The Beatles confessions: an anthology

Obsessed

Telefied
Silver Supporter
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Posts
30,219
Location
Montana
You see, there was no "Ed Sullivan show" moment in OZ..... broadcast B&W TV started Sept '65.... people didn't seem to have radios blaring all day either.

even then, people didn't actually rush out and buy a tv from day 1... not around here anyway ...

I saw Beatles newspaper pics and movietone news clips shown before any cinema movies we saw.. or an occasional radio song...

The Beatles were all over before we even had colour TV...:lol:
Well heck, that is quite a perspective that I would have not guessed. Perfect for this anthology. Thanks.
 

Obsessed

Telefied
Silver Supporter
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Posts
30,219
Location
Montana
i was born in 69 so the beatles never meant that much to me. it was only when lennon was murdered that i got to hear a lot of beatles music which was being played as a retrospective. 'imagine' was number one for months, i recall. my aunt had a load of albums that i borrowed, some bowie, t-rex and the white album. the white album started me down a rabbit hole with the beatles in my mid-teens, but by then 60s music was making a healthy comeback in movies and on tv (mid 80s). it always struck me as better music to play, listen to and dance to than the 80's chart schlock that radio stations churned out.
Sweet. Another younger generation person impacted and inspired by the Beatles. Thanks for adding your experience.
 

telemnemonics

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Posts
33,386
Age
62
Location
Maine
IMO that's not really a fair assessment to say that Paul's contributions were all "sappy" considering that he wrote or mainly wrote:
Paperback Writer
Penny Lane
Helter Skelter
When I'm 64
Drive My Car
Got To Get You Into My Life
Eleanor Rigby
For No One
Here, There and Everywhere
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Fixing a Hole
Your Mother Should Know
Blackbird
Back in the USSR
You Never Give Me Your Money
Golden Slumbers
Carry That Weight
She Came In Through The Bathroom Window
Two of Us
Let It Be

...among others. It is true that he is also the author of some of the more trite Beatles songs like "Hello, Goodbye," which I really dislike, but IMO he was really the most prolific creative force in the band. If George and John had been the sole songwriters, the Beatles would've had very few records, albeit probably good ones.

Harsh sure, extreme sure.
Trying to riff with those who speak in crazed adoring love for Paul though, like a loud drummer you are forced by to be just as loud.
Unfair to all who claim Paul seems to be the power behind these sessions?
Maybe, IDK, adoration and superlatives are what they are, and history does back up claims that big stuff was made there.

From memory here, I see most of those songs (on your above list) meanings, as sticking to a sort of "look at me being a great pop star songwriter and getting the girls!", aside from Blackbird. May have forgotten content in others and be wrong?
Helter Skelter suggests deeper meaning but was I guess really more Paul wanting to do something heavier, or essentially the meaning was "look at how heavy we can get!".

Again, embedded memories here, not listening to all those songs again now to peek into every corner in search of deeper meaning from Paul.
 

StrangerNY

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Posts
5,858
Location
Somewhere between here and there
Well lest we forget that we're talking pop music here!

Might seem rude to connect sappy content with the basics of pop music?
But look at all the repeated comments adoring McCartneys generally sappy pop music crafting skills!
Many many musicians value the crafting and the creativity of pop music enough that they don't think sappy, just successful.
I'm in the camp that sees him as unattractive skilled crafter of sappy pop.
What defines sappy and pop?
Sappy to me is my harsh expectation of meaning being a key component of art.
Pop is self explanatory, but pretty much includes all hit music no matter what the style.
George and John felt compelled to put meaning in their art.
Paul had no such motivation, heart or soul.
IMO it is easier to craft pop art if not burdened with including any meaning.
That meaning component is harder to craft IMO.
Paul was great at crafting pop music, but either lousy at putting meaning in music, or else a sly manipulator who felt that meaning might polarize his pop product and reduce the number of paying customers.
My sense is that he simply felt no desire to impart meaning in his art.

I mostly agree here - but you could look at it that Paul's 'lack of meaning' was more like a different meaning, aimed at a different audience. And the fact that he was successful with it indicates that the meaning he chose for his solo material resonated with his audience.

