Discussion
OK I'm starting to really like the Beatles, it must be middle age hitting.
After listening to loads of stuff on You tube, I now want to buy all of the albums.
What I want to know is, what order should I buy them in?
Should I go by release date, or are there some "must own" that I should get first?
After listening to loads of stuff on You tube, I now want to buy all of the albums.
What I want to know is, what order should I buy them in?
Should I go by release date, or are there some "must own" that I should get first?
Edited by englisharcher on Saturday 4th August 19:55
^^ what he said. there are two distinct phases and people usually prefer one or the other. me i prefer the later works but also dip in and out of the earlier stuff for the gems.
i'd recommend you get let it be...naked. i'm not a fan of macca messing with their legacy to suit himself, but it's much better listeen than the original, imvvho.
i'd recommend you get let it be...naked. i'm not a fan of macca messing with their legacy to suit himself, but it's much better listeen than the original, imvvho.
Fishtigua said:
I don't get them.
Never really listened to them until last few months. Rubber Soul has a couple of tracks I liked, but the rest was a bit blah blah. The White Album just irritated.
Must be just me, I like most music.
Without wanting to sound too "airy fairy", there's value in listening to the Beatles or any music and considering the cultural context, of the band, artist or composer.Never really listened to them until last few months. Rubber Soul has a couple of tracks I liked, but the rest was a bit blah blah. The White Album just irritated.
Must be just me, I like most music.
Music is not in isolation, it tells us about those who provide it and listen to it, as individuals, as groups and their motivations, together with the society in which that music is made.
WhoseGeneration said:
Fishtigua said:
I don't get them.
Never really listened to them until last few months. Rubber Soul has a couple of tracks I liked, but the rest was a bit blah blah. The White Album just irritated.
Must be just me, I like most music.
Without wanting to sound too "airy fairy", there's value in listening to the Beatles or any music and considering the cultural context, of the band, artist or composer.Never really listened to them until last few months. Rubber Soul has a couple of tracks I liked, but the rest was a bit blah blah. The White Album just irritated.
Must be just me, I like most music.
Music is not in isolation, it tells us about those who provide it and listen to it, as individuals, as groups and their motivations, together with the society in which that music is made.
Julian Lennon was the year ahead of me at school and used to play a few of the songs in the dorm. We had a minutes silence when John was shot. All that sort of thing. His Mum, Madame Cynth, ran the local tearoom and looked after us boys.
The music just dosn't click.
I remember seeing the Beatles live three times in the 1960's. Hearing was more difficult the noise from the girls in the audience was deafening.
Please Please Me was the record that made me realise they were a really great group. Brilliant sound and such a great hook with the howling harmonica from Lennon.
From that point on they moved into the unassailable position of the greatest songwriters and superstars that they eventually became. And remain IMO. Get Back was the clincher. Live from the Apple building root it was breathtaking to experience and listen to. And remember.
I would listen in the order the tracks were laid down. You will never hear better pop music. Absolutely outstanding. Never equalled. Sill the greatest.
Please Please Me was the record that made me realise they were a really great group. Brilliant sound and such a great hook with the howling harmonica from Lennon.
From that point on they moved into the unassailable position of the greatest songwriters and superstars that they eventually became. And remain IMO. Get Back was the clincher. Live from the Apple building root it was breathtaking to experience and listen to. And remember.
I would listen in the order the tracks were laid down. You will never hear better pop music. Absolutely outstanding. Never equalled. Sill the greatest.
Fishtigua said:
I know all that, I'm quite old yer see.;)
Julian Lennon was the year ahead of me at school and used to play a few of the songs in the dorm. We had a minutes silence when John was shot. All that sort of thing. His Mum, Madame Cynth, ran the local tearoom and looked after us boys.
The music just dosn't click.
But, younger than me. Fair enough if you've given it a fair shot.Julian Lennon was the year ahead of me at school and used to play a few of the songs in the dorm. We had a minutes silence when John was shot. All that sort of thing. His Mum, Madame Cynth, ran the local tearoom and looked after us boys.
The music just dosn't click.
There is, perhaps, an element of having to have been there when anything was current to really have it as part of one's soul?
Just musing and would welcome any other comments.
