the beatles i don't get it

[tomwaits4noman]

on all the newspapers since sunday there have been articles about the Beatles and St. Peppers lonely hearts club band. The anniversaryof the album is today as i was informed on the radio, and then the dj kindly played some songs from the album to illustrate the brillance and influence of the Beatles and that album but
I DON'T GET IT

as music it is ok but did not blow me away... am I missing something
people always say oh THE BEATLES they are amazing, I've heard rubber soul in full as well as all the songs that radio plays and I still don't get it.....

I was blown away when I first heard the Doors, the velvets and pink floyd

It is not like I don't like music that era, the year 67. The same year that the Doors, Pink Floyd, Velvet Underground released their debuts.

In my mind the velvet's debut has had more of an impact on music to date that the Beatles.

Its also the same year that Dylan, Hendrix, The kinks, Captain Beefheart, and the Rolling Stones released albums

so WHAT' S SPECIAL ABOUT SGT PEPPER....

I had to vent that one.

[theincredibleandy]

sgt pepper's was basically the first concept album. Before that, albums were just groups of songs without a greater theme or message. There's also the variety of instrumentation that other people really weren't doing. it's all here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt_Pepper%27s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt_Pepper%27s)

I know what you mean, though. Looking back, it seems tame compared to Hendrix or Captain Beefheart, but it's harder for someone like me to know it the way an older person who lived through does. I heart me some Beatles, though.

[Puck]

I didn't wake up to music till I first hear Eleanor Rigby, and then Norwegian Wood... man, those songs just completely floored me and since I heard them I've never found a band that is as consistently beautiful as the Beatles. I can understand how you don't appreciate them compared to some of the other really great musical talents, heaps of my friends 'like' the beatles but don't really love them the way they deserve to be loved... man... I don't often find myself lost for words... the Beatles, every song is just perfect, and there is so much variety... Who else could have an albulm just made of number 1's.... it just works so well... they wern't even great singers or instrumentalists but they just had a real knack for inventing the greatest songs.

I just have to get across how sublime the Beatles are for me - other bands have some songs that reach that level, and a few of the great ones even have entire albulms, but nothing as constant as the Beatles for me. It just comes down to taste I guess, some people love it, some people can't see what all the fuss is about.

[seba_boi]

I'm no expert in the Beatles albums, but I really think they're one of the best bands to ever surface... They got the American R&B/soul influence going on and I just can't get enough of all the song covers by different artists--that's how much I love their compositions... I also find it amazing that they only toured for four years yet produced some of the best albums and chart toppers during the subsequent years after...

My obligatory top ten Beatles songs:

. "Across The Universe" (I prefer the Fiona Apple/Rufus Wainwright covers though)
. "If I Fell"
. "Eleanor Rigby"
. "Hey Jude"
. "In My Life (Places I Remember)"
. "Let It Be"
. "Penny Lane"
. "Here, There, And Everywhere"
. "Michelle"
. "Till There Was You"

[tomwaits4noman]

the thing that gets me is I can't see the influence of the Beatles, I hate these tags most influencial band etc when i can't see the argument.. its the same with Nirvana personally with Nirvana better bands around at that time (soundgarden, Screaming Trees) or bands who had more impact on the current music scene (Pixies)

as for the influence of r n' b american and "black" music Elvis was doing this back in 56 or there abouts when he covered "that's all right" while at Sun Records.

I could name other bands who I feel have had more impact Joy Division who later became New Order who were at the front of the dance and rave scene (strange journey that one) or the Clash who covered possibly ever music style they came in contact with except maybe Opera most of for the album Sandanista.

I love music - most genres (except techno or cheesy euro dance music) but The Beatles as much as I am told how wonderful they are how I should love them I can't connect...

as for the concept album....when it is done well i.e Pink Floyd it's great when its done my one of those new "EMO" bands well.... words can not describe... maybe something that rhymes with "ducking kite"

[waronmars]

dude wikipedia it next time

The Beatles' influence on rock music and popular culture was—and remains—immense. Their commercial success started an almost immediate wave of changes—including a move from U.S. global dominance of rock and roll to UK acts, from soloists to groups, from professional songwriters to self-penned songs and to changes in fashion.

