The Beatles why do they sound so different from early Rock

[Teasing the Korean]

How many in this discussion were there at the time? I missed the Vee Jay issues, but heard all the rest in sequence. I do understand the difference between UK and US issues.

These guys have all bought into the rhetoric of a bunch of lonely male masturbators living in their parents' basements.

[RDK]

How many in this discussion were there at the time? I missed the Vee Jay issues, but heard all the rest in sequence. I do understand the difference between UK and US issues.

These guys have all bought into the rhetoric of a bunch of lonely male masturbators living in their parents' basements.

You mean "teenagers?"

[Jazzmoose]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

[BruceH]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I agree, except that I don't much care for most of Magical Mystery Tour either. And let's face it, even Abbey Road, great as it is, has its weak spots. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer"? *Shudder* ...In the running for worst Beatles original ever.

[Teasing the Korean]

"Maxwell's Silver Hammer"? *Shudder* ...In the running for worst Beatles original ever.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer has an elaborate rhyme scheme worthy of Cole Porter or Noel Coward. Far from their worst ever.

What have you done lately?

[BruceH]

"Maxwell's Silver Hammer"? *Shudder* ...In the running for worst Beatles original ever.

Maxwell's Silver Hammer has an elaborate rhyme scheme worthy of Cole Porter or Noel Coward. Far from their worst ever.

And you are free to listen to it as often as you wish.

[Teasing the Korean]

And you are free to listen to it as often as you wish.

I don't listen to the Beatles; only jazz and easy listening covers of them.

[chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez]

http://beatlesource.com/bs/audio/mmt/mmtRM4mono.mp3

DIG M.M.T B4 ALL THE POMPUS OVERDUBS!!! SO MUCH BETTER!!

[Teasing the Korean]

http://beatlesource.com/bs/audio/mmt/mmtRM4mono.mp3

DIG M.M.T B4 ALL THE POMPUS OVERDUBS!!! SO MUCH BETTER!!

Still not as good as the Hollyridge Strings' version!

Not to mention the BUD SHANK album on World Pacific!

Edited November 11, 2008 by Teasing the Korean

[Karma Police]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I think they were way ahead of people like the Stones and their blues based peers. They recorded the proto-techno "Tomorrow Never Knows" April of 1966 and look what was in pop music afterwards. You really want to appreciate how far ahead of their time the Beatles were in Pop Music? Play some of the other stuff that was being released in, say, late 1966. When you've heard Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" (Billboard #2 June 25, 1966), The Happenings' "See You In September" (#4 Sept. 10 1966), Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" (#3 Nov. 5, 1966), The New Vaudeville Band's "Winchester Cathedral" (#1 Dec. 3 1966), and countless others a few times, and then you listen to, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in late '66, released February 13, 1967), you realize you're dealing with a group in another talent-dimension altogether.

[Teasing the Korean]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I think they were way ahead of people like the Stones and their blues based peers. They recorded the proto-techno "Tomorrow Never Knows" April of 1966 and look what was in pop music afterwards. You really want to appreciate how far ahead of their time the Beatles were in Pop Music? Play some of the other stuff that was being released in, say, late 1966. When you've heard Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" (Billboard #2 June 25, 1966), The Happenings' "See You In September" (#4 Sept. 10 1966), Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" (#3 Nov. 5, 1966), The New Vaudeville Band's "Winchester Cathedral" (#1 Dec. 3 1966), and countless others a few times, and then you listen to, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in late '66, released February 13, 1967), you realize you're dealing with a group in another talent-dimension altogether.

If you would leave Frank Sinatra out from your example, you would present a more convincing case.

[A Lark Ascending]

But not thinking of the Beatles as an album band DOES sound a tad strange, considering it was they (more than anyone else in rock) who pretty much invented the idea of the "album" as an artistic gestalt. They were the first, as far as I know, to actually give thought to programming, to issues of one song balancing another, to (for instance) having an appropriate song end side one as well as a "kick-off" song for side two, etc. In short, the first to see their albums as anything more than a dumping ground for hits and filler.

I take your point there.

Though much depends how you heard them.

I didn't buy an album by anyone until mid-1970 by which time they were all over. I don't recall hearing 'Abbey Road' as an LP until late '72 and didn't own a full Beatles album until c. '74.

So my experience of them was via individual songs (not always singles...a lot of album tracks got played on the radio).

