Why the Beatles Totally RULE

Rock and roll was only a small part of who the Beatles were.

They were songwriters.

They were singers.

They were musicians.

And as a self-contained band they did it as well as it’s ever been done.

And Chuck Berry was just a showman?

That’s crazy talk!

 

Perhaps, if "humbled" is a code word for some kind of degrading sex act.

 

Haters gonna Hate, Taters gonna Tate...

What were we talking about?

 

You had to be around for an earlier thread.

- D

 

When they came out I had their hat their badges other stuff. Got too poppy. Over produced which was nice but not for me. Switched to Dave Clark 5 ,stones, kinks and then mc5 , blue cheer etc etc

 

Absolutely love the Beatles. I am so thankful for the years of musical enjoyment.

 

Let's face it, without Ed Sullivan, they would have never made it across the pond.

 

they owe their dubious success largely to the US draft board

 

Reading this thread is less interesting than listening to this, which is perhaps the biggest waste of groves on any Beatles’ album...imho.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNdcFPjGsm8


Fwiw, I remember the Sullivan show. There is no valid debate that The Beatles influenced a wide swath of the musical
World from then on...until the present. Notice the word valid....and then continue the debate....ad nauseum.
Fwiw, I never debate things like the ‘greatest’ or ‘best’.

 

Give it up. You're not going to singlehandedly dismantle the legacy for something that makes people weep tears of joy.
Or maybe you're right, maybe nobody actually liked them, they're just all idiots. Maybe not.
Wake up sheeple!!1!1

 

Love'em or hate'em, they changed the world forever. Maybe you had to be there, but when they hit, everyday something new was in the air.

 

i think the influence of the beatles culture-wise vs music-wise are two different things.

as much as i don't care for the stones, as far less popular as they were than the beatles, i hear way more stones-isms in most rock music than beatles-isms.

 

George has got some great tone on this cut.

 

I nominate this thread as a contender for Dumbest Thread of 2020.

 

They were well known before the Ed Sullivan show. The crying girls in that audience show they had reached the States beforehand. Let's see, the first show as Feb 9, 1964 (history.com), I Want To Hold Your Hand, hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 on Feb 2, 1964. The single sold over 1 Million copies between its release on Dec 26, 1963 and Jan 10, 1964.

The Beatles were on Ed Sullivan because they were popular. And he certainly helped them more, but it seems odd to credit his show solely for their U.S. success.

https://www.billboard.com/music/the-beatles/chart-history
https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/business-of-the-beatles-by-the-numbers

 

They were met with hoards of screaming girls when they first landed in the United States. The Sullivan appearance just took things that much more over the top.

 

I really think milk is overrated and owes much of it's success to rice, barley and wheat.

 

PPM tells it like it is!

 

It also means 98% spent their money on something else they preferred - during their peak. Make sure you aren't making the argument of the catalog owner. "WE'RE #1!" comes to mind.

There are other convincing examples from other areas of music history, of more popular, more successful, more impactful artists, who didn't have a commercial entity pushing their legacy after they demised, and have been displaced by other less significant, less successful acts by the new catalog owners and successful marketing. When money is involved, you can't trust contemporary "historians". What's the difference in a historian and a marketeer anyway?