The Beatles

Turrican, I think the line you're taking here is interesting but I'm not sure the phenomenon in the case of the Beatles is so inexplicable.

I never said it was inexplicable, I understand perfectly why The Beatles' music and lives have become extensively researched and pored over. Yes, they were the biggest band in the world at a "key moment in a lot of people's coming-of-age", but we're several generations down the line now, and there have since been a lot of bands that have been important to a large number of people that aren't The Beatles. Maybe not to the degree of screaming, crying and general hysteria that you see in those classic early Beatles clips, but definitely big enough to be obsessed over by a large number of people.

How many volumes did Dick's Picks go?

part of the problem is that not everything is as meticulously documented as the Beatles were. Like, I would love to see a detailed technical analysis of how peak period Parliament/Funkadelic stuff was done, but everyone was high as fuck and George is not really a reliable record-keeper

― Mr. Scarf Ace is Back (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, June 4, 2013 12:26 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is very true... it would seem like The Beatles/George Martin/EMI were very prescient in archiving all of this stuff, and it's definitely worked in their favour in terms of keeping the 'Beatle brand' going. But for a band such as (for example) Queen, who were also on EMI and whose tracking sheets and tapes seem to be still there in the EMI vaults, I can only wonder why a detailed book hasn't been written about them. I mean, if the information is available, there'll surely always be someone interested in it.

Obsession has just been democratized. More bands have more obsessives now than ever before, just the depth of those obsessions aren't as deep as the Beatles because the breadth is so wide.

my guess as to why there's more of it about the Beatles than most bands is because the Beatles were more popular than most bands btw

― ¬╡▫ ▫╞⌠ (sic), Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:19 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think it's more because they were the first of the "more popular than most" bands.

But for a band such as (for example) Queen, who were also on EMI and whose tracking sheets and tapes seem to be still there in the EMI vaults, I can only wonder why a detailed book hasn't been written about them.

the last time I was hanging out with our engineer he was extra-excited about getting the isolated vocal tracks for Bohemian Rhapsody (of which there were A LOT), so yeah there's interest for this out there, at least among pros/afficionados

There's a really good Klaatu fan site that has an "info" section with details of recording dates and what's on every track of the master tape for a given song (even sometimes specifying types of guitars or keyboards used).

There's a lot of interest in multitracks, alternate takes etc for pretty much everyone. You just need to hang around more-specific forums. Beatles is like Shakespeare - everyone knows that stuff - so it gets wider attention.

The aptly named Studio Multitracks has hundred of songs, mostly non-Beatles. Check it out.

Several generations later, sure, but who's come close?

Several generations later, sure, but who's come close?

― posters who have figured how how to priv (darraghmac), Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:42 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Bands did not cease to sell large amounts of records and become popular amongst a large group of people when The Beatles broke up.

?

I'm not sure why this is such a burning question.

There are tons of beatles-related products due to supply and demand. there is a huge demand that spans multiple generations. beatles+anything is probably going to sell pretty well.

there is a lot of beatles-related discussion/analysis (i.e., not products to be bought or sold) because 1) the beatles are fucking awesome and 2)as mentioned above, their recording history is extremely well-documented and 3)they happened to be the biggest band in the world at a time when lots of people were coming of age and realizing they could have sex and wear cool clothing and not be uptight assholes like their parents. aka "the sixties"

There are tons of beatles-related products due to supply and demand. there is a huge demand that spans multiple generations. beatles+anything is probably going to sell pretty well.

Indeed. "Demand" because they've been constantly mythologised for the last 40 years with needless coverage that could have been given to a then-current artist or another heritage act that deserves it just as much, and "supply" because if you tell enough people who weren't around when a band was active that they were the best thing that's ever happened in music and no other band that has ever come since will ever be as important, they will eventually begin to believe it and increase the "demand".

Again, it goes without saying that I love The Beatles' music, and I can't find fault with the claim that they were the first of the mega successful bands in pop music history, but there's been music that been made in my own lifetime that has meant far more to me.