Prior to the Beatles' influence record albums were of secondary consideration to singles ("45s") in mass marketing. Albums contained largely "filler" material (unexceptional songs) along with one or two hits. The Beatles rarely incorporated singles as part of their albums, thus defining the album as more important.

The song "I Feel Fine", recorded on 18 October 1964, starts with a feedback note tone produced by plucking the A-string on McCartney's bass guitar, which was picked up on Lennon's semi acoustic guitar. Speaking in his last interview — with the BBC's Andy Peebles — Lennon said this was the first use of feedback on a pop record.

The defining work in the development of the modern music video was The Beatles' first major motion picture, A Hard Day's Night in 1964, directed by Richard Lester. The musical segments in this film arguably set out the basic visual vocabulary of today's music videos, influencing a vast number of contemporary musicians, and countless subsequent pop and rock group music videos.

is that enough? their songs are kickass 30-40 years later. Not many pop bands do that.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/01/1080544618404.html
that pretty much explains nirvana.

[thirdeye]

Go to allmusic.com and play a little game. Type in some of the names you mentioned into the search engine and look for their influances. F.e... Pink Floyd ... yup, The Beatles are there :) Next ... Nirvana has them too. So does Soundgarden, Pixies, Kinks. Or maybe The Clash ... ok no Beatles there but they have The Stooges which have Beatles listed in their influances ... and so on :)

I'm not saying that there would be no music without The B but some of the music you love so much could sure sound much different without their records.

As for making such deal out of this anniversary - I think it's all matter of popularity. Beatles are very close to a pop rock band when it comes to popularity. It's one of the most popular records of all time.

Look at it this way - sure you can consider The Wall or Wish You Were Here the greatest Pink Floyd albums, or even the greatest in rock history but still Dark Side Of The Moon is the most popular one (over 40 million copies sold ) that's why it's getting the anniversaries and all.

You may consider The White Album the greatest Beatles album but Sgt. Peppers is still more popular one ( +30 million > 15 million ) :)

And if you think that the top selling album of all time (100 million) - Thriller by MJ was also inspired by Beatles you really have no doubts who the most influential artist is for POP music.

[tomwaits4noman]

waronmars

"Prior to the Beatles' influence record albums were of secondary consideration to singles ("45s") in mass marketing. Albums contained largely "filler" material (unexceptional songs) along with one or two hits. The Beatles rarely incorporated singles as part of their albums, thus defining the album as more important."

Bob Dylan first album 1962 2nd album 1963 same year as Beatles debut.
SO did the Beatles release singles indepently of the albums?

Joy Division did not have any singles on their albums granted that was 10 yrs after St. Pepper.

The Nirvana link I am still not buying if Cobain was still alive would their impact be as big.

Thirdeye I went to allmusic yes point taken. though I say that the Pixies were influenced more directly by the beach boys and surf music than the beatles

as for allmusic it classes Tool and Marilyn Manson as being similar artist not to these ears anyway.

yes soundgarden's biggest hit black hole sun is influenced by the Beatles.

The Clash no the beatles are not listed as an influence which they are correct about they were more influenced by Jamician roots, reggae, dub and from Strummer 50's rockabilly and Dylan.

I honestly know that there is no way I can win this argument you can pull a thousnad articles I am sure about the Beatles influence. I agree the success they achieved is quiet remarkable.

but to label something the most influencial or one of the most influencial albums...hmmm..... there have to be alternatives.

[Eric Lofgren]

but to label something the most influencial or one of the most influencial albums...hmmm..... there have to be alternatives.

That's it in a nutshell. It's easily one of the most influential rock albums of all time. But definitely not the most influtential rock album of all time. There's a big difference there, in that everyone would concede (even the list makers) that the former would also include a very lengthy list of influential rock ablums alongside Sgt Pepper's, but no one should ever say it's the single most influential album. That it's the albums release date anniversary just brings it to everyone's attention.

[seba_boi]

as for the influence of r n' b american and "black" music Elvis was doing this back in 56 or there abouts when he covered "that's all right" while at Sun Records.
True... Elvis is heavily influenced by and large by African American music... I didn't say the Beatles initiated the whole thing... But listen to songs like "Can't Buy Me Love" and notice the similar feel of songs like "Heatwave (Love Is Like A)" by Martha And The Vandellas or something from The Supremes...

