On the preschool front (seeing as how that's my gig) we have a child in our care currently who is slowly expanding his Beatles horizons. His father had him watch Yellow Submarine a few weeks ago, and the child made him play the song for him on Youtube. Anyway, it's part of a playlist--we have over the last few weeks learned the first three songs on that list. For about a week he sang Yellow Submarine, all day, every day. Then he added in Come Together--seriously, there's little in the world that's funnier than a three year old singing "He say, One and one and one is three--Got to be good looking...hard to see" (he leaves out words--oh, and he actually has no idea that One and one and one is three yet. He's not at that level of mathematic understanding.
.
Mainly he sticks with those two. But he did spend one day on the third song on the playlist: Hey Jude. Mostly just Hey (whatever kid's name was closest to him) don't make it bad...."
"Rubber Soul" was probably closest to a R&B album.
Got through the self title [damn near went to sleep ]
A lot of their stuff sounded more of a novelty act, like showtunes....which isn't a bad, if you're into that.
But like I stated , I probably liked some of their tunes on each album, not all.
So what am I missing?
I guess you had to be there. Be in that time.
Listening to something in 1965, compared to listening to it 50 years later. Comparing it to what was out in 1965. The previous album you just heard from Solomon Burke or Gerry & the Pacemakers.
PRINCE: Always and Forever
MICHAEL JACKSON: Always and Forever
-----
Live Your Life How U Wanna Live It
"Rubber Soul" was probably closest to a R&B album.
Got through the self title [damn near went to sleep ]
A lot of their stuff sounded more of a novelty act, like showtunes....which isn't a bad, if you're into that.
But like I stated , I probably liked some of their tunes on each album, not all.
So what am I missing?
Does the fact that all of those 12 albums were created within an 8 year lifespan from 1962 - 1970 make it any more impressive? They went through a pretty vast transformation in a very short space. For me, there's very little filler after the first couple of albums and they came with hits every single year of their short life as a band.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
The Beatles aren't a personal favourite of mine, but if you have to ask "what's the big deal" then you really need to get into music history a little bit more. They influenced everybody: Bob Dylan (who in turn influenced them), The Rolling Stones (who probably would never have written their own songs if it hadn't been for the Fab Four), Jimi Hendrix, Sly Stone, George Clinton... They're world famous. When I was travelling through Peru last year, I didn't see or hear a lot of rock groups except... The Beatles. Paul MacCartney even played in Lima. That in itself of course doesn't make Macca the best artist ever or anything like that, but it does say something about their worldwide appeal. [Edited 6/16/15 1:07am]
Every five to six months, this board will create a "The Beatles are overrated!" thread in the hopes of being purposefully controversial or contrarian as there is never any explanation given, using musical examples, why the Beatles should be assessed as such.
And every five to six months, I respond with:
The further history moves away from the moment classics were established in the western canon, the more the generations that follow will be removed from the impact felt from the classic being established. In other words, this board lacks the historical perspective to assess the Beatles fairly because Beatlemania probably died when Lennon got whacked, and y'all being mostly millenials means you were born after Beatlemania expired - you have no emotional or conscious attachment to the Beatles because their overt influence has faded as we move through time. But, even if you don't appreciate the Beatles' music, (it is your right), you must acknowledge their impact on our culture, and even the music listening experience. For example: people waited 15 years for D'Angelo to make an album. Why? Because we have come to accept the album as the singular artistic statement made by musicians that is cohesive and thematic. Who was the first band to approach the recording arts in this context?
You got it!
So, even if you don't like their music (I will excuse your bad taste), give them your respect, you ingrates. For, in thirty, forty years, I can guarantee that some narrow-sighted dork will create a thread entitled "Michael Jackson was overrated!" for the same reasons I've elaborated above.
I'm not that much of a fan, either, tho some of it is "interesting."
Don't know if this was said since i just skimmed most of the comments, but...you have to take it within the context of the times, hard as that may be at this point.
Probably so much of what informs your taste (as mine) came after the Beatles were over & done. If you were around during the height of their fame, you may understand better. Just a thought.
Maybe around that time it was ground breaking or something. But then again, you know teenage girls, they go ga-ga for cute boys.
Just like Elvis ten years earlier... But did Elvis write his own songs? You're right, the Fab Four were girls' idols, but there really was more to 'em than that...
Maybe around that time it was ground breaking or something. But then again, you know teenage girls, they go ga-ga for cute boys.
Just like Elvis ten years earlier... But did Elvis write his own songs? You're right, the Fab Four were girls' idols, but there really was more to 'em than that...
Personally, I don't know if they were ground breaking or what not, I just like some of their music. But I was simply offering the OP an explaination for his possible conclusion. That might have had a small part (or maybe even big) to do with their popularity at that time, even if I said it jokingly.
There was a time,when I was much younger,I didn't understand what all the hype was about,either.
