Moonbeam said:

You're absolutely right!

I'll defend to the death a person's right to be completely and utterly wrong.

TyphoonTip said:

7 years! Name another band to show that much range in 7 years! No one.

BaileyWalker said:

I don't even mark it at 7 years. I think their work that interested me was from 1965 till the end at 1969... 4 years and you got Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery tour, The White Album, Abbey Road, Let it Be.... and hits written for others (at least by Paul)

And from what I understand, songs that came out later that were demo'd during the Beatles were the likes of "My Sweet Lord" "Maybe I'm Amazed"...

4 Years. Think about it.

BaileyWalker said:

P R I N C E.

BaileyWalker said:

The Byrds?

BaileyWalker said:

Stevie Wonder and Prince.

BaileyWalker said:

Prince
The Cure
Roxy Music
Siouxsie and the Banshees
David Bowie
...

Moonbeam said:

Them too, lol.

BaileyWalker said:

In all fairness, BaileyWalker did say "band", and he has a point.

But Parliament/Funkadelic combined looks very similar from my seat (maybe with just two more years added on: 1970-79).

Then if we're allowed to cheat and include solo acts, Bob Dylan, Prince, Stevie Wonder and David Bowie -- as ridiculous as it sounds -- I think have all shown even more spectacular, mind-boggling range in a similar, smallish time frame.

BaileyWalker said:

Although they are much maligned by some hard rock traditionalists, Queen underwent some degree of change in from Queen I(1972) through The Game (1980-I know it is 1980, but for the sake of argument).

As far as individuals go, Bowie redefined change in rock music (use any 7 year period from 1967 through 1980).

I agree with the one poster who stated that from about 1965-69 they (The Beatles) really started to emerge as top notch songwriters (particularly Harrison). I view their innovations more in terms of conceptualizing rock sounds and songwriting.

Yep its not 7 years... it's four years for all their great songs.

FOUR YEARS. No one has touched that. No one has exhibited that range in that amount of time THAT SUCCESSFULLY.

one two three four
years.

It is incredible.

ufoclub said:

I'd still put Prince 82-86, Eurythmics 81-85, Stevie Wonder 72-76, Roxy Music 72-76, Siouxsie and the Banshees 80-84 and others up against it.

Moonbeam said:

well, someone had to pave the way for them ^

DiminutiveRocker said:

Just like others had to pave the way for The Beatles.

ufoclub said:

1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969. That looks like five years to me.

They also did some work on Let It Be in January, 1970.

I get what you are saying about their most innovative work being during this era but I would argue that they had many, many great songs circa 1962-1964.

I maintain that The Byrds were as musically innovative as The Beatles during 1965-1969. No doubt about it, many, many more people heard the music The Beatles made but that doesn't make the work of The Byrds any less innovative. Their first two albums (Mr. Tambourine Man and Turn! Turn! Turn!) were pioneering fusions of rock and folk and exposed many people to the music of Bob Dylan. Their next album, Fifth Dimension, was one of the first albums to feature psychedelic music and also featured some Eastern and jazz influences. If you are keeping score it was released on July 18, 1966 a few weeks before the Beatles started exploring psychedelic music on Revolver. In 1967 they released a pair of albums (Younger Than Yesterday and The Notorious Byrd Brothers) that featured influences from country music thus making them one of the first to explore country-rock genre. The Notorious Byrd Brothers also featured some of the earliest use of electronic music, again The Byrds were doing something before The Beatles. Their next album, Sweetheart Of The Rodeo released in 1968, was arguably the first country-rock album. They released two more albums in 1969 (Dr. Byrds & Mr. Hyde and The Ballad Of Easy Rider) that furthered their explorations of country-rock (this time with more emphasis on the rock) and electronic music.

Now, to be fair, generally speaking The Beatles' albums were more consistent than The Byrds and as I said The Beatles were heard by many, many more people but if you compare the innovations that both groups pioneered during 1965-1969 I think The Byrds can proudly stand with The Beatles.
[Edited 7/6/09 4:58am]

graecophilos said:

{ONE band that has written so many great songs and yet involved from album to album I'd be happy?}
Prince & the Revolution

Moonbeam said:

True - but The Beatles then became as influential if not more influential than the predecessors they give credit too.