I'm not trying to make any general case; but I think the way they were/are perceived varies enormously - I suspect how most people heard and remembered them bears little resemblence to the text book analyis that tries to position their cultural or artistic significance.

I don't much care for Pepper either - when I first heard it, after reading so much about how great it was, I felt rather underwhelmed. Revolutionary for its time, no doubt, but I'm not convinced it has their best collection of songs (Rubber Soul, Revolver) or their most successful experiment (I'd go for side 2 of Abbey Road there).

[Jazzmoose]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I think they were way ahead of people like the Stones and their blues based peers. They recorded the proto-techno "Tomorrow Never Knows" April of 1966 and look what was in pop music afterwards. You really want to appreciate how far ahead of their time the Beatles were in Pop Music? Play some of the other stuff that was being released in, say, late 1966. When you've heard Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" (Billboard #2 June 25, 1966), The Happenings' "See You In September" (#4 Sept. 10 1966), Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" (#3 Nov. 5, 1966), The New Vaudeville Band's "Winchester Cathedral" (#1 Dec. 3 1966), and countless others a few times, and then you listen to, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in late '66, released February 13, 1967), you realize you're dealing with a group in another talent-dimension altogether.

If you would leave Frank Sinatra out from your example, you would present a more convincing case.

No shit! Them's pretty bold words on a jazz board!

But I don't agree with the premise even without the inclusion of Sinatra. Even if you are granted that the Beatles were the best of the Top Twenty, that doesn't mean there weren't other bands around doing some pretty adventurous stuff. Plus, your descriptions ('proto-techno' Tomorrow Never Knows, the Kinks were a garage band, etc.) seem way off base to me. Though I admit, I'm one of the least knowledgable posters here when it comes to pure music, song construction, etc.

[Guy Berger]

I think in a strange way, the Beatles were a bit like Duke Ellington in their relationships to the main streams of their music. What each did was very personal and innovative but wasn't the starting point for some new thing. As far as modern Rock is concerned, the development was done by London bands like the Stones, Yardbirds, Manfred Mann, Cream and Led Zeppelin, who had come out of London blues bands like Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and the Mann-Hugg Blues Menn. Very little of that music seemed to me to owe anything at all to the Beatles, though everyone recognised the value of what the Beatles were doing.

So the Beatles (and Duke) stood outside the main flow, always able to join in when it suited them, but more often than not, not bothering with that flow.

MG

It's difficult for me to imagine the music of the Stones, Cream or Led Zeppelin without the Beatles' influence. I do agree that the "blues" part of "blues rock" came from somewhere else.

Guy

[Guy Berger]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I think they were way ahead of people like the Stones and their blues based peers. They recorded the proto-techno "Tomorrow Never Knows" April of 1966 and look what was in pop music afterwards. You really want to appreciate how far ahead of their time the Beatles were in Pop Music? Play some of the other stuff that was being released in, say, late 1966. When you've heard Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" (Billboard #2 June 25, 1966), The Happenings' "See You In September" (#4 Sept. 10 1966), Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" (#3 Nov. 5, 1966), The New Vaudeville Band's "Winchester Cathedral" (#1 Dec. 3 1966), and countless others a few times, and then you listen to, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in late '66, released February 13, 1967), you realize you're dealing with a group in another talent-dimension altogether.

You're setting up a straw man there. Plenty of forward-looking pop/rock music in 1966 by the Beatles' contemporaries (including several "blues-based" bands that you malign). Certainly the Beatles were among the most important contributors to the rapid evolution of the style during that period, but they had plenty of contemporaries.

Guy

[John L]

I don't agree that the quality of the Beatles' music dropped after Sgt. Pepper, as I feel that Sgt. Pepper was part of the drop. Yeah, Abbey Road was excellent, but Sgt. Pepper? There's good stuff there, but it isn't at the level of Revolver. I'd rather grab Magical Mystery Tour, at least for the second side.

I think they were way ahead of people like the Stones and their blues based peers. They recorded the proto-techno "Tomorrow Never Knows" April of 1966 and look what was in pop music afterwards. You really want to appreciate how far ahead of their time the Beatles were in Pop Music? Play some of the other stuff that was being released in, say, late 1966. When you've heard Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night" (Billboard #2 June 25, 1966), The Happenings' "See You In September" (#4 Sept. 10 1966), Johnny Rivers' "Poor Side of Town" (#3 Nov. 5, 1966), The New Vaudeville Band's "Winchester Cathedral" (#1 Dec. 3 1966), and countless others a few times, and then you listen to, say, "Strawberry Fields Forever" (recorded in late '66, released February 13, 1967), you realize you're dealing with a group in another talent-dimension altogether.