But then I started listening to albums like Sgt.Peppers and Abbey Road,and I began to understand the brilliance of their music The Beatles were incredible.
same here... i didnt listen earlier, because as a black youth, i wasnt really exposed to their albums and didnt have access to them....but now, songs like "Foool On The Hill", "Penny Lane", "Eleanor Rigby", "Long & Winding Road", "Help", "Ticket To Ride", "We Can Work It Out", Yesterday", "Hey Jude", just to name a few off the top of the head, still get regular spins from me....the songwriting and complex chord arrangements and melodies on some of their songs was amazing....
"Rubber Soul" was probably closest to a R&B album.
Got through the self title [damn near went to sleep ]
A lot of their stuff sounded more of a novelty act, like showtunes....which isn't a bad, if you're into that.
But like I stated , I probably liked some of their tunes on each album, not all.
So what am I missing?
I can only tell you how it was back then.
I was about three when my brothers and I first saw them on the Ed Sulivan show. They had catchy music and they were new and funny looking.
They were a huge sensation and it's hard to describe the impact their arrival made in the US at the time. Even us little kids were affected.
My elder brother was guitar obsessed his whole life after he heard the Beatles. My mom bought him a guitar and he use to make my other brother and me stand on the bed and pretend we were onstage performing Beatles songs with him. My other brother played bongos and I sang lead.
We would jump around and sing until the bed fell down and mom yelled at us. I think I was five at the time.
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
On the preschool front (seeing as how that's my gig) we have a child in our care currently who is slowly expanding his Beatles horizons. His father had him watch Yellow Submarine a few weeks ago, and the child made him play the song for him on Youtube. Anyway, it's part of a playlist--we have over the last few weeks learned the first three songs on that list. For about a week he sang Yellow Submarine, all day, every day. Then he added in Come Together--seriously, there's little in the world that's funnier than a three year old singing "He say, One and one and one is three--Got to be good looking...hard to see" (he leaves out words--oh, and he actually has no idea that One and one and one is three yet. He's not at that level of mathematic understanding.
.
Mainly he sticks with those two. But he did spend one day on the third song on the playlist: Hey Jude. Mostly just Hey (whatever kid's name was closest to him) don't make it bad...."
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
Every five to six months, this board will create a "The Beatles are overrated!" thread in the hopes of being purposefully controversial or contrarian as there is never any explanation given, using musical examples, why the Beatles should be assessed as such.
And every five to six months, I respond with:
The further history moves away from the moment classics were established in the western canon, the more the generations that follow will be removed from the impact felt from the classic being established. In other words, this board lacks the historical perspective to assess the Beatles fairly because Beatlemania probably died when Lennon got whacked, and y'all being mostly millenials means you were born after Beatlemania expired - you have no emotional or conscious attachment to the Beatles because their overt influence has faded as we move through time. But, even if you don't appreciate the Beatles' music, (it is your right), you must acknowledge their impact on our culture, and even the music listening experience. For example: people waited 15 years for D'Angelo to make an album. Why? Because we have come to accept the album as the singular artistic statement made by musicians that is cohesive and thematic. Who was the first band to approach the recording arts in this context?
You got it!
So, even if you don't like their music (I will excuse your bad taste), give them your respect, you ingrates. For, in thirty, forty years, I can guarantee that some narrow-sighted dork will create a thread entitled "Michael Jackson was overrated!" for the same reasons I've elaborated above.
Well, the screen name was HUMPTHANG so, what did you expect? LOL!! Nice reply though. In case you had not noticed.......it is mostly Janet Jackson fans that hang out here now. She is about as talented as Paula Abdul.
Every five to six months, this board will create a "The Beatles are overrated!" thread in the hopes of being purposefully controversial or contrarian as there is never any explanation given, using musical examples, why the Beatles should be assessed as such.
And every five to six months, I respond with:
The further history moves away from the moment classics were established in the western canon, the more the generations that follow will be removed from the impact felt from the classic being established. In other words, this board lacks the historical perspective to assess the Beatles fairly because Beatlemania probably died when Lennon got whacked, and y'all being mostly millenials means you were born after Beatlemania expired - you have no emotional or conscious attachment to the Beatles because their overt influence has faded as we move through time. But, even if you don't appreciate the Beatles' music, (it is your right), you must acknowledge their impact on our culture, and even the music listening experience. For example: people waited 15 years for D'Angelo to make an album. Why? Because we have come to accept the album as the singular artistic statement made by musicians that is cohesive and thematic. Who was the first band to approach the recording arts in this context?
You got it!
So, even if you don't like their music (I will excuse your bad taste), give them your respect, you ingrates. For, in thirty, forty years, I can guarantee that some narrow-sighted dork will create a thread entitled "Michael Jackson was overrated!" for the same reasons I've elaborated above.
Well, the screen name was HUMPTHANG so, what did you expect? LOL!! Nice reply though. In case you had not noticed.......it is mostly Janet Jackson fans that hang out here now. She is about as talented as Paula Abdul.
Throwing shade is just a specialty of your's, huh?
"Rubber Soul" was probably closest to a R&B album.