And we have to remember that the main driver of the supposedly negative aspect of his solo stuff was rock critics, who got paid to be contrary. Remember that the Beatles themselves were pretty solidly slagged by 'establishment' critics when they burst upon the scene. Here are some examples:

L.A. Times - "With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent’s dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape."

Boston Globe - "The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as “anti-popes.”

Newsweek - "Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of “yeah, yeah, yeah”) are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments…."

Chicago Tribune - "The Beatles must be a huge joke, a wacky gag, a gigantic put-on. And if, as the fellow insisted on What’s My Line?, they’re selling 20,000 Beatle wigs a day in New York at $2.98 a shake — then I guess everyone wants to share the joke. And the profits."

Plenty more here. Pretty wild to see just how wrong they all were in retrospect.

- D
 

Bluesboy3

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Posts
1,587
Age
57
Location
Sacratomato
IMO that's not really a fair assessment to say that Paul's contributions were all "sappy" considering that he wrote or mainly wrote:
Paperback Writer
Penny Lane
Helter Skelter
When I'm 64
Drive My Car
Got To Get You Into My Life
Eleanor Rigby
For No One
Here, There and Everywhere
Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Fixing a Hole
Your Mother Should Know
Blackbird
Back in the USSR
You Never Give Me Your Money
Golden Slumbers
Carry That Weight
She Came In Through The Bathroom Window
Two of Us
Let It Be

...among others. It is true that he is also the author of some of the more trite Beatles songs like "Hello, Goodbye," which I really dislike, but IMO he was really the most prolific creative force in the band. If George and John had been the sole songwriters, the Beatles would've had very few records, albeit probably good ones.
No offense meant by my comment, but I personally consider a few of the songs on your list to be fairly "sappy". :D But "sappy" may be open to interpretation.
 

Bluesboy3

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Posts
1,587
Age
57
Location
Sacratomato
I mostly agree here - but you could look at it that Paul's 'lack of meaning' was more like a different meaning, aimed at a different audience. And the fact that he was successful with it indicates that the meaning he chose for his solo material resonated with his audience.

And we have to remember that the main driver of the supposedly negative aspect of his solo stuff was rock critics, who got paid to be contrary. Remember that the Beatles themselves were pretty solidly slagged by 'establishment' critics when they burst upon the scene. Here are some examples:

L.A. Times - "With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent’s dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape."

Boston Globe - "The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as “anti-popes.”

Newsweek - "Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of “yeah, yeah, yeah”) are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments…."

Chicago Tribune - "The Beatles must be a huge joke, a wacky gag, a gigantic put-on. And if, as the fellow insisted on What’s My Line?, they’re selling 20,000 Beatle wigs a day in New York at $2.98 a shake — then I guess everyone wants to share the joke. And the profits."

Plenty more here. Pretty wild to see just how wrong they all were in retrospect.

- D
Very interesting. I wonder how many of today's artists that many of us on this forum like to poke fun at will be regarded as well as the Beatles are 50 years from now? The LA Times quote is ridiculous in my opinion. Again, my opinion. I actually came away more impressed by Paul's singing voice after Get Back than before. That guy has some pipes.
 

StrangerNY

Poster Extraordinaire
Gold Supporter
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Posts
5,858
Location
Somewhere between here and there
Very interesting. I wonder how many of today's artists that many of us on this forum like to poke fun at will be regarded as well as the Beatles are 50 years from now?

The Beatles phenomenon would be hard to replicate - they were a Black Swan event, they went beyond a music act and were a cultural event. It's not an exaggeration to say that the world held its breath waiting for the next Beatles single, because they constantly pushed the envelope. They weren't just singles or albums, they were events. They influenced music, fashion, and the music industry itself.

And to your point about Paul's voice - he's one of the greatest voices of rock and roll without a doubt.

- D
 

Skully

Doctor of Teleocity
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Posts
13,819
Location
Glamorous NoHo
I mostly agree here - but you could look at it that Paul's 'lack of meaning' was more like a different meaning, aimed at a different audience. And the fact that he was successful with it indicates that the meaning he chose for his solo material resonated with his audience.

