MrSmith
macrumors 68040
Tongue in cheek, I hope. Or perhaps the Beatles are the only pre-2000 band in your collection?
Every song is amazing or every song is so familiar because they're played so damn often they're burned into your brain?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Corps Confirms Beatles Coming To iTunes
- Thread starter Flowbee
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
paddy
macrumors 6502a
Ah to be fair though most fans of the Beatles are fans for their later, highly complex music not Love Me Do.
MrSmith
macrumors 68040
I'd like to be under the sea
In an octopus's garden in the shade
...
I never give you my pillow
I only send you my invitation
And in the middle of the celebrations, I break down
...
Out of college money spent
See no future, pay no rent
All the money's gone, nowhere to go
Any jobber got the sack
Monday morning turning back
Yellow lorry slow, nowhere to go
...
Need I go on?
Unfathomable stuff... 🙄
Musically "Octopus's Garden" is quite complex; lyrically of course it is designed more like a children's song (like Yellow Submarine), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove.
And the second song you quoted is part of a song fragment from a series of songs on the second half of Abbey Road. Again I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove (if you're trying to cite a small segment of part of that Abbey Road song cycle as some sort of evidence that it isn't complex, I am missing you.
And for the last one, from "You Never Give Me Your Money", this is also a pretty poor choice to use if you're trying to say the Beatles later stuff wasn't very complex (it's also kind of silly to just pull out random lyrics anyway, as that is only one aspect of a song).
But the song itself is quite complex and rich in musical detail. Check out this page's analysis:
http://www.recmusicbeatles.com/public/files/awp/yngmym.html
paddy
macrumors 6502a
What about A Day In The Life? I am the walrus? Eleanor Rigby? Need I go on? Just judging them on their lyrics is ignorant. They were far more musically gifted than linguistically.
Unspeaked
macrumors 68020
Who judges music based on lyrics? Goth kids and recluse English majors?
At best, they're something you hum along to while you listen to the instruments...
If you want to focus on lyrics, buy a Lou Reed album - you know, where he speaks and calls it singing.
Better yet, go read some poetry and forget about music entirely; nearly any artist will tell you the lyrics are an afterthought that they frantically make up to fit the music that was in their heads.
And even then, The Beatles lyrics are a lot better than some other very highly regarded bands of the era - The Doors, Captain Beefheart, The Rolling Stones - heck, even Bob Dylan's lyrics seem silly when taken out of context line by line.
PS - It's a great irony that the two songs you decided to highlight to prove The Beatles simplicity are some of the most beautifully arranged musical numbers of the decade - especially "You Never Give Me Your Money," which is almost like three wholly different songs melded together...
calculus
Guest
Just go and play 'In My Life' back to back with the Britney song of your choice then come back.
Yesterday - it only doesn't feel deep because it is so ingrained in our minds, but thinking about it, it has real meaning...
Me...there are three types of good songs : 1. Good music, 2. Good lyrics, 3. Both....Beatles fall into the 3rd category
Have you ever listened to his more musical songs, try 'I love you Suzanne', brilliant...
Share with us...
It seems that most of the Beatles haters scrammed after their level of ineptitude and inexperience with music history and taste were tactfully uncovered. Yet Mr. Smith still throws the occasional sloppy jab. To be fair, why doesn't Mr. Smith let us in on some of the music he likes??? This is kind of a one-sided situation. All complaints and opinions, with nothing really to chew on. We know (maybe) that he is from London or something. I could throw a nasty assumption about his taste, based on the FACT that England(europe even) is going through what I like to call the "American" invasion. And if that makes no sense to anyone, just think a little harder about it. If Mr. Smith chooses to be mysterious and not share a bit, then I will have to be a "jury" of 12 and work with the circumstantial evidence, and there seems to be some good stuff already. Your turn, Mr. Smith. IM
It seems that most of the Beatles haters scrammed after their level of ineptitude and inexperience with music history and taste were tactfully uncovered. Yet Mr. Smith still throws the occasional sloppy jab. To be fair, why doesn't Mr. Smith let us in on some of the music he likes??? This is kind of a one-sided situation. All complaints and opinions, with nothing really to chew on. We know (maybe) that he is from London or something. I could throw a nasty assumption about his taste, based on the FACT that England(europe even) is going through what I like to call the "American" invasion. And if that makes no sense to anyone, just think a little harder about it. If Mr. Smith chooses to be mysterious and not share a bit, then I will have to be a "jury" of 12 and work with the circumstantial evidence, and there seems to be some good stuff already. Your turn, Mr. Smith. IM
MrSmith
macrumors 68040
Share what? I don't have to give a list of musicians that I consider are talented to warrant my opinion that the Beatles were not. I thought we were talking opinions, yet you are obviously telling me I'm wrong. The groups I like have no connection with the Beatles. This is not 'show-me-yours-and-I'll-show-you-mine'. But, what the heck, here's one: Pink Floyd.