I've pasted excerpts from an essay titles "WHEN WRONG IS RIGHT" that summarizes a lot more of their influence:


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It seems to be an unspoken rule of popular music: everything new comes from someone trying to imitate something and getting it wrong. The classic example, of course, is Elvis at Memphis' Sun Studios in 1954 -- recording Arthur Crudup's blues tune "That's All Right, Mama" and Bill Monroe's bluegrass tune "Blue Moon of Kentucky," the first as an homage and the second as a joke -- and starting a whole new era of rock and roll. Jamaicans trying to imitate the rhythms they heard on New Orleans radio stations got it so wrong that they invented ska and reggae. Countless British bands tried to imitate American blues and wound up becoming everything from the Rolling Stones to Fleetwood Mac to Black Sabbath.

That's why the Beatles seem so totally remarkable. From the very first song we heard, no matter when we dropped into the Beatles story, it sounded like they were doing something utterly original. But they weren't, not entirely.

....

This is what makes artists artists: they take little bits of things from here and there and put them together in unexpected combinations that seem new and original. Some of them are pretty obvious: one of Little Richard's trademarks is the "Ooooo!" he interjects into a lot of his hit songs. Richard got it from the world of gospel, where it's a standard of Alex Bradford, among others. The Beatles grabbed this little trick for themselves, and it's all over their first recordings: girls went wild when Lennon and McCartney stepped up to a single microphone, shook their mop tops, and went "Ooooo!".

Other borrowings aren't so obvious. JOHN LENNON'S JUKEBOX will introduce most people to a singer-guitarist named Bobby Parker. I'd never heard of him until watching this program, and all I can discover about him is that his record "Watch Your Step" was on the pop BILLBOARD charts for six weeks in 1961 and got as high as number 51. It was released on V-Tone Records, a label I'd also never heard of. The guitar lick Parker plays on this record morphed into "I Feel Fine," but also, I think, "Day Tripper." Watching Parker demonstrate it, I realized that John Lennon probably had trouble playing it: it's simple, but not nearly as simple as Parker makes it seem. And of course, Lennon had no way to watch Parker's fingers. So because John couldn't play that lick, it became another song, "I Feel Fine," which went to number one. ("Day Tripper" only made it to number five.) A Beatles version of "Watch Your Step" would probably have done as well as their version of Arthur Alexander's "Anna," filler on an album.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the music in John Lennon's jukebox was there only to be copied. Especially in pop music, it's essential that the greatest innovators remain fans, enthusiasts, explorers of the past and present. If every time you put on a record it reminds you of work, your useful, creative days are numbered. So it would be fruitless to look through John's contributions to the Beatles in search of what Fontella Bass inspired. The insistent bass line of "Rescue Me" and Fontella's impassioned vocal make a compulsively listenable song -- as is the gospelly "The Soul of the Man" on the other side. I've sat in front of a record player playing those over and over myself, so it's not hard to imagine John doing the same.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Dizon]

They're brilliant musicians and song writers. A great example of a band that kept on getting better as time went by.

[tomwaits4noman]

ok my thing about the Beatles other than not getting it is that their popularity in their time has a lot to do with the esteem they are held in, certainly I can't argue with any of the points made

but to take another important band... Velvet Underground album released Jan 1967 I did not even know it was 30 yrs since its release there was not even a whisper in the press not even a passing mention in the press... now I am not going to say that their impact was greater than the Beatles but it was of equal importance prehaps on a different level. WHy no Mention.

