Early or Later Beatles?

[greenman]

I don't claim to be a scholar of true history, but I'll answer the best I can. Everything in culture comes around sooner or later in a circle. Kids with long hair do not exactly represent the movement of the 60's but it did start somewhere,. And with a movement comes a certain mindset-if it's purposely driven. Boy bands of today try and emulate what the Beatles did. They set the stage for that level of success and it is to be considered and looked upon as what those type of bands today try and re-create. The marketing, the look, the sound. Did the Beatles intentionally do this? Probably not, but because of what they achived in the way, and so widely accepted by a generation-that same formula is used today-only in a manufactured way-with a great deal less talent. If you relate the kind of crowd that went to see the Beatles, it was undoubtably unanimously girls and young women, (in the early years) same with the bands of today. I think that qualifies in some way shape or form as a boy band even if it's for a fragment of time. The material they performed in the early days was total pop as well, also the same trendy music that appeals to a wide audience today. The Beatles got so big that some people just wanted to see them, just to actually look at them-not even totally interested in the music-same as today-Again, is it their fault? -no. But the image remains the same. (back then and now) But at least they had talent. That's the up-side. Once the music changed and got deeper and less pop-(more meaningful) the audience changed as well. But for that period- The combination of 50,000 screaming girls along with the type of pop they played-I think would qualify as such-even if it's not on the level you think. And basically that's my view on that. So now that I've explained why I feel that way-are you willing to go further, or you wanna exploit my reasons as being total bullshit. Just asking (I have no connection with you yet)

The Beatles were not the first example of that kind of popularity though(most obviously Elvis) so I'd say its rather unfair to pin them with "inventing" it rather than just being a natural progression.

The bolded point doesnt really seem like a fair judgement to me though, I don't think you can compair the Beatles to a modern act that moves from "pop" to "serious rock" simpley because the latter didnt exist early in their career and devolped partly due to their own devolpment.

[dazedcat]

Frank Sinatra really might have been the first pop idol, there's an argument to be made for that anyway. He had the teen bobby-soxers screaming over him long before Elvis or anyone else that I can recall. From all that I've read or heard about it, that developed organically too.

[fenderbass]

I'm as cool as a cucumber GG. I just thought the other guy wanted to debate the theory. Turns out some people just need people to agree with them at all costs. I was never mad or upset about anything.

HHmmmmm, are you sure about that? It appears your answer is the result of a guity concience.

To add, there is a great difference between wanting someone to agree with you, and having to reiterate and stress an opinion.

I'd like to throw you a curve ball as a twist of thought for you to chew on-for good measure if you will. here are a few questions along the way.

I love the beatles and led zeppelin equally and i take no great offense to the opposing thought. i think a guest member has a right to express his or her visions. . i don't think a boy band label sounds disrepectful, just incorrect to some degree.

how is it that a view is such the subject of stone throwing? some parts of the world believe in freedom of speech. it