Got through the self title [damn near went to sleep ]
A lot of their stuff sounded more of a novelty act, like showtunes....which isn't a bad, if you're into that.
But like I stated , I probably liked some of their tunes on each album, not all.
So what am I missing?
I can only tell you how it was back then.
I was about three when my brothers and I first saw them on the Ed Sulivan show. They had catchy music and they were new and funny looking.
They were a huge sensation and it's hard to describe the impact their arrival made in the US at the time. Even us little kids were affected.
My elder brother was guitar obsessed his whole life after he heard the Beatles. My mom bought him a guitar and he use to make my other brother and me stand on the bed and pretend we were onstage performing Beatles songs with him. My other brother played bongos and I sang lead.
We would jump around and sing until the bed fell down and mom yelled at us. I think I was five at the time.
Now that's how it was when The Jackson 5 were on TV.
Well, the screen name was HUMPTHANG so, what did you expect? LOL!! Nice reply though. In case you had not noticed.......it is mostly Janet Jackson fans that hang out here now. She is about as talented as Paula Abdul.
Throwing shade is just a specialty of your's, huh?
Thought you were defending my name....
Anyway, I choose to ignore the "bad taste in music" and the other unnecessary shaded remarks...
It's not that serious.
guess i didn't ignore it huh?
And to surprise some of you snubs, I actually like this performance
I was about three when my brothers and I first saw them on the Ed Sulivan show. They had catchy music and they were new and funny looking.
They were a huge sensation and it's hard to describe the impact their arrival made in the US at the time. Even us little kids were affected.
My elder brother was guitar obsessed his whole life after he heard the Beatles. My mom bought him a guitar and he use to make my other brother and me stand on the bed and pretend we were onstage performing Beatles songs with him. My other brother played bongos and I sang lead.
We would jump around and sing until the bed fell down and mom yelled at us. I think I was five at the time.
Now that's how it was when The Jackson 5 were on TV.
I wanted to be Tito
Chile, when I was thirteen I was so sure Jermaine was gonna marry me....luckily he didn't,
Prince, in you I found a kindred spirit...Rest In Paradise.
Every five to six months, this board will create a "The Beatles are overrated!" thread in the hopes of being purposefully controversial or contrarian as there is never any explanation given, using musical examples, why the Beatles should be assessed as such.
And every five to six months, I respond with:
The further history moves away from the moment classics were established in the western canon, the more the generations that follow will be removed from the impact felt from the classic being established. In other words, this board lacks the historical perspective to assess the Beatles fairly because Beatlemania probably died when Lennon got whacked, and y'all being mostly millenials means you were born after Beatlemania expired - you have no emotional or conscious attachment to the Beatles because their overt influence has faded as we move through time. But, even if you don't appreciate the Beatles' music, (it is your right), you must acknowledge their impact on our culture, and even the music listening experience. For example: people waited 15 years for D'Angelo to make an album. Why? Because we have come to accept the album as the singular artistic statement made by musicians that is cohesive and thematic. Who was the first band to approach the recording arts in this context?
You got it!
So, even if you don't like their music (I will excuse your bad taste), give them your respect, you ingrates. For, in thirty, forty years, I can guarantee that some narrow-sighted dork will create a thread entitled "Michael Jackson was overrated!" for the same reasons I've elaborated above.
Well, the screen name was HUMPTHANG so, what did you expect? LOL!! Nice reply though. In case you had not noticed.......it is mostly Janet Jackson fans that hang out here now. She is about as talented as Paula Abdul.
Hmm, well, I didn't know Hump had a reputation! Anyways, thanks.
Every five to six months, this board will create a "The Beatles are overrated!" thread in the hopes of being purposefully controversial or contrarian as there is never any explanation given, using musical examples, why the Beatles should be assessed as such.
And every five to six months, I respond with:
The further history moves away from the moment classics were established in the western canon, the more the generations that follow will be removed from the impact felt from the classic being established. In other words, this board lacks the historical perspective to assess the Beatles fairly because Beatlemania probably died when Lennon got whacked, and y'all being mostly millenials means you were born after Beatlemania expired - you have no emotional or conscious attachment to the Beatles because their overt influence has faded as we move through time. But, even if you don't appreciate the Beatles' music, (it is your right), you must acknowledge their impact on our culture, and even the music listening experience. For example: people waited 15 years for D'Angelo to make an album. Why? Because we have come to accept the album as the singular artistic statement made by musicians that is cohesive and thematic. Who was the first band to approach the recording arts in this context?
You got it!
So, even if you don't like their music (I will excuse your bad taste), give them your respect, you ingrates. For, in thirty, forty years, I can guarantee that some narrow-sighted dork will create a thread entitled "Michael Jackson was overrated!" for the same reasons I've elaborated above.
i'm glad these 'i don't get the beatles...' threads pop up every now and again, if for no other reason to inspire a repeat examination. abbey road side 2 sounded so good on the hi-fi last night. it doesn't get much better than when 'here comes the sun' fills the room...
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
]
The Beatles were incredible.