1. They were virtually ignored in their time.
2. They never get air play
3. They song melodies (more avant garde and experimental music) were not as commericaly sounding as The Beatles even with the more mainstream Loaded and VU albums.
4. The subjects of some of their songs would even shock by todays standards... Rock bands still dress sex and drugs up with metaphors for radio play they don't write songs where the message is as direct as like Herion or Venus in Furs.
5. Lou Reed has no personality... sorry Lou but the Beatles had charm and used it to great effect.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground

From http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/the-velvet-underground

"They are one of the most important rock and roll bands of all time, laying the groundwork in the Sixties for many tangents rock music would take in ensuing decades. Yet just two of their four original studio albums ever even made Billboard’s Top 200, and that pair – The Velvet Underground and Nico (#171) and White Light/White Heat (#199) – only barely did so. If ever a band was “ahead of its time,” it was the Velvet Underground. Brian Eno, cofounder of Roxy Music and producer of U2 and others, put it best when he said that although the Velvet Underground didn’t sell many albums, everyone who bought one went on to form a band. The New York Dolls, Patti Smith, the Sex Pistols, Talking Heads, U2, R.E.M., Roxy Music and Sonic Youth have all cited the Velvet Underground as a major influence"


http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1821231,00.html

both Velvets debut and St Pepper listed as 1 and 2 of albums that changed music.

I would like to get the brillance of The Beatles but it annoys me when someone press etc tries to preach that something is so important (film, music, book) and ignores other things that have had similar impact.

That I like to debate.

[Puck]

Good points re: the Velvet Underground. But when it comes to the press, it's always going to be the lowest common denominator. Do a survey of the average person who's heard of the Beatles vs VU and it's a no-brainer. It's the same with Art; everybody's heard of Picasso, whereas Duchamp is an unknown to the average person.

And you have to take that into consideration when talking about 'the most influential' anything. It may not be the most important, or the greatest - but if more people have heard of it and been influenced by it then it takes the prize. Velvet's Debut may have influenced music => Sgt Peppers, but if it had a 30 year anniversary press frenzy people would be like "wtf? Velvet who?" (except for the educated and music lover of course, which only make up a small fraction of the population).

[tomwaits4noman]

velevt who? yeah through its weird a friend told me I had to get their debut when I was 17 I had not heard a single Velvet song but I guess aleast 10 beatles songs maybe even more just through the radio.
I suppose it helps that the Beatles had more albums, Velvets made 4 though you can debate whether Loaded counts (John Cale, Moe Tucker did not play on it)

I read somewhere on the net can't read the group, where some guy said he met loads of people in bands who told the media that that they were inspried by the Velvets because it wasd this badge of honour that it somehow maybe your band seem cool and important to name drop the Velvets.

I have a secret to tell I like one beatle's song or is it John Lennon song... come together. also like working class more the Mark Lanegan version than the orginal.

[sve]

I understand you and i was where you are too. I didn't understand the obsession with them and more of it that what kept me away from trying to hear their songs.. I know that it is as stupid as to follow the crowd ... but that's what I did... I have to say the records' sound was bad and photos of them were moot in my younger years... My country was closed for other culture in the time., so the records were illegal..
They did find the path to my heart anyway... when I was a student and was sitting near the open window in my dorm preparing for exam.
I heard their songs from other open windows... it was their earlier songs "Taste of honey", "I Want To Hold Your Hand", Girl", "Michelle", "Baby you can drive my car, Yes I'm gonna be a star'. hehe, "Will you still need me. will you still need me when I'm sixty-four"... Well they are simple tunes, but melody is sweet and most of them time they were just having fun, enjoying what they do and it was very contagious... they just started this jolly crazy careless spirit in me, telling me how great life is. And their "yeah... yeah... yeah..." it was very optimistic too.

I guess they sincerity and fun loving nature got to me...

I drew their faces on all my learning books and my girlfriend who was even more into this than I... we pretended like we are in band,,, holding shampoo bottles like mics and singing their songs... She was Mrs Lennon. I was ... actually I was aggreed to be any Mrs. I loved them all... Harrison's appearance was the most appealing to me... They just rooted an energizing crazy mood in us.
I can actually talk about other things too... like Ringo Starr being one of the best drummer of their generation.. his drumming was simplified but in the very complex way :),,, his sound was hard to copy. Later it became known that his drum was stretched tighter and he played his part 2 times faster, they recorded it and later played it slower... they got very special sounds from this experiment...for them trying new things and searching for new sounds, like their famous accord in the end of the song played on the piano with few hands.
But they essence of their charisma... they were young, fun and enjoyed what they did... the simplicity was based on a good taste and fresh sounds, IMO.
No pressure to love them...