Wow, I didn't even realize you were going so far as to say that the Beatles weren't talented.
-Zadillo
MrSmith
macrumors 68040
I meant relatively. Of course they had talent - otherwise they couldn't have got up on stage and performed.
redfirebird08
macrumors 6502
I love the Beatles, but Dylan's lyrics in general exceed anything the Beatles ever wrote. Some of the social commentaries he delivered through his songs are still relevant today, like "Blowin' In The Wind," "Masters of War" (ESPECIALLY this one!), "Like A Rolling Stone," "The Hurricane," "With God On Our Side," "The Times They Are A-Changin'," etc.
As for the Beatles on iTunes and other services, I will be glad when they're on Rhapsody for sure. Rhapsody streams are the same quality as iTunes and if you purchase from Rhapsody, you get 192 kbps downloads as well as 89 cent tracks ($8.99 albums) WITH NO TAX (my state actually taxes iTunes downloads...absolutely ridiculous!). Anyways, I'm glad they're finally coming to the digital world.
And with the off-topic nature of this thread, I'll continue going off-topic within my own post. All of you who are wondering about the highest sellers ever, it's not even close. U2 isn't even close. The person who said the Beatles have sold 166 million worldwide is wrong. They've sold 169 million in the U.S. alone, and that's according to the RIAA - an organization known for not updating their lists very often.
http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp
The next highest seller ever is Elvis Presley, followed by Garth Brooks (thanks to his Wal-Mart box set deal), and Led Zeppelin is 4th. Of the 4, Zeppelin impresses me the most because A) their music kicks total butt and B) they refused to go the mass promotion route like Brooks, Elvis, and the Beatles. But the Beatles are one of the most influential artists of the 20th Century for sure (more influential than Zeppelin, although I think Zeppelin's first 6 albums are better than the Beatles' great stretch of 6 from Rubber Soul through Abbey Road). It's very telling that Zeppelin has sold over 40 million MORE albums than the Rolling Stones (a band that runs around calling themselves the best on the planet). I love the Stones, but it's hilarious that a band with 1% of the promotion that the Stones used and received could sell that many more albums. It just gives you an indication of how great Zeppelin's catalog really was/is. Selling 110 million albums without hardly ever releasing singles is absolutely incredible. The Beatles couldn't have done it in my opinion. Pink Floyd was almost as impressive in this regard (not releasing singles but selling a ton of albums), although I get the feeling that Pink Floyd is sort of one of those bands that has sold a ton of records in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s (moreso than Zeppelin) with retrospective appreciation for how great they really were.
Another little thread within this thread was a question about other big name artists not on iTunes. Zeppelin is probably the 2nd biggest name not available and I'd put AC/DC 3rd. I know why Zeppelin hates downloads though. A lot of their stuff is intended to be listened to in album format. They don't like the whole cherry-picking nature of online music services. There's a reason they only released like 5 singles in their entire career vs. 100's upon 100's released by the likes of Elvis and the Beatles. One thing Zeppelin could do is put their stuff on these digital stores, but ONLY allow people to download the whole album. Just do "album only" on everything. I have no idea why AC/DC is against digital distribution. Most people would not want to listen to most of AC/DC's albums all the way through. They are a band very much based in singles.
Unspeaked
macrumors 68020
"i know a mouse / and he hasn't got a house
i don't know why / i call him Gerald
he's getting rather old / but he's a good mouse."
Yeah, lyrical brilliance...
MrSmith
macrumors 68040
So Pink Floyd's earliest stuff is on a level with The Beatles later stuff. Look at Dark Side of the Moon instead.
Unspeaked
macrumors 68020
Please, Pink Floyd's earliest stuff was the best they released. "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" was by far their most unique effort.
Once Barrett left, it was downhill from there.
"money, its a gas / grab that cash with both hands and make a stash."
Oh yeah, the rhyme scheme is overwhelming... There have been entire novels written about how overrated "Dark Side of the Moon" is... and I suppose you ignore the entire post-The Wall era, eh?
I just can't fathom that the negative ratings are 3 to 1 over the positives; how is it NOT a good thing that the music will be available on more services and to more consumers? Are those who view this as a negative so pro-Apple as to be anti-consumer? Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, I was just surprised at the overwhelming number of negative responses...
As to the Beatles music discussion, I came late to the party but do consider them one of the top bands of all time; I've recently been on a Beatles "kick" (started by purchasing the "Love" DVD-Audio) and have purchased every CD from Rubber Soul onward (of course, just prior to the remastering after 20 years, just my luck). Until I listened to them in their entirety I didn't realize just how good they were, and didn't even recognize that some of the songs I'd known for years were even the Beatles. I don't know how you could listen to Abbey Road and not recognize their talent, unless you're simply trying to be a contrarian (fully realizing that many Apple devotees are contrarian by nature). Of course, any opinion is valid, if you don't like them you don't like them, to each his own.