WhoseGeneration said:
Fishtigua said:
I know all that, I'm quite old yer see.;)
Julian Lennon was the year ahead of me at school and used to play a few of the songs in the dorm. We had a minutes silence when John was shot. All that sort of thing. His Mum, Madame Cynth, ran the local tearoom and looked after us boys.
The music just dosn't click.
But, younger than me. Fair enough if you've given it a fair shot.Julian Lennon was the year ahead of me at school and used to play a few of the songs in the dorm. We had a minutes silence when John was shot. All that sort of thing. His Mum, Madame Cynth, ran the local tearoom and looked after us boys.
The music just dosn't click.
There is, perhaps, an element of having to have been there when anything was current to really have it as part of one's soul?
Just musing and would welcome any other comments.
My German pen-pal loved (probably still does) the Beatles. When he came over to visit, he played nothing but Beatles tracks for 2 sodding weeks. I still kinda like their stuff, but a lot of it reminds me of those 2 weeks.
I can see how being around when it was new adds something, I grew up in the 80s, and being able to relate songs to particular times, people, events, parties, smells, sounds etc, just adds so much more. Even really naff mediocre tracks make me smile and feel good if I can relate them to teenage parties with cider, girls and all the rest.
I can see how being around when it was new adds something, I grew up in the 80s, and being able to relate songs to particular times, people, events, parties, smells, sounds etc, just adds so much more. Even really naff mediocre tracks make me smile and feel good if I can relate them to teenage parties with cider, girls and all the rest.
I know the thread isn't about this as such - but I'm gonna be a bit controversial for a second, see what other PH'ers think.
I'm 40, so didn't 'grow up' with the Beatles and all the Beatlemania etc. as such.
But I have been involved in music from an early age - from being in school choirs and bands, playing a variety of instruments from brass to guitar to keyboards / piano, ultimately to fronting my own bands latterly as a singer. I've been in studios recording tracks, can read music, and have generally been around it for donkey's.
Hence I feel a wee bit justified in being able to comment on music as a semi-proffesional at least, rather than just a layman with an opinion.
So, the Beatles. I concede and accept that they were probably the first band who were unified, dedicated and followed a ruthless path of promoting a coherent identity, sound and image that was promotable, pleasingly acceptable to Joe Public, and hence like nothing else around at the time with regard to that complete package, popular music wise.
But...they weren't actually all that good, were they? Yes, they wrote bouncy, memorable music that was enjoyed by millions and remembered by the masses. But when, as a musician, you scrutinise the music, the arrangement and the writing of it - including the lyrics - it was, to me, dull, repetitive, un-imaginative and basically boring.
No real artistic or interesting breakthroughs in guitar or drum playing, and certainly not vocally. Just a nicely arranged, inoffensive tune after tune that people liked, and music that stayed in the public's heads after hearing it.
I often bring this up with people, only to be flamed for daring to suggest that our 'National Treasures' weren't actually great or pioneering musicians at all. People seem to confuse 'popular' and 'celebrated' with 'technically great' and 'beyond reproach and criticism.'
I've been shouted down and hit with opinions like 'they were groundbreaking and like no other band at the time.'
Well, groundbreaking in the sense that they hit upon a formula that sucked the average person into their marketed hype, maybe...but groundbreaking as musicians, with their predictable, dull musical arrangements? Er no, I think not.
If people push me into a corner over this question, I simply point them in the direction of the 'Stones' - a similar British band around at the same time, with VASTLY superior musical and innovative arrangements, sound and accomplishment.
That's my opinion anyway
I'm 40, so didn't 'grow up' with the Beatles and all the Beatlemania etc. as such.
But I have been involved in music from an early age - from being in school choirs and bands, playing a variety of instruments from brass to guitar to keyboards / piano, ultimately to fronting my own bands latterly as a singer. I've been in studios recording tracks, can read music, and have generally been around it for donkey's.
Hence I feel a wee bit justified in being able to comment on music as a semi-proffesional at least, rather than just a layman with an opinion.
So, the Beatles. I concede and accept that they were probably the first band who were unified, dedicated and followed a ruthless path of promoting a coherent identity, sound and image that was promotable, pleasingly acceptable to Joe Public, and hence like nothing else around at the time with regard to that complete package, popular music wise.
