I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

i think part of the reason that the later Beatles material is discussed more often is because it has proven to their most influential music. that may not always have been true (i guess i'm thinking of certain early punk/ramones/lennon albums like rock n'roll that directly looked back to 50s/early 60s music), but as time goes by it is much easier to see the connection between today's music and later beatles rather than today's music and early beatles.

or not? (that's my josh marshall-style twist ending)

I guess there might be something to that - reminds me of a discussion we had somewhere recently about R.E.M. and how right at this moment their sound is pretty far from what most young bands would be taking up or exploring or trying to sound like. Doesn't mean they weren't influential at the time, though, or that today's bands don't in any way descend from things they did.

Early Beatles might be a similar case in 2017, where few are aping them, and indeed few going back some years now have been aping them. And yet trends/groups that were very immediately influenced by the early Beatles are very clearly part of larger family trees. At the moment what's coming to mind is the whole Byrds lineage derived from George's 12-string playing in 1964, but of course that just leads me back to R.E.M. so maybe that's not the best example but hopefully this makes some kind of sense. Obviously they were so huge, and prompted so many people to form bands and try things, that their early-years influence might be measured simply on the resurgence and formalization of the "rock band" as the thing to pursue, or the "drummer, bassist, rhythm guitar, lead guitar, and trading off backing-vocal duties" as your basic lineup, etc. Not a singlehanded accomplishment but, I think, a real one. "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr. Epstein," and all that.

Hmm. Well, personally I think Kraftwerk, soul and funk are more influential on "today's music" than late-period Beatles. There was a point in time where popular music in general was just naturally evolving independently from anything to do with The Beatles and The Beatles were perceived as very much an "old band" - influential, yes, but very much an old band. Now they've been picked over to death to the point where everyone has convinced themselves that The Beatles invented and influenced everything, which is bull. For one thing, all The Beatles did was take what was going on around them, take the bits they liked and then blend it all together to create something else - which is what people were doing before and after them, and no doubt the same would have occurred without them. This goes for both their earlier material and their later material.

it's interesting to look at their studio years cos they are much closer to how people record music now. they ended "Taxman" by copying and pasting the entire guitar solo to the end of the song. this is how a lot of music is made nowadays.

it's relatable. it's not as fun to reminisce about them playing "It Won't Be Long" 17 times in a row, more or less exactly the same each time, hoping to get a perfect full take. nobody records like that anymore anyways. we are much more likely to use post-Taxman editing techniques.

Well, personally I think Kraftwerk, soul and funk are more influential on "today's music" than late-period Beatles.

just so i'm not misunderstood, i was comparing the relative influences of early vs late-era Beatles on ""today's music"" as a partial explanation as to why one of the Beatles' eras seems to be discussed more frequently than the other, and not talking about Kraftwerk or any other artist or genre.

REM: Classic or dud?

^^^ REM discussion I was thinking of is this thread, starting January 2016, but interestingly enough the October 2013 discussion also overlaps with our current thread a lot, including a (rather good!) Turrican post on early vs. late Beatles in re: what happens when a band is just not warmed up and in the groove with each other from playing live.

xxpost:

On things like 'She Loves You', there are entire takes spliced together to create the illusion that they did achieve the perfect full take - you can hear the edits! A lot of music is made like that nowadays, too. The Beatles weren't the only band working in the studio like they did in '66-'68, either - the only difference with The Beatles is that they weren't touring, therefore people thought they invented everything because they were in the studio all the time.

i don't buy the argument that they weren't playing live. they stopped playing in 65-66 because they couldn't hear each other. they went in the studio and, surprise surprise, they could hear each other again. when they were touring they were in airplanes and taxis and interviews 12 hours a day and playing live for under 30 minutes in a stadium with no monitors. during the studio years, they were playing for hours at a time. Ringo would go to a movie premiere and come and playing from midnight until 5am while the band recorded the backing tracks. this is why the albums sound so good. they are well-rehearsed. they work on these songs for hours at a time. live, they can't do that, they can't hear what each other is playing.

their musicianship suffered and this is why they quit playing live. on a studio schedule they could play together for hours at a time. compare this to playing live for 30 minutes a day.

they've been picked over to death to the point where everyone has convinced themselves that The Beatles invented and influenced everything, which is bull

invented no influenced yes. nobody is saying they invented everything. who is saying this? a scarecrow?

you are the only person here saying "people thought they invented everything". who are these people you are talking about? what is their argument? are you saying they invented backwards tape? they went to art school. they knew about Dada and stuff. i don't think they ever claimed to invent anything. they certainly popularized it more than anyone had in pop music until that point.

the Beatles invented music, everybody knows that

before them, radios only played static, people danced to the wind and the birds, and teenagers spent all their money on hard candies and comic books

It's a whole different kettle of fish playing live in front of an audience compared to performing in a sterile studio environment. McCartney recognised this, which was partly why the Get Back project was conceived.

"people danced to the wind and birds" is amazing, thank you

what is "today's music"?

halp i only listen to the Beatles and Rolling Stones

Geir, there, everywhere

Ringo would go to a movie premiere and come

did he sit in the back row and do this?

Did he do it? He invented it according to Lewisohn!

Ringo on the left...

https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/peggy-hj.gif

http://www.beatlesebooks.com/files/1619622/uploaded/yellow%20sumbarine%20premier.jpg

looks ready to pop at the Yellow Submarine premiere

Surrender Ringo

Paul looking very thoughtful there and super interested in the movie always the company man

the canon narrative favoring the later years is a tad sexist imho. "She Loves You" era = silly teenage girls. Sgt Pepper = critics mansplaining the deep meaning of life.

xpost:

Yoko seems to be enjoying it. John and George look furious for some reason.

Keef too.

the canon narrative favoring the later years is a tad sexist imho

you mean the years when Yoko Ono was singing and doing tape loops on a Beatles album

so much to read into that seating arrangement

there are some crazy intricate song structures in early beatles material. put aside the covers for a minute (most of which are amazing btw); not a second time; anna; there's a place; it won't be long ('she loves you' gets a lot of attention for 'starting with the chorus' but it won't be long does the same thing)...those are hard songs to imagine writing.

xposts:

People still give Yoko shit about her relationship with Lennon and the impact she had on Lennon in 1968/1969 etc. - not realising, of course, that before she came along, Lennon was a real mess. If anything, she saved Lennon. The Beatles' break-up in the late '60s was always going to happen.

there are some crazy intricate song structures in early beatles material. put aside the covers for a minute (most of which are amazing btw); not a second time; anna; there's a place; it won't be long ('she loves you' gets a lot of attention for 'starting with the chorus' but it won't be long does the same thing)...those are hard songs to imagine writing.

― akm, Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:25 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, 'It Won't Be Long' has some great use of chords in it... 'I Call Your Name' and 'I'll Get You', too.

Well "Anna" is a cover, but yes.

As my comments on gender above might suggest, I totally agree that there is a sexism to the narratives, familiar from a lot of other rockist stuff. Ono's presence on a few tracks doesn't change that, esp since the way the canonical narrative tends to discuss her is as a meddling harpy that derailed male genius. And I doubt ''Long Long Long'' is anywhere near the list of what the average consumer of Beatlemyth considers their significant late-period achievements.

XPS Kind of feel bad for whoever it was that had to sit behind George and his giant hat.

(Obv there are a few difft canon narratives here - I cited Anthology above, but in a way it's revisionist or 'setting the record straight, from the band itself'-ist, and Yoko Ono's status is part of that. When I was a kid, before I was even into the Beatles, I had heard it said that 'Yoko broke up the Beatles,' and I think that was pretty popular conventional wisdom for a whole lot of people who bought Beatle records once upon a time. Anthology adopts the variety-of-reasons-but-nobody's-fault narrative, understandable given the people involved, but also consistent with, I think, where thoughtful Beatle-heads and Usenet FAQ writers were by that time. Ringo: ''I think it stands as an absolute fact that we were going different places.'')

IIRC, The Compleat Beatles documentary painted Paul as the one that broke up the Beatles by pissing the others off by "bossing them about" ... I think the dialogue is something like: "George, John and Ringo had all quit at various points, only to be coaxed back by Paul... but now it was Paul's turn." - there's nothing about John having already quit the band in there, it's basically "Paul was a bossy-boots and then he left us in the shit"

(This probably explains why McCartney bought the rights to The Compleat Beatles circa Anthology to take it out of print)

In a recent-ish interview centering on his latest research, Lewisohn puts forth that the India trip -- or, specifically, John and George being incensed that Paul acted on behalf of "The Beatles" in London while John and George were still in India -- was what started them down the breakup path.

I had heard it said that 'Yoko broke up the Beatles,' and I think that was pretty popular conventional wisdom for a whole lot of people who bought Beatle records once upon a time

yeah i remember hearing this in the 80s. i don't think anyone taken seriously is pushing this myth nowadays. it's obvious there were many reasons they broke up, Paul being a workaholic prick being one of them, and that a lot of that past animosity was fueled by racism and sexism. stuff which still exists, of course. but i think, or at least hope, in general people aren't as hung up on that old myth.

It's a bit of a shame, actually, because this essentially means that The Compleat Beatles will never be re-issued. On one hand, I can understand why because there's a lot of things that Anthology clarifies and clears up. However, because of when The Compleat Beatles was made and released (only 15 years after Sgt. Pepper's was made, 12 years after the break-up and barely a couple of years after Lennon's death) you can tell with some of the interview stuff with George Martin (for example) that the memories are "fresher", so it's interesting to watch from that perspective. Whereas on Anthology people are trying to recall the same events from a longer distance.

(xxpost)

Nah, "Yoko broke up the Beatles" is a shitty opinion that I still come across even now... and yeah, it's totally fueled by racism and sexism.

Nobody ever gave Linda McCartney a hard time, even though she was very much present during the Get Back sessions and took photos of The Beatles working during sessions for Abbey Road etc.

all The Beatles did was take what was going on around them, take the bits they liked and then blend it all together to create something else - which is what people were doing before and after them

They also invested it with tremendous spirit, talent, and creativity.

Yes, also like many before and after them.

those are definitely some words you are writing. they certainly are comprised of letters and words.

Nobody ever gave Linda McCartney a hard time

i'm not so sure about this. when the band broke up it was messy and it was the music industry in the 70's

It's an interesting debate - how rarefied was the Beatles' exceptionalism?

less than 3 years from "She Loves You" to "Tomorrow Never Knows"

back to the music. i wish the Anthology had gone into their solo stuff. i have always loved this song George Harrison taped with the Remo Four for the Wonderwall soundtrack:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVRmdrM0Mmg

i'm not so sure about this. when the band broke up it was messy and it was the music industry in the 70's

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:50 AM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm totally sure about it. Linda joining Paul in Wings and playing keyboards onstage on his solo tours might have drawn the occasional giggle from a tiny group of dickheads, but John working with Yoko actively pissed a lot of people off and offended them and still to this day you hear jokes about Yoko or accusations that she "broke up the Beatles" ... nobody levels that accusation at Linda or any of the other "Beatle wives" ...

There were decades of awful sexist jokes about Linda -- hell, as late as 1989 the "Hey Jude" tape was played all the time by Howard Stern and his equivalents around the US, and was still getting airplay for years afterward.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tape_of_Only_Linda

Yeah, Mick Jagger most famously dragged McCartney for "starting a band with his old lady."

As I said, a tiny group of dickheads. You'd expect that kind of shtick from Howard Stern.