As to the Beatles music discussion, I came late to the party but do consider them one of the top bands of all time; I've recently been on a Beatles "kick" (started by purchasing the "Love" DVD-Audio) and have purchased every CD from Rubber Soul onward (of course, just prior to the remastering after 20 years, just my luck). Until I listened to them in their entirety I didn't realize just how good they were, and didn't even recognize that some of the songs I'd known for years were even the Beatles. I don't know how you could listen to Abbey Road and not recognize their talent, unless you're simply trying to be a contrarian (fully realizing that many Apple devotees are contrarian by nature). Of course, any opinion is valid, if you don't like them you don't like them, to each his own.
I recently started listening to the Beatles like crazy, before I knew and liked a lot of their stuff, but had hardly heard the non-singles. I am now obsessed with the Help album, many of the songs had not been burned into my brain...
Cult Follower
macrumors 6502a
Apple should really push to get an exclusive deal with the beatles, that way both parties will win.
Joint EMI/Apple media event tomorrow. Though with mystery live performance. Getting someone from the EMI payroll to do Beatles covers?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6516189.stm
SactoGuy18
macrumors 603
A tremendous amount of ignorance in this thread, really SCARY ignorance. Statements like "no more than Ricky Nelson" and stuff like that is just nuts. Like someone with a concussion reviewing "Chinatown."
The Beatles were the first group to make albums into an art form. "Rubber Soul" "Revolver" and "Sgt Peppers" changed the way critics looked at rock groups, and changed the way rock groups actually recorded their music. They were the first group to introduce feedback on a hit recording ("I Feel Fine")...yes, before Hendrix, before The Who.....they introduce the electric 12 string Rickenbacker which is still a staple of jangle rock today (The Beatles were capable of hitting one chord.....as in the open of "Hard Days Night".....and influencing bands for decades to come with this sound).
They taught everyone that it was OK to be a pop group and still do bizarre things like 'I Am The Walrus" (yeah there's some REAL boy band stuff there!) and take audiences from bluesy rock singles like "Ticket to Ride"....with it's unique backbeat....to surreal singles only a year later like "Strawberry Fields."
It sounds like too many younger posters up here got all their Beatles info from newsclips of screaming girls, not listening, or reading anything about rock history. Or knowing what else was out there at the time.
And to the Eddie fans, he's a great guitarist, like literally thousands of other great guitarists on the planet. The difference between the Beatles and all the others is that they did not pretend to be virtuoso musicians, they were composers, and as such wrote more lasting compostions that virtually anyone else in popular music, as the records, as the BMI playlists, etc, show. They also had great voices, and most bands did not have 3 singers to fill up and album with, which contributes to how different each song can sound on a Beatles album, and why it's easy for them to hold your interest for a full 45 minutes. Each had their own voice, and compositional personality.
Someone is still listening to them....in fact when Beatles No 1 came out a few years back, it topped the charts, and the demographic of buyers was under 30....which means their music keeps taking on, and winning...new audiences.
TH
The Beatles were the first group to make albums into an art form. "Rubber Soul" "Revolver" and "Sgt Peppers" changed the way critics looked at rock groups, and changed the way rock groups actually recorded their music. They were the first group to introduce feedback on a hit recording ("I Feel Fine")...yes, before Hendrix, before The Who.....they introduce the electric 12 string Rickenbacker which is still a staple of jangle rock today (The Beatles were capable of hitting one chord.....as in the open of "Hard Days Night".....and influencing bands for decades to come with this sound).
They taught everyone that it was OK to be a pop group and still do bizarre things like 'I Am The Walrus" (yeah there's some REAL boy band stuff there!) and take audiences from bluesy rock singles like "Ticket to Ride"....with it's unique backbeat....to surreal singles only a year later like "Strawberry Fields."
It sounds like too many younger posters up here got all their Beatles info from newsclips of screaming girls, not listening, or reading anything about rock history. Or knowing what else was out there at the time.
And to the Eddie fans, he's a great guitarist, like literally thousands of other great guitarists on the planet. The difference between the Beatles and all the others is that they did not pretend to be virtuoso musicians, they were composers, and as such wrote more lasting compostions that virtually anyone else in popular music, as the records, as the BMI playlists, etc, show. They also had great voices, and most bands did not have 3 singers to fill up and album with, which contributes to how different each song can sound on a Beatles album, and why it's easy for them to hold your interest for a full 45 minutes. Each had their own voice, and compositional personality.
Someone is still listening to them....in fact when Beatles No 1 came out a few years back, it topped the charts, and the demographic of buyers was under 30....which means their music keeps taking on, and winning...new audiences.
TH