They were the biggest thing to hit the music world. Even elvis was threatened

rialb said:

I worship "Revolver" onwards to "Abbey Road" (the last recorded in 1969), so I guess that's why I keep thinking 4 years. I know some people start with "Rubber Soul".

"Let it Be" was ressurected and worked on with Phil Spector in 1970, but the Beatles put down those tracks before "Abbey Road". From what I've read, the last track they recorded as a band was "The End" the last part of Abbey Road (before the joke song).

ufoclub said:

I much prefer Rubber Soul to Revolver. Why? No "Yellow Submarine" for starters...

AlexdeParis said:

Rubber Soul remains pretty much my favorite album - they were just turning the corner in becoming mature songwriters - going from bubble-gum pop to a unique rock sound.

I have many friends who are massive Beatles fans and the one thing they all have in common. They think the band are immune to criticism. To say you don't like the Beatles or even worse you think they're overrated is blasphemy so to all those who don't think the band walked on water we are all wrong. This all perpetuated by the media who to this day gush superlatives The Beatles way. Quite simply if you don't like The Beatles something is wrong with you.

Do i have their albums? I have them all, I inherited them. I played them all and they left me wanting to put something on a little more gutsy and less twee.
[Edited 7/6/09 8:41am]
[Edited 7/6/09 8:42am]

WildheartXXX said:

Is there a song more gutsy than "Day in the Life"? It's like putting to tape sounds that evoke the feeling of committing suicide.

WildheartXXX said:

Well, here's a massive Beatles fan who doesn't think they're immune to criticism. The aforementioned "Yellow Submarine" is awful and "Revolution 9" is even worse. I play the latter every 5 years or so just to remind myself how horrendous it is.


Well...

ufoclub said:

Exactly right. For pure emotional punch, some of my faves are John's material from around 68-69. Happiness is a Warm Gun, Yer Blues, Come Together, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Revolution, Dig a Pony, Hey Bulldog, etc... John laid his soul bare in songs like Julia and Don't Let Me Down.

But "Day in the Life" might be their best moment.

I highly recommend for Beatles fans and those seeking to learn more about the Beatles and their place in music history - - - "Revolution in the Head: The Beatles Records and the 60's" by Ian MacDonald. It's an incredible book and really opened my eyes to things in the band's music that I had completely missed.

By the way, for those suggesting that it's somehow heresy to criticize the Beatles - - - there is PLENTY of criticism of them. Ian MacDonald's book is a perfect example. He doesn't shy away from pointing out their flaws - and there are plenty. But that doesn't alter their importance and standing in pop/rock history.

NoVideo said:

Certainly there are bad moments like with Magical Mystery Tour (too cheesy and obvious a concept) and plenty of half assed throwaway songs, but if you look at a list of their solid songs, and play them, and look at how memorable and impactful those songs were (just look at the amount of covers)... there is no comparison. You can argue about whether you as an individual like them or not, but you really cannot argue that they had little impact on the world, the stats, the interviews, the covers, the tributes, the obvious influences (Radiohead's "Karma Police" is obvious, as is "Paranoid Android"'s theatrical suitelike structure), the sales, and the pioneering techniques in recording/creative attitude/use of melody and instrumentation is monumental.

IT could happen again. What if as high schoolers, Prince had met up with... and .... and ..... and.... and they had formed a tight loyal band that kept trying new things but held each other's tastes in check.

ufoclub said:

Most definitely.

ufoclub said:

I had to consult The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions but here's what I found. You are correct, kind of. The last time John, Paul, George and Ringo were in the studio together was on August 20, 1969. They didn't record anything that day they just worked on mixing "I Want You (She's So Heavy)." However, on January 3, 1970 Paul, George and Ringo recorded the version of "I Me Mine" that is on the Let It Be album and the next day January 4, 1970 they added some overdubs to "Let It Be." On April 1, 1970 Ringo added some drum overdubs to "Across The Universe," The Long And Winding Road" and "I Me Mine."

The Beatles began recording Rubber Soul on October 12, 1965 so I guess your four year theory still holds water.

Oct. 1965-Oct. 1966
Oct. 1966-Oct. 1967
Oct. 1967-Oct. 1968
Oct. 1968-Oct. 1969

By October of 1969, other than recording one song from scratch, all of the significant work had been completed on Let It Be.

rialb said:

I sense "four years" using The Force.