3)they happened to be the biggest band in the world at a time when lots of people were coming of age and realizing they could have sex and wear cool clothing and not be uptight assholes like their parents. aka "the sixties"

I didn't exist in the '60s, so this means absolutely jack-shit to me.

man this thread is like feeding fish to a turrican in frisco bay

but there's been music that been made in my own lifetime that has meant far more to me.

your last word there is the key. this isn't breaking news, but the beatles were not only genius songwriters but also happened to be genius POP songwriters that appeal to a broader swath of listeners than any other band. they may not be the #1 band for many people, but they're probably in the top 10 of more people than any other band (source of that fact: absolutely nothing). like, queen was mentioned upthread. lots of people love queen. everyone knows a few queen songs. but man, if i'm doing my top 100 bands, let alone top 10, i don't think queen's in there. and that's true of pretty much every other band. the beatles are pretty much in a league of their own of being consistently well known and loved to this day. there isn't a big conspiracy to convince the sheeple that the beatles were important. they were awesome and appealed to just about everyone, from the casual listener to the obsessive.

Also, in my experience (basically amounting to having friends tell me about their kids) kids of grade school age still discover the Beatles without parental prompting and are like whoa I found the best music.

I didn't exist in the '60s, so this means absolutely jack-shit to me.

but the entire issue - why do the beatles get so much attention from EVERYONE - is by its very nature beyond your personal experience. it matters that they were the soundtrack to the sixties because people who came of age at that time have been running the world for quite some time now.

xpost exactly

my parents sucked and didn't listen to music so i knew nothing of the beatles growing up, no indoctrination, nothing. then in 9th grade a friend of mine made me a tape of rubber soul and revolver and i was like whoooa doggy whooa whooa now, so good

which points back to the all-important first clause in my revolutionary theory on the beatles' popularity:

1) the beatles are fucking awesome

Also, the band's story has that sort of classic archetypal rise-and-fall mythicness of which telemovies are made. "The right band at the right time in the right place," "If the Beatles never existed, somebody would've had to invent them", etc., that sort of thing.

I'm not denying that John Lennon or Paul McCartney were great songwriters (when they were on form, because let's face it, they're both responsible for some awful songs too and I include some Beatles tracks in that bracket... I don't see how anyone could claim 'Tell Me What You See' as a work of genius, for example) and I'm not denying that The Beatles were ever an important band - obviously, to a lot of people in the '60s whose formative experiences were soundtracked by the band, they were. I don't see how they could be as important to someone who wasn't there at the time, though, even if the music is good, and let's face it, Lennon/McCartney aren't the only great songwriters to have ever existed... there were writers as good in the '60s alone. Anyway, don't subsequent generations have their own music to get off on? Did music really jump the shark the moment the Beatles decided to go their different ways? I don't think it did. Records kept selling, people kept going to gigs, and teenagers kept finding new bands to soundtrack their formative years. Yet people keep picking over The Beatles legacy like magpies... I really do not get it, even if I do like the music. I can only put it down to the fact that they've never stopped receiving silly amounts of coverage (I've lost count of the amount of needless Beatles cover stories I've read in music magazines over the last 10 years alone).

It's like, whenever I hear someone say that The Beatles were either the most important/best band of all time, and they weren't even alive during the '60s, I see them as either cripplingly naive or musical denialists. Again, not denying they were the first to be mega successful, not denying they were mega successful, not denying their appeal or their importance to a group of people that are now old enough to be my grandparents... but to tower over all music that has ever existed since 1970? Jesus.

I'm not of the 60s generation and the Beatles were absolutely formative music for me, no question. there was no greater band to 12-15yo me.

Were you aware of how "legendary" they were before you started listening to them?

I don't really know - my parents had one Beatles album ("Rubber Soul") so it wasn't like they indoctrinated me. This was around the time their stuff got reissued on CD so I'm sure on some level I was exposed to hype for that.

but to tower over all music that has ever existed since 1970? Jesus.

They towered over him, too.

and I can recall "20 years ago today" hype stuff in 1987, but I was already at least a couple years into my intense Beatles fandom by that point

xp

Compleat Beatles came out in '82 - I may not have seen that immediately (I saw it on PBS and subsequently videotaped it) but that definitely had an impression on me. and is full of THE GREATEST POP ACT OF ALL TIME rhetoric.

xxxpost:

Yeah... I'm just curious because when I was listening to Beatle records for the first time, I was more that well aware of their reputation and legendary status, and I'm sure it coloured the way I approached those records and listened to them. For all the undeniably great songs that Lennon/McCartney wrote, I actually do remember hearing things like 'Tell Me What You See' or 'Lovely Rita' or 'Rocky Raccoon' and thinking "damn, this is awful... these were the best band of all time?". While I appreciate that they pushed recording boundaries in the '60s, the general sound of the records still sounded antique to me compared to the newer records I was actually listening to at the time, as '60s albums tend to when one first starts listening to them. I was left with a feeling of "yeah, they did some good stuff that I love, they were important at the time, but even though this has been influential, music has moved on and there's been many more great things since..."

*that=than

I *liked* the Beatles in a pretty non-attached way from very early on, maybe 8 or 9 years old, hearing them on oldies radio. But I didn't love them until I listened to my mom's copy of Abbey Road. She grew up with them, but was hardly a fanatic or anything -- in fact, after I found them (unprompted by her btw), it was usually me asking her things like "how could you have lived through Sgt Pepper and not realized what kind of genius you were hearing?"

The Beatles, kind of like Michael Jackson, are going to have that aura of "greatness" for a long time, divorced of their music, just because of how big they were. It is a BONUS that their music happens to be good. I can't stress that enough: I don't really give a shit about most big acts from the past that I hear UNLESS it turns out I actually like them. The Beatles wrote songs that didn't sound like anyone else, on both a technical level, and in singing about things that mattered to most people, in a unique way.

Yes, they were absolutely in the right place at the right time. But, it was SO right, and they navigated being FAMOUS and GOOD so well, it's hard not to at least be impressed, even if you really don't like the music. I happen to like the music, happen to think Lennon & McCartney are as good a pair of songwriters as has ever existed. Gershwin wrote some stupid songs too. So did Bob Dylan and Franz Schubert. I will never love any of those people as much as I love the Beatles.

after I found them (unprompted by her btw), it was usually me asking her things like "how could you have lived through Sgt Pepper and not realized what kind of genius you were hearing?"

haha I was totally like this with my parents too. they found my Beatlemania perplexing. my mom routinely mixed up details (confusing John for Paul etc) and my dad had attachment to them at all (his favorite band was the Lovin Spoonful)

dad had NO

that should say

if you tell enough people who weren't around when a band was active that they were the best thing that's ever happened in music and no other band that has ever come since will ever be as important, they will eventually begin to believe it and increase the "demand".

tbh i refuse to believe that even a single person in the world felt bullied into liking the beatles because they heard how 'important' they were to a previous generation. the fact is that the beatles' music sounds generally pretty un-dated, apart from some of the explicitly 'psychedelic' stuff -- there's no reason that ppl who were born after the '60s shouldn't find it accessible.

music magazines don't do beatles cover stories because of some conspiracy to make ppl like the beatles, they do it because a) music magazines are lazy and beatles features are easy to write and b) same reason they put hendrix or nirvana on the cover -- it sells magazines.

I've always heard these stories about not liking the Beatles until, say, the White Album because up to then, it was all teeny-bopper shit.

This is just that fuckin 'WHY CANT MYYYYYYY BAND BE CANON' argument all over again, sorry that lots of ppl like the beatles so much, wtf, stop makin up reasons for it to satisfy yr own personal fetish for new/different music (ilmers in general suffer from this dreadful affliction to a far greater extent than normal ppl) go love the music you love, this is not a conspiracy, peace out, ps beatles pwn all the bands you didnt mention since

word on the streets is that the beatles are really good

i have something interesting to say about the beatles

it's

wait

um

Come on, come on!

*ooooo*

I think it was "I don't really like Bob Dylan"

dylan is mostly shite tho tbf

maybe if he'd had ringo on drums but we'll never know

This is just that fuckin 'WHY CANT MYYYYYYY BAND BE CANON' argument all over again

― posters who have figured how how to priv (darraghmac), Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:02 PM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Actually, it isn't.

?

haha this bore should air his rubbish on a thread not titled "the beatles"

oh wait no I think I had a contrairian opinion about the beatles to express, that's it. When I think of what it was, it may shock you.

that reminds me, I need to start my 'Why Can't My Band Be A Cannon' thread