And we have to remember that the main driver of the supposedly negative aspect of his solo stuff was rock critics, who got paid to be contrary. Remember that the Beatles themselves were pretty solidly slagged by 'establishment' critics when they burst upon the scene. Here are some examples:

L.A. Times - "With their bizarre shrubbery, the Beatles are obviously a press agent’s dream combo. Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well. But the hirsute thickets they affect make them rememberable, and they project a certain kittenish charm which drives the immature, shall we say, ape."

Boston Globe - "The Beatles are not merely awful; I would consider it sacrilegious to say anything less than that they are god awful. They are so unbelievably horribly, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art that they qualify as crowned heads of anti-music, even as the imposter popes went down in history as “anti-popes.”

Newsweek - "Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody. Their lyrics (punctuated by nutty shouts of “yeah, yeah, yeah”) are a catastrophe, a preposterous farrago of Valentine-card romantic sentiments…."

Chicago Tribune - "The Beatles must be a huge joke, a wacky gag, a gigantic put-on. And if, as the fellow insisted on What’s My Line?, they’re selling 20,000 Beatle wigs a day in New York at $2.98 a shake — then I guess everyone wants to share the joke. And the profits."

Plenty more here. Pretty wild to see just how wrong they all were in retrospect.

- D

The Beatles joke in "Goldfinger" hasn't aged well, either.



Very interesting. I wonder how many of today's artists that many of us on this forum like to poke fun at will be regarded as well as the Beatles are 50 years from now? The LA Times quote is ridiculous in my opinion. Again, my opinion. I actually came away more impressed by Paul's singing voice after Get Back than before. That guy has some pipes.

Paul really shows his range, from the melodic sweetness of "Let It Be" to the screaming in "I've Got a Feeling."

It's interesting to watch performance footage of tracks where John sings lead like "Revolution" and see Paul step forward to provide the primal Little Richard scream that most probably assumed was done by John.
 

Alex W

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Posts
3,558
Location
In my tube amp coccoon.
Harsh sure, extreme sure.
Trying to riff with those who speak in crazed adoring love for Paul though, like a loud drummer you are forced by to be just as loud.
Unfair to all who claim Paul seems to be the power behind these sessions?
Maybe, IDK, adoration and superlatives are what they are, and history does back up claims that big stuff was made there.

From memory here, I see most of those songs (on your above list) meanings, as sticking to a sort of "look at me being a great pop star songwriter and getting the girls!", aside from Blackbird. May have forgotten content in others and be wrong?
Helter Skelter suggests deeper meaning but was I guess really more Paul wanting to do something heavier, or essentially the meaning was "look at how heavy we can get!".

Again, embedded memories here, not listening to all those songs again now to peek into every corner in search of deeper meaning from Paul.

This is just my two cents, but pop music is not generally expected to be Great Literature. It can be, sure, but that's not the standard. Deeper meaning does not necessarily a good song make. Not every song needs to be, or should even strive to be "Imagine," "God Only Knows," or "Turn, Turn, Turn." (Or insert your own examples if you like.) A song like "Penny Lane" isn't trying to give us a dose of vitamins or cure cancer, but it is a great song because of its composition, melody, harmony, arrangement, those fantastic horns, etc. And the lyrics are actually good writing insofar as they employ details about the town and the people.

I would reserve the use of the word "sappy" for music that is especially trite or cliched. Lyrically, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" comes to mind but then again, as a song, the vocal harmonies are sophisticated and not at all easy to pull off. It's quite an impressive song, especially considering how young the Beatles were when it was written.
 

BerkshireDuncan

Tele-Holic
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Posts
548
Age
59
Location
Oxford, UK
Excerpt from Playboy interview with David Sheff, Sept 1980- published shortly before he died.
PLAYBOY: "'Getting Better.'"(?)