But...they weren't actually all that good, were they? Yes, they wrote bouncy, memorable music that was enjoyed by millions and remembered by the masses. But when, as a musician, you scrutinise the music, the arrangement and the writing of it - including the lyrics - it was, to me, dull, repetitive, un-imaginative and basically boring.
No real artistic or interesting breakthroughs in guitar or drum playing, and certainly not vocally. Just a nicely arranged, inoffensive tune after tune that people liked, and music that stayed in the public's heads after hearing it.
I often bring this up with people, only to be flamed for daring to suggest that our 'National Treasures' weren't actually great or pioneering musicians at all. People seem to confuse 'popular' and 'celebrated' with 'technically great' and 'beyond reproach and criticism.'
I've been shouted down and hit with opinions like 'they were groundbreaking and like no other band at the time.'
Well, groundbreaking in the sense that they hit upon a formula that sucked the average person into their marketed hype, maybe...but groundbreaking as musicians, with their predictable, dull musical arrangements? Er no, I think not.
If people push me into a corner over this question, I simply point them in the direction of the 'Stones' - a similar British band around at the same time, with VASTLY superior musical and innovative arrangements, sound and accomplishment.
That's my opinion anyway
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
But...they weren't actually all that good, were they? Yes, they wrote bouncy, memorable music that was enjoyed by millions and remembered by the masses. But when, as a musician, you scrutinise the music, the arrangement and the writing of it - including the lyrics - it was, to me, dull, repetitive, un-imaginative and basically boring.
Well you will be at odds with many people who are full time professional musicians. Did you see the Howard Goodall programme in which he analysed (and praised) some of their compositions, especially Eleanor Rigby and Strawberry Fields.From his website-
"LENNON/McCARTNEY From a standing start, knowing only a handful of chords between them, John Lennon and Paul McCartney turned themselves into the most influential composers of the late twentieth century."
Ray Luxury-Yacht said:
If people push me into a corner over this question, I simply point them in the direction of the 'Stones' - a similar British band around at the same time, with VASTLY superior musical and innovative arrangements, sound and accomplishment.
That's my opinion anyway
The "Stones" were not similar. It's sorta Mods and Rockers stuff.That's my opinion anyway
Both groups started in the same vein, covers of Blues stuff and then, each, found their own path.
I'd suggest that the Stones basically continued along the Blues path, whilst the Beatles expanded and presented a new approach, experimenting with the available technology, thanks to George Martin, a classically trained musician remember.
That experimentation being continued by such as Pink Floyd, those nowadays using digital power cannot appreciate the problems involved in producing the music of the past.
It doesn't matter though, it's all music, lifts the spirits of someone, somewhere.
I like the Rolling Stones. I saw the old line up with Brian Jones and the later line ups live several times. Satisfaction is a great pop song with a superb riff driving the beat. The Last Time always takes me back to my 6th form days permanently pounding out in the 6th form common room on a Dansette player.
But the Beatles were in a totally different league to all other pop performers. They still are and will remain so I suspect. We will never see their equals.
But the Beatles were in a totally different league to all other pop performers. They still are and will remain so I suspect. We will never see their equals.
Probably not the place to admit this, but have never really listened to The Beatles 
Not sure why, I just never have! Are they really as good as everyone says? Reading RLY's post above, this is the impression I get after hearing a few of their songs.
It is not like I listen to crap music either, I much prefer music from the 60s - 70s to most modern day stuff.
Maybe I need to venture out of my comfort zone a bit.
Not sure why, I just never have! Are they really as good as everyone says? Reading RLY's post above, this is the impression I get after hearing a few of their songs.
It is not like I listen to crap music either, I much prefer music from the 60s - 70s to most modern day stuff.
Maybe I need to venture out of my comfort zone a bit.
BorkFactor said:
Probably not the place to admit this, but have never really listened to The Beatles
No shame in that - They were massively influential but not that great IMO. They had their moments, however.Revolver and Abbey Road are my two most listened-to Beatles albums, which is to say I've maybe listened to them both about six times each in my whole life. I'm really not fussed about them.
Revolver in particular has some belters, though - She Said, She Said and Eleanor Rigby, basically... Yellow Submarine, however, is an inexcusable pile of batw*nk.
You shouldn't feel obliged to listen to something for fear of ridicule!
Give me the Zombies any day.
Edited by CrabDan on Saturday 4th August 23:51
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff