There is nothing about pop music post-Beatles that they didn't impact, directly or indirectly. They will be revered as long as humans are listening to pop/rock music.

As for ranking their albums... . hard to do, but I'll give it a whirl. It depends on whether I view it in terms of their "best" or my favorites, which are not necessarily the same.

"Abbey Road" will always be my favorite - I'll always have that soft spot for it - but viewing it objectively I wouldn't say it's their best.

1. Revolver. It's got it all... every song (with perhaps 2 exceptions) are stone-cold pop/rock classics.

I'd put "Dr. Robert" and "I Want To Tell You" - and perhaps "Love You To" - in the category of very minor Beatles songs, but everything else on the album is essential.

2. Sgt. Peppers. From a production standpoint it was revolutionary. And it's loaded with amazing songs as well, but there are a few tracks that don't stand up strong enough to land Sgt. Peppers at #1, in my opinion. "When I'm 64", I'm looking at you. "Fixing a Hole" and "Lovely Rita" are nice, but hardly essential. "A Day in the Life" may be their finest moment overall.

3. Abbey Road. Yeah, I know. It's loaded with older songs that had been sitting on the shelf for a while. Songs that were snippets and half-baked ideas, really - - yet they were combined in an incredibly effective way on the "long medly." The menace of "Come Together" followed by the grace and beauty of "Something" back to back is simply killer. This is their best sounding album, rich and pure. Yeah, yeah, "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a goofball absurdity, but "Because" and "Here Comes The Sun" are the definition of sublime. And I can rock "I Want You" on Beatles Rock Band.

4. The Beatles ("White Album"). It's a sprawling haphazard mess, with killer material interspersed with throwaway afterthoughts - - but that's it's charm. Like many Beatles fans, I've made my own custom track listing, tightening it to a more coherent album that packs more punch... yet I think it's better left alone ultimately. It's the Beatles letting their guard down, and some of it is wonderfully raw. Some hidden gems, here (well, as much as any Beatles song can be considered "hidden") - "Savoy Truffle" for instance, and "Cry Baby Cry". This album definitely previews each of the Beatles' solo careers.

5. Rubber Soul. A huge step up artistically from their previous work (which is definitely saying something, since their previous work was great as well.) The more acoustic, introspective vibe matched with incredible songcraft ("In My Life", "Girl", "Drive My Car", "I'm Looking Through You") put this right up among their best overall work. Unfortunately there are a couple real stinkers here (most notably the inexcusable "Run For Your Life").

6. A Hard Days Night. The strongest of their "early" work. Killer rock tunes and gorgeous ballads. They were starting to come into their own as songwriters. Some great performances on this album... "You Can't Do That" is one of their underrated gems.

7. Let It Be. I prefer the "Naked" version. This album has some uninspired material and some timeless classics - it's basically a continuation of the White Album, but not as diverse or exciting.

8. Help! Inconsistent overall. Great "highs" but too much filler. The presence of "Ticket to Ride" and "Yesterday", two of their greatest singles, elevates this album. "I've Just Seen a Face" and "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" are almost as good. Sadly, lazy covers like "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and Beatles-by-numbers tracks like "It's Only Love" and "Another Girl" don't measure up.

9. With The Beatles. Still learning their craft, still in their early days, but an exciting collection that is bursting with energy.

10. Beatles For Sale. The 1st 3 tracks are killer and pointed the direction they were heading; unfortunately they were so rushed into this recording that there are too many half-hearted covers, too much filler.

11. Magical Mystery Tour. "I Am The Walrus" is as strong as anything they've done, but much of the rest of this EP is a faded attempt to return to Pepper land - - sadly, without the careful precision and care of "Sgt. Pepper" itself.

12. Please Please Me. This is the debut that helped launch them, and much of it is incredibly rough - but it's exciting and raw and, turned up loud, rocks. The mono version is the one to get.

13. Yellow Submarine. Ho, hum. Dismal rejects and throwaways with one notable exception - "Hey Bulldog", a blistering rocker that contains one of John's best rock vocal performances.

[Edited 7/6/10 9:53am]

rlittler81 said:

For me, and I'm no Beatles expert by any means, I only became a fan last year at the ages of 27. They start to get really good around A Hard Day's Night and Help! and then when Rubber Soul kicks in it's pure class through to The Beatles. Still working on that album. Not as melodic as their previous efforts but still better than Let It Be and Abbey Road imo.

I love their 'psychedelic' period the most. 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'A Day In The Life' are timeless classics that show their true songwriting genius.

[Edited 6/8/10 3:08am]

I second that. The psychadelic period showed a maturation in songwriting and production.

Did anyone get the Mojo Magazine 40th anniversary issue for the White album a few years ago? I wanted to know who sang both renditions of Sexy Sadie?

Cinnie said:

Nvncible1 said:

1. The Beach Boys ( pet sounds mainly ) were their harmonic vocal influence

Yep!

sort of, actually The Everly Brothers were the initial influence on their vocals (having constant harmonies) esp in the early days. Later Paul was especially influenced by Pet Sounds, but I they had already been doing 3 part harmonies for years.

Harlepolis said:

Went out and bought those two compilations(My 1st purchase from the Bealtes). As much as I liked the 1st one, I found myself playing the 2nd one more.

Three things caught my ears though..

1. Their use of background vocals(esp in their later recordings), I'd love to know how it came about or where they got the inspiration to do it.

2. I really can't shake the thought that Stevie Wonder might've been heavily influenced by them when he recorded his 70s albums. "He's Misstra Know-It-All" in particular echoes on of the Beatles ballads; the lyrics, the vocal mannerisms and the whole production.

3. The song Ballad Of John Lennon & Yoko Ono

Yeah the blue album was one of my favorites growing up! Fantastic compilation. You just gotta love those pictures, too. Man, their progression during just 8 years was absolutely amazing. They are peerless for what they did (like James Brown was peerless for what he did)

I think Paul was a natural harmonizer. John was something of the frontman in the early days and Paul harmonized because he wanted to sing also. It allowed him to sing constantly even if John was the lead vocalist. Later George joined in.

I have always thought that Stevie, Marvin, and Jimi were influenced by the Beatles' freedom, if not their actual music. They were all three geniuses with or without the Beatles, but the Beatles opened up the doors for artistic freedom. That is something we've kind of lost today.

Lately the sound I like most from them is their last one--the more soulful stripped down rock of Get Back, Don't Let Me Down, Come Together, & I Want You

It makes it all the more tragic that they ended it because their music was sounding as good as ever, and none of the four individuals could match it.

NDRU said:

Harlepolis said:

Went out and bought those two compilations(My 1st purchase from the Bealtes). As much as I liked the 1st one, I found myself playing the 2nd one more.

Three things caught my ears though..

1. Their use of background vocals(esp in their later recordings), I'd love to know how it came about or where they got the inspiration to do it.

2. I really can't shake the thought that Stevie Wonder might've been heavily influenced by them when he recorded his 70s albums. "He's Misstra Know-It-All" in particular echoes on of the Beatles ballads; the lyrics, the vocal mannerisms and the whole production.

3. The song Ballad Of John Lennon & Yoko Ono

Yeah the blue album was one of my favorites growing up! Fantastic compilation. You just gotta love those pictures, too. Man, their progression during just 8 years was absolutely amazing. They are peerless for what they did (like James Brown was peerless for what he did)

I think Paul was a natural harmonizer. John was something of the frontman in the early days and Paul harmonized because he wanted to sing also. It allowed him to sing constantly even if John was the lead vocalist. Later George joined in.

I have always thought that Stevie, Marvin, and Jimi were influenced by the Beatles' freedom, if not their actual music. They were all three geniuses with or without the Beatles, but the Beatles opened up the doors for artistic freedom. That is something we've kind of lost today.

Couple of years ago, I would've considered this statement outrageous, but now I completely agree although I think, they influenced each other more or less.

And I mentioned Stevie in specific, because he kept a close listen more than the ones you mentioned, as far as how he approached the recordings of his 70s albums from a technical(as well as melodic) angle.

After listening to the "Blue" album, I think I'll be careful with whoI consider "overrated" from now on. I've always been familiar with "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" but only in passing, its just recently I happen to listen to those songs with full attention and the production is extremely prolific, esp how they used the orchestra as a climax affect in the latter song.

Again, the "Anthology" gave me a full understanding about the process of their recording sessions.

rialb said:

AlexdeParis said:

I'm in the other boat. Revolver and The Beatles are the two most overrated Beatles albums IMO. They're wildly inconsistent in terms of song quality IMO (yes, that's kind of the point of the White Album, but still). "Revolution 9" is inexcusable and "Yellow Submarine" isn't much better. "Doctor Robert" isn't a favorite and the same goes for both "... Bungalow Bill" and "... Me and My Monkey." When those albums are great, they're excellent, but neither has the magic of Sgt. Pepper, which truly feels like an adventure that's greater than the sum of its parts.

Fair enough. I should say that in general I am not a fan of the Beatles' "psychedelic" music (basically their output in 1967). Magical Mystery Tour and songs like "Only A Northern Song" and "It's All Too Much" also rank very low for me. I feel like at that time they were using studio trickery and experimentation as a substitute for good, solid songwriting. It seems like they were more into cool sounds and effects than the music. I'm certainly not going to defend "Revolution #9" but I quite like "Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except Me And My Monkey" and "Doctor Robert." I also like that Revolver features some of their heavier songs ("And Your Bird Can Sing," "She Said She Said"). The only real stinker on Revolver is "Love You To" but at least it's over in about 2 1/2 minutes (unlike "Within You Without You" which lumbers along for over five minutes, an eternity back then). The Beatles probably has most of my favourite Paul McCartney songs of any Beatles album and I feel like him and John, for the most part, were really writing some killer songs. I also really dig the sprawl of the album. Most doubles from that era were only around 65-70 minutes of music and this one gives you over 90 minutes of (mostly) great stuff.

For me Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band features some pretty weak material ("Fixing A Hole," "Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite!," "Within You Without You"). It has one extremely high point ("A Day In The Life") but otherwise the songs are either just good or below average (in terms of the Beatles' catalog). Is it more cohesive than Revolver or The Beatles? Maybe you have a point there but for me the songs are pretty weak. As I said before I "blame" John Lennon for the poor quality of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. To me it seems like he was pretty disinterested in the whole thing and was not submitting top drawer material for the album, with the exception of "A Day In The Life."

I agree, and maybe in retrospect Sgt Pepper is not their best album song for song, but I do think the cohesion and the sound were huge steps forward from Revolver and that is why it made a bigger impact at the time.

On Revolver they seem to waver between their old sound and the new. Dr Roberts and And Your Bird Can Sing are like retro-Beatles compared to Tomorrow Never Knows. The "lesser" songs on Sgt Pepper (Getting Better, Good Morning) still sound more modern [to me]. Also, the use of other instruments sounds more seamless. On revolver, the transition between Love to You and the songs before & after is kind of jarring, but Within You Without You Seems pretty smooth [again just my opinion]. Plus there was no limit to the number & types of instruments used. A song like Sgt Pepper throws in a small orchestra for 10 seconds seemingly with no effort.

And honestly, as good as revolver is, I think the masterpiece of it (Tomorrow Never Knows) is not nearly as good as A Day in the Life. I think the weak songs on Revolver (I want to tell You, Dr Roberts, Love to You) are worse than the weak ones on Sgt Pepper (Within You Without You, Good Morning)

So my opinion remais that Revolver is a better collection of songs, but Sgt Pepper is a better album. Probably neither are my favorite beatles album (White Album, Abbey Road) But Revolver seems to be The Beatles moving forward at an insane speed, Sgt Pepper is them at full flower. Take your pick they are both pretty decent.

Harlepolis said:

NDRU said:

Yeah the blue album was one of my favorites growing up! Fantastic compilation. You just gotta love those pictures, too. Man, their progression during just 8 years was absolutely amazing. They are peerless for what they did (like James Brown was peerless for what he did)

I think Paul was a natural harmonizer. John was something of the frontman in the early days and Paul harmonized because he wanted to sing also. It allowed him to sing constantly even if John was the lead vocalist. Later George joined in.

I have always thought that Stevie, Marvin, and Jimi were influenced by the Beatles' freedom, if not their actual music. They were all three geniuses with or without the Beatles, but the Beatles opened up the doors for artistic freedom. That is something we've kind of lost today.

Couple of years ago, I would've considered this statement outrageous, but now I completely agree although I think, they influenced each other more or less.

And I mentioned Stevie in specific, because he kept a close listen more than the ones you mentioned, as far as how he approached the recordings of his 70s albums from a technical(as well as melodic) angle.

After listening to the "Blue" album, I think I'll be careful with whoI consider "overrated" from now on. I've always been familiar with "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" but only in passing, its just recently I happen to listen to those songs with full attention and the production is extremely prolific, esp how they used the orchestra as a climax affect in the latter song.

Again, the "Anthology" gave me a full understanding about the process of their recording sessions.

Yeah Stevie does seem to more closely parallel the Beatles, the way he defies genres with tracks like Golden Lady, Big Brother, Looking for Another Pure Love. They are so musical & melodic, and use unconventional instrumentation that is appropriate for the song rather than crafting a song to be appropriate for radio or some other categorization.