The Beatles why do they sound so different from early Rock

[Aggie87]

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

You might say the same thing for Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr. Save for "All Things Must Pass", none of the individual Beatles' solo material were consistently good, IMO. There were a few fantastic tracks scattered around, but nothing to make anyone think they would have done any different had they stayed together. IMO of course.

[John L]

With Lennon, the reasons seem pretty clear. After the Beatles, he became a bit "lazy" about creating new music, although still dropped a masterpiece here and there. George continued to create about at the same level as he did with the Beatles (IMO), maybe even at a higher level.

But what the hell happened to Paul? He made so many fantastic songs with the Beatles and continued working hard in music (it would appear) after the Beatles. Yet I find virtually his entire solo output to be an utter bore.

[JETman]

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

You might say the same thing for Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr. Save for "All Things Must Pass", none of the individual Beatles' solo material were consistently good, IMO. There were a few fantastic tracks scattered around, but nothing to make anyone think they would have done any different had they stayed together. IMO of course.

Of course. But there's nothing there to make you certain that it wouldn't have been different had they stayed together.

Not the point though. Music is music, and each individual listens to what he/she deems worthy.

Obviously, if nothing else, the Beatles tend to polarize public opinion greatly.

[Teasing the Korean]

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

The record section at any Goodwill proves my point. End of discussion.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

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

I can't help it if you take no notice of my post naming Hank Crawford's "World of Hank Crawford".

MG

[A Lark Ascending]

What is often forgotten is that there was a lot of very harmonically adventurous music being made in the wider world of popular music - think Bacharach or Jobim - but which was not considered all that 'hip' to a pop/rock audience because it was cloaked in the sort of string drenched arrangements associated with 'easy listening/MOR'.

One of The Beatles successes from around '65 was to bring some of those more complex chord sequences into pop/rock whilst keeping the sense of being a pop/rock group. They were, of course, quickly emulated, leading to the rich period of music that stretched to the early/mid-70s. Harmonic adventurousness was one of the qualities jetisoned by the back-to-basics movement that took control at that point. The later group who most effectively, to my mind, exploited some of the Beatles experiments were XTC.

RE: Sgt Pepper

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

Yes, there are some great songs there - 'A Day', 'It's Getting Better', 'Fixing a Hole' (marvellous, almost jazzy feel to that one). And I'm partial to the overly sentimental 'She's Leaving Home' (which I first heard as a stimulus in a Religious Education lesson!), the cod-eastern 'Within You, Without You' and the two upbeat non-rockers ('With a little Help' and 'When I'm '64').

I don't care for the title track, Lucy, Rita or Mr Kite.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[Teasing the Korean]

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

I can't help it if you take no notice of my post naming Hank Crawford's "World of Hank Crawford".

MG

Nor my suggestion of Bernard Herrmann's Taxi Driver. To say nothing of Bill Evans's final recordings.

[Hot Ptah]

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

You might say the same thing for Lennon/McCartney/Harrison/Starr. Save for "All Things Must Pass", none of the individual Beatles' solo material were consistently good, IMO. There were a few fantastic tracks scattered around, but nothing to make anyone think they would have done any different had they stayed together. IMO of course.

Of course. But there's nothing there to make you certain that it wouldn't have been different had they stayed together.

Not the point though. Music is music, and each individual listens to what he/she deems worthy.

Obviously, if nothing else, the Beatles tend to polarize public opinion greatly.

Not so when they were together. Everyone loved them (except the old folks who did not like any of "the kids' music.')

[A Lark Ascending]

Not so when they were together. Everyone loved them (except the old folks who did not like any of "the kids' music.')

Not so (at least over here). The Beatles were the loveable face of pop music - things like 'A Taste of Honey', 'Yesterday', 'When I'm 64' etc could link to pre-rock listeners. My parents and their friends ridiculed my musical tastes but they always qualified it with 'but The Beatles are good.' Probably explains why I resisted buying Beatles albums for so long!!!!