LENNON: "It is a diary form of writing. All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically... any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."
 

telemnemonics

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Posts
33,386
Age
62
Location
Maine
This is just my two cents, but pop music is not generally expected to be Great Literature. It can be, sure, but that's not the standard. Deeper meaning does not necessarily a good song make. Not every song needs to be, or should even strive to be "Imagine," "God Only Knows," or "Turn, Turn, Turn." (Or insert your own examples if you like.) A song like "Penny Lane" isn't trying to give us a dose of vitamins or cure cancer, but it is a great song because of its composition, melody, harmony, arrangement, those fantastic horns, etc. And the lyrics are actually good writing insofar as they employ details about the town and the people.

I would reserve the use of the word "sappy" for music that is especially trite or cliched. Lyrically, "I Want To Hold Your Hand" comes to mind but then again, as a song, the vocal harmonies are sophisticated and not at all easy to pull off. It's quite an impressive song, especially considering how young the Beatles were when it was written.

Well right, you're saying basically what I (among others) was saying but backwards.
I said due to lack of meaning, the music (and Paul in particular) was basically pop.
You say pop isn't supposed to be meaningful.
(Sappy is not a word I chose but once in play it served OK)
So we seem to agree and I'd even agree that sappy is not really fair, not fair at all.
I love well crafted music, and do not personally call it sappy if it has no deeper meaning.

In the whole of the Beatles as all four; and in the whole of the '60s youth movement they are credited by some as leading:
(most of my dissent regards repeated, IMO erroneous, credit given to them as leaders of the youth movement)
"meaning or message" at that time was VERY important to a large segment of American youth.
Had the Beatles been just Paul with competent players, they MIGHT have failed to carry the youth movement segment that cared deeply about meaning.
Might not have mattered to "their success", but compare solo Paul to fab four and do that math.

Math that presumes the most busy crafty songwriter of the four in these sessions was thus the most responsible for how great they became? I'd say that math is far too basic and presumptive!
Put in context though I will reiterate that to me, the whole of them was still short on meaningful content in the larger context of what drove the 1960s cultural revolution.
 
Last edited:

telemnemonics

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Posts
33,386
Age
62
Location
Maine
Excerpt from Playboy interview with David Sheff, Sept 1980- published shortly before he died.
PLAYBOY: "'Getting Better.'"(?)

LENNON: "It is a diary form of writing. All that 'I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved' was me. I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically... any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace. Everything's the opposite. But I sincerely believe in love and peace. I am a violent man who has learned not to be violent and regrets his violence. I will have to be a lot older before I can face in public how I treated women as a youngster."

Wow, OK that's some illuminating info!
 

Alex W

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Posts
3,558
Location
In my tube amp coccoon.
Well right, you're saying basically what I (among others) was saying but backwards.
I said due to lack of meaning, the music (and Paul in particular) was basically pop.
You say pop isn't supposed to be meaningful.
(Sappy is not a word I chose but once in play it served OK)
So we seem to agree and I'd even agree that sappy is not really fair, not fair at all.
I love well crafted music, and do not personally call it sappy if it has no deeper meaning.

In the whole of the Beatles as all four; and in the whole of the '60s youth movement they are credited by some as leading:
(most of my dissent regards repeated, IMO erroneous, credit given to them as leaders of the youth movement)
"meaning or message" at that time was VERY important to a large segment of American youth.
Had the Beatles been just Paul with competent players, they MIGHT have failed to carry the youth movement segment that cared deeply about meaning.
Might not have mattered to "their success", but compare solo Paul to fab four and do that math.

Math that presumes the most busy crafty songwriter of the four in these sessions was thus the most responsible for how great they became? I'd say that math is far too basic and presumptive!
Put in context though I will reiterate that to me, the whole of them was still short on meaningful content in the larger context of what drove the 1960s cultural revolution.

Well, personally, I wouldn't say pop music "isn't supposed to be meaningful." I would just say that it isn't required to be uber-deep. Some music is purely instrumental but it still has meaning -- just ask Beethoven and Mozart -- but it isn't a moral or ethical lesson encoded into art, to the approval of puritanical minds that want everything to be objectively for our improvement.

