartney are the best songwriters in the history of pop music. Period.
Oh. And Ringo was a TERRIFIC drummer.
Yep.
 

421JAM

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Posts
1,017
Age
49
Location
Atlanta, GA
I feel sorry for the young and/or uninformed who don’t know what pop music was like pre-Beatles. In a word: boring. Percy Faith’s “A Summer Place” being a nice example (actually, I love the song but the energy level of a biscuit).
On 02/09/64, in the U.S., a fresh, brazen, energetic, happy, original, harmonic monster was released on the Ed Sullivan Show: four guys in suits and smiles, beaming out such infectious and clever songs, they couldn’t be ignored.
.

This is true. Some folks might say, well what about Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Eddie Cochran, Elvis, Little Richard, etc.? True, they predate the Beatles, but by the early ‘60s virtually all of the 1950’s rock and rollers were either dead, in jail, in the army, disgraced, turned gospel, or were otherwise out of the rock and roll picture, leaving pop music to the “safe for grandma” crowd. There was a period of a few years where rock and roll had almost entirely disappeared before the Beatles came along.
 




Top