Jump to content

Early or Later Beatles?


Recommended Posts

Depending on the cut off, I would say their later year because Abbey Road is my favorite album and I think it's the best top to bottom. Their early years spawned more hits. I guess it depends on taste and what album we consider the cut off to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later, which is Rubber Soul and after imo. I think that's really the pivotal album and you could go either way. Help! they dipped their toes in, Rubber Soul is a pretty even mix and Revolver is decidedly "later" sounding.

And, yeah they had more hits in the literal sense in the early days, but there's even more later tunes that ultimately had a huge lasting effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles are my favourite band full stop,and who the hell doesn't love stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'Can't Buy Me Love'?But for me it's what I call middle period Beatles (maybe from 'Revolver' on) through to their last recordings that really put the band on another level.Singles like 'Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'Hey Jude/Revolution' are absolute gems and during this period the band was so prolific that non of these songs were released on album originally,at least in the U.K.Throw in albums like the absolute groundbreaking 'Sgt. Pepper','The White Album','Abbey Road','Let It Be' and even the American import album,'Magical Mystery Tour' and you've got a hell of a back catalogue.The greatest and most influential band in the world?You bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Thanks to early Beatles records and their image, we still have this to contend with........

Wrong. Fail. Epic fail actually.

Pop teeny idols existed long before the Beatles in pop music. If you're trying to equate early Beatles to "boy bands" then you've drunk the Kool Aide to overdose levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Fail. Epic fail actually.

Pop teeny idols existed long before the Beatles in pop music. If you're trying to equate early Beatles to "boy bands" then you've drunk the Kool Aide to overdose levels.

Nope, I don't think so. Never said they were the first to be teeny idols, but the masses of girls flocking to see them, that created mass hysteria was never seen on that level before with a full band. They definitly had the "boy band" image in the early days, still seen today. If you listen to this video above - you can't tell me that it doesnt sound like a direction of early Beatles. (and that's just one of many examples) that try to emulate that. It's all the same intentions. the music, the media, the image, the whole package.

I think with all due respect to The Beatles, they wrote meaningful songs in the early years, (as they did in the end) even if they were totally pop. But the whole idea these days is the same, and they are definitly the pinnacle of that level of success and girl frenzy. Is it their fault? No. But they were the first of that kind- no doubt. Early Beatles are the ultimate example of a pop band, and the loads and masses of girls/women would classify them as a "boy band" as well.

Were they more than that? Sure, absolutley. One of the best, but you can't say their early stuff didn't classify (whether you like it or not) as a "boy band". It's clear as day-regardless of the depth of the music compared to what's out their now. The image alone classified them as such. And every Backstreet Boy that comes along shoots for that same stardom. The flocks of screaming girls...c'mon man-it's the same story-just another decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Fail. Epic fail actually.

Pop teeny idols existed long before the Beatles in pop music. If you're trying to equate early Beatles to "boy bands" then you've drunk the Kool Aide to overdose levels.

Agreed. There's a huge difference between early Beatles and the "boy bands" of the 1990s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...