The primary meaningfulness of music is conveyed in the music itself, not the lyrics, at least most of the time. The Ramones created meaningful music, for example, with their energy, style, attitude, vigor, and so on, even if their lyrics weren't going to get anybody nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
 

AngelStrummer

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Posts
3,200
Age
55
Location
London
I just watched the last episode of the Beatles documentary and enjoyed it surprisingly immensely. I am posting this - targeted towards boomers who grew up with the Beatles, but we’re not big fans like myself. Others can join in as well of course. I was woken up by high winds at 3:00 AM suffering from the classic symptoms of my booster yesterday, so I assume (and you should too) this thread idea is drug induced.

I’m not a Beatle hater, I was into Dick Dale, Yardbirds, Stones, and Jimi, but across the hall was my Beatlemania sister that played every single album seemingly constantly. So, I know every song chronologically and can probably name each song in two notes.

My first Beatles memory was the Ed Sullivan Show. We were very limited in our TV watching, but the whole family watched the show weekly. I was nine years old.

And so my thoughts were to confess my Beatle experiences.

Confessions:

  1. I was still nine when I went across the street from our apartment to the toy store in Daly City, CA (S.F. working class neighborhood). They had a huge display of Beatle wigs, Beatle shoes, and photos - all in front of a life size cardboard cut-out of the Fab Four. This is when I realized they were a big deal. My sister’s swooning over Paul explained all of the screaming that I saw on the news.
  2. We then moved down the peninsula to Palo Alto. I developed some close friends through Cub Scouts and my best friend was all caught up into the Beatles. So one day we snuck off on our bicycles to try to get a glimpse of the Beatles staying in the swankiest hotel nearby while prepping for their Candlestick Park concert. Because of the crowds out front and we were still short eleven year olds, we decided out best chance was around back at the servant/shipping dock area. Sure enough, a limo pulled up and we got to see them dash into the car waving to screaming fans. My sister hit me for not inviting her along.
  3. One of the first songs I attempted to learn as a guitar player was, “Good Day Sunshine”. Learning from a friend, I had to buy a capo, but after a few days, I realized this just did not speak to me. But I did learn all about capos. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was a blues guy through and through.
  4. I realized the sudden loss of John, but I had just started my career, so I was too busy to reflect on it at the time, but later realized what an impact he had as a song writer.
  5. Finally, as the rooftop concert ended in the documentary, a caption was put up on the screen saying that this was their last public concert and a tear developed in the corner of my eye and ran down my cheek.
My Beatle confessions.

The Beatles opened the door to proper music, for me. My parents' record collection included Sgt Pepper's, Let it Be and Abbey Road, which introduced me to the Fab Four's (later) tunes.

I'll always remember being no more than 8 years old and spending hours listening to those records while gazing at the record sleeves, reading song titles, credits and admiring their look.

The way I see it, I know I was onto something.
 

telemnemonics

Telefied
Ad Free Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Posts
33,386
Age
62
Location
Maine
Well, personally, I wouldn't say pop music "isn't supposed to be meaningful." I would just say that it isn't required to be uber-deep. Some music is purely instrumental but it still has meaning -- just ask Beethoven and Mozart -- but it isn't a moral or ethical lesson encoded into art, to the approval of puritanical minds that want everything to be objectively for our improvement.

The primary meaningfulness of music is conveyed in the music itself, not the lyrics, at least most of the time. The Ramones created meaningful music, for example, with their energy, style, attitude, vigor, and so on, even if their lyrics weren't going to get anybody nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.

The YMMV idea is a handy tool when applying terms to cover broad swaths of humanity!

Meaning of course has subsections.
WE got dragged into this by Peter Jackson???
He does have some power to move an audience!
And hell, can we credit Jackson with this???

I'm 100% not gonna be fair when discussing my idea of meaning and value.
Just as it may be myopic AKA unfair to brand McC with being most important in the writing on these sessions.
Important in what way and to whom?
 

Obsessed

Telefied
Silver Supporter
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Posts
30,219
Location
Montana
The Beatles opened the door to proper music, for me. My parents' record collection included Sgt Pepper's, Let it Be and Abbey Road, which introduced me to the Fab Four's (later) tunes.

I'll always remember being no more than 8 years old and spending hours listening to those records while gazing at the record sleeves, reading song titles, credits and admiring their look.