Now that's what I called a seriously stacked deck. In 66-67, we also had on the charts James Brown (I Feel Good, Its a Man's World, Cold Sweat), Rolling Stones (Mothers Little Helper, 19 Nervous Breakdown), Lovin' Spoonful (Summer in the City), Beach Boys (Good Vibrations), Percy Sledge (When a Man Loves a Woman), Procol Harum (A Whiter Shade of Pale), Sam & Dave (Hold On, I'm Comin'), Janis Joplin (Piece of My Heart, Ball and Chain), Jimi Hendrix (Purple Haze, Foxy Lady), Bob Dylan (Like a Rolling Stone, Just Like a Woman, Rainy Day Women).

Not to take anything away from the Beatles, but let's get real.

Edited November 11, 2008 by John L

[Guy Berger]

I don't much care for Pepper either - when I first heard it, after reading so much about how great it was, I felt rather underwhelmed. Revolutionary for its time, no doubt, but I'm not convinced it has their best collection of songs (Rubber Soul, Revolver) or their most successful experiment (I'd go for side 2 of Abbey Road there).

I agree that it isn't their best album, but I do think it's a great album. Plenty of extremely enjoyable music on there, and if nothing else you have "A Day in the Life" which does deserve serious consideration as "most successful experiment".

Guy

[JETman]

WOW!!!!!!!

Some of you guys are starting to sound like you STILL live in your parents' basements!!!

Who cares about US/UK issues. The music's all there whether you want to listen to it or not.

Over 100 posts and still nobody has named a better swan song than Abbey Road.

WOW!!!!!!!

[Teasing the Korean]

Over 100 posts and still nobody has named a better swan song than Abbey Road.

Taxi Driver is better.

[Aggie87]

Over 100 posts and still nobody has named a better swan song than Abbey Road.

WOW!!!!!!!

Why does that matter?

They were obviously a great band, but they had a VERY short career as a group. Had they stuck around as long as the Stones have, I dare say their legacy would be a bit different. If the Stones had broken up after Let It Bleed (a comparable point in their career maybe), it would be easily equivalent to Abbey Road.

And I don't think Abbey Road, good as it is, is as good as some of the preceding albums.

[JETman]

So then you're making an excuse for why the Stones have sucked for the last going on 35 years?

Are you saying that the longer a group's career, the smaller chance that they will make a great record at the end of it? That's quite a generalization.

[Teasing the Korean]

Are you saying that the longer a group's career, the smaller chance that they will make a great record at the end of it? That's quite a generalization.

In pop music, it's unfortunately true.

Many jazz artists and classical composers end their careers with a bang. Pop groups tend to fizzle. It is the nature of pop music.

[Hot Ptah]

WOW!!!!!!!

Some of you guys are starting to sound like you STILL live in your parents' basements!!!

Who cares about US/UK issues. The music's all there whether you want to listen to it or not.

Over 100 posts and still nobody has named a better swan song than Abbey Road.

WOW!!!!!!!

Gram Parsons' "Grevious Angel" is better. The Velvet Underground's "Loaded" is better. Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water" is better. Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" is better (his last studio album finished before his death). The Band's "Northern Lights Southern Cross" is better.

The Beatles have a swan song, unlike many groups, because of their legal battles against each other, which prevented the use of the group name after Abbey Road. Many groups continued on and on with one or zero original members, releasing pedestrian albums under the group name, which by some point was only a legal entity.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Hot Ptah

[JETman]

Are you saying that the longer a group's career, the smaller chance that they will make a great record at the end of it? That's quite a generalization.

In pop music, it's unfortunately true.

Many jazz artists and classical composers end their careers with a bang. Pop groups tend to fizzle. It is the nature of pop music.

The Rolling Stones have not fizzled. They flatlined back in 1973. Since then they've been sucking money from their adoring fan base.

The point I was trying to make was that the Beatles, despite all their internal problems, were still able to write and record a damn near perfect album.

Anyway, what do you have to back up your statement?

[7/4]

I liked those first couple of albums with Ron Wood...

dB