Edited November 11, 2008 by Bev Stapleton

[JETman]

Not so when they were together. Everyone loved them (except the old folks who did not like any of "the kids' music.')

Not so (at least over here). The Beatles were the loveable face of pop music - things like 'A Taste of Honey', 'Yesterday', 'When I'm 64' etc could link to pre-rock listeners. My parents and their friends ridiculed my musical tastes but they always qualified it with 'but The Beatles are good.' Probably explains why I resisted buying Beatles albums for so long!!!!

Ok, using the phrase "public opinion" was probably a little over the top. What I really meant was that the Beatles polarize the opinions of those on this board!!!

[BruceH]

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.

Let It Bleed the equialent of Abbey Road. I don't think so.

But having said that, I agree with your opinion that Abbey Road, good as it is, still isn't quite as good as some of the earlier albums. For many years my personal faves have been (the genuine, British) A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, and Revolver. Always keeping in mind, of course, that the suite on side two of AR makes the whole thing even more apples-and-oranges than usual.

[RDK]

Okay. This once-promising thread has gone downhill. It's starting to read like the Hoffman forum now...

[Karma Police]

Sgt Pepper musical concept was the linking of songs or often directly into each other and use of a a reprise. I think it hurts the album in the age of the CD because it was meant to be as one long single. The second side of Abbey Road is that way also. I think Revolver and Rubber Soul are better albums. I really like the chord progression on "Here There and Everywhere" a great underrated song. Or the altered scales of "Think For Yourself".

The Beach Boys Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday are great albums IMO with no songs over four minutes and no direct linking.

[Jazzmoose]

Okay. This once-promising thread has gone downhill. It's starting to read like the Hoffman forum now...

Well, that depends on which pressing of Abbey Road you're listening to...

[Jazzmoose]

The Beach Boys Pet Sounds and the Byrds Younger Than Yesterday are great albums IMO with no songs over four minutes and no direct linking.

I realize I'm stepping on some toes here, but I always thought Pet Sounds was one of the most overrated albems in rock. It's relative obscurity is well deserved...

[Jazzmoose]

Ok, using the phrase "public opinion" was probably a little over the top. What I really meant was that the Beatles polarize the opinions of those on this board!!!

Actually, I think what you really mean is that there are people on this board who disagree with you...

[JETman]

Ok, using the phrase "public opinion" was probably a little over the top. What I really meant was that the Beatles polarize the opinions of those on this board!!!

Actually, I think what you really mean is that there are people on this board who disagree with you...

I NEVER said that the Beatles were perfect or that ABBEY ROAD was my favorite or the best album ever. If you read back over my posts, I've pretty much kept my opinions (except those regarding the Stones) to myself.

[Hot Ptah]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

[7/4]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

Jazz isn't very popular.

[RDK]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

I thought we did.

[RDK]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

Jazz isn't very popular.

A surprisingly correct answer even if said in jest. It's easy to find common ground in The Beatles - everybody knows them. Its harder to find such commonality in discussing most jazz artists/albums. I think we're all tired of discussing Kind of Blue, and if we start into the various sound quality/stereo-vs.-mono/CD-vs.-LP issues Chuck will eventually yell at somebody for overusing the master tapes.

The other reason, of course, is that even if there are a few jazz artists who were just as wildly influential as The Beatles were in their own way... well, relatively few people care.

[7/4]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

Jazz isn't very popular.

A surprisingly correct answer even if said in jest.

I was serious!

[paul secor]

It strikes me--why don't we have extensive discussions like this about jazz?

Jazz isn't very popular.

The other reason, of course, is that even if there are a few jazz artists who were just as wildly influential as The Beatles were in their own way... well, relatively few people care.

I would hope that folks here would care.

[Chuck Nessa]

Indeed.

[John L]

Let It Bleed the equialent of Abbey Road. I don't think so.

Not the equivalent, but something far more significant (IMO).