The way I see it, I know I was onto something.
I like that you added this. My sister would say the exact same thing. I witnessed the magic, even though I was deep into other bands at the time. As we see from other posts that their influence was huge., not only then, but even after their break-up.
 

Fiesta Red

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Posts
8,835
Location
Texas
I was born shortly before the Beatles broke up. I only became aware of their music years after they were no longer active, and didn’t know much about their history or importance until I was in my teens.

There was plenty of musical variety in my household, but neither my parents nor my 6-years-older sibling were not Beatles fans—in fact, they didn’t care for *any* of the British Invasion groups…they liked individual songs by some of those artists, but not the general movement as a whole (kinda the same way I feel about modern pop).

Subsequently, I heard a few Beatles songs here and there throughout my childhood, as well as a few solo songs by the individual members, but I didn’t know their catalog or even their importance until later.

I was ten years old when John Lennon was shot, and I knew it was a big deal, more from the reaction of people around me than a personal reaction at the loss.

My familiarization (and subsequent appreciation) of the Beatles began when I was around 14-15 years old (1984/5). I had some friends who were huge Rolling Stones fans, and I started listening to the Stones in earnest at that time. I became a Stones fan immediately—even more so than the guys who introduced me to them.

From there, I first opened up and went backwards—listening to the people who influenced the Stones (I was already familiar with Chuck Berry, but started digging Muddy and Wolf and Little Walter and all the other blues guys, who ended up influencing me musically)…around the same time, Stevie Ray Vaughan and the Fabulous Thunderbirds and all the other “Texas Blues Revivalists” were coming into fame, so they influenced my tastes and musical style.

I also started to listen to the Beatles, The Who, the Kinks, Cream, Hendrix, etc…in a way, it was kinda cool that I was 20-25 years late, because it was “this is cool because it is new and I am 14 years old and attaching a memory to it because of a girl or a party or whatever,” it was cool because “these are good songs…”

…or not. Another benefit I had was the ability to pick and choose what songs I liked—and eventually, I came to like/love about 50% of the Beatles catalog; the other 50% I really didn’t care for. (I have similar feelings about Elvis’s and REM’s catalog).

Having said all that, I was able to delve into tons of great music, after the fact, not encumbered by popular opinion of the day being forced down my throat.

Having said all that—between the great, good, bad and ugly, I think the Beatles are the most influential pop band in the history of popular music…even more so than Elvis, Sinatra, Cantor and the like…and judging from my daughter’s generation, it doesn’t seem to be waning.
 
Last edited:

Obsessed

Telefied
Silver Supporter
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Posts
30,219
Location
Montana
I was born shortly before the Beatles broke up. I only became aware of their music years after they were no longer active, and didn’t know much about their history or importance until I was in my teens.

There was plenty of musical variety in my household, but neither my parents nor my 6-years-older sibling were not Beatles fans—in fact, they didn’t care for *any* of the British Invasion groups…they liked individual songs by some of those artists, but not the general movement as a whole (kinda the same way I feel about modern pop).

Subsequently, I heard a few Beatles songs here and there throughout my childhood, as well as a few solo songs by the individual members, but I didn’t know their catalog or even their importance until later.

I was ten years old when John Lennon was shot, and I knew it was a big deal, more from the reaction of people around me than a personal reaction at the loss.

My familiarization (and subsequent appreciation) of the Beatles began when I was around 14-15 years old (1984/5). I had some friends who were huge Rolling Stones fans, and I started listening to the Stones in earnest at that time. I became a Stones fan immediately—even more so than the guys who introduced me to them.

From there, I first opened up and went backwards—listening to the people who influenced the Stones (I was already familiar with Chuck Berry, but started digging Muddy and Wolf and Little Walter and all the other blues guys, who ended up influencing me musically)…around the same time, Stevie Ray Vaughan and the Fabulous Thunderbirds and all the other “Texas Blues Revivalists” were coming into fame, so they influenced my tastes and musical style.

I also started to listen to the Beatles, The Who, the Kinks, Cream, Hendrix, etc…in a way, it was kinda cool that I was 20-25 years late, because it was “this is cool because it is new and I am 14 years old and attaching a memory to it because of a girl or a party or whatever,” it was cool because “these are good songs…”

…or not. Another benefit I had was the ability to pick and choose what songs I liked—and eventually, I came to like/love about 50% of the Beatles catalog; the other 50% I really didn’t care for. (I have similar feelings about Elvis’s and REM’s catalog).

Having said all that, I was able to delve into tons of great music, after the fact, not encumbered by popular opinion of the day being forced down my throat.

Having said all that—between the great, good, bad and ugly, I think the Beatles are the most influential pop band in the history of popular music…even more so than Elvis, Sinatra, Cantor and the like…and kissing from my daughter’s generation, it doesn’t seem to be waning.
This is a fantastic addition to the anthology and exactly what I had hoped for. Your detailed evolution, just goes to show the influences of the Fab Four. A major contribution, so thank you for taking the time to write it.

This demonstrates the greatness of our TDPRI community by sharing experiences about music from different generations and different parts of the world.:)
 

DjimiWrey

Tele-Holic
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Posts
610
Age
67
Location
austin
I just watched the last episode of the Beatles documentary and enjoyed it surprisingly immensely. I am posting this - targeted towards boomers who grew up with the Beatles, but we’re not big fans like myself. Others can join in as well of course. I was woken up by high winds at 3:00 AM suffering from the classic symptoms of my booster yesterday, so I assume (and you should too) this thread idea is drug induced.

I’m not a Beatle hater, I was into Dick Dale, Yardbirds, Stones, and Jimi, but across the hall was my Beatlemania sister that played every single album seemingly constantly. So, I know every song chronologically and can probably name each song in two notes.

My first Beatles memory was the Ed Sullivan Show. We were very limited in our TV watching, but the whole family watched the show weekly. I was nine years old.

And so my thoughts were to confess my Beatle experiences.

Confessions:

  1. I was still nine when I went across the street from our apartment to the toy store in Daly City, CA (S.F. working class neighborhood). They had a huge display of Beatle wigs, Beatle shoes, and photos - all in front of a life size cardboard cut-out of the Fab Four. This is when I realized they were a big deal. My sister’s swooning over Paul explained all of the screaming that I saw on the news.
  2. We then moved down the peninsula to Palo Alto. I developed some close friends through Cub Scouts and my best friend was all caught up into the Beatles. So one day we snuck off on our bicycles to try to get a glimpse of the Beatles staying in the swankiest hotel nearby while prepping for their Candlestick Park concert. Because of the crowds out front and we were still short eleven year olds, we decided out best chance was around back at the servant/shipping dock area. Sure enough, a limo pulled up and we got to see them dash into the car waving to screaming fans. My sister hit me for not inviting her along.
  3. One of the first songs I attempted to learn as a guitar player was, “Good Day Sunshine”. Learning from a friend, I had to buy a capo, but after a few days, I realized this just did not speak to me. But I did learn all about capos. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was a blues guy through and through.
  4. I realized the sudden loss of John, but I had just started my career, so I was too busy to reflect on it at the time, but later realized what an impact he had as a song writer.
  5. Finally, as the rooftop concert ended in the documentary, a caption was put up on the screen saying that this was their last public concert and a tear developed in the corner of my eye and ran down my cheek.
My Beatle confessions.

thanks for the post. i'm 67 so your recollections are relatable.
i wasn't a hard core fan until long after they broke up and i became half of a beatle cover duo (the dung beetles) and began working out faithfully accurate arrangements for two guitars....
that in itself was a study in theory and analysis!
 

Obsessed

Telefied
Silver Supporter
Joined
Nov 21, 2012
Posts
30,219
Location
Montana
thanks for the post. i'm 67 so your recollections are relatable.
i wasn't a hard core fan until long after they broke up and i became half of a beatle cover duo (the dung beetles) and began working out faithfully accurate arrangements for two guitars....
that in itself was a study in theory and analysis!
Oooh, that is some impact right there. It is interesting how we go about gaining knowledge about music theory. This is a great example. Thank you for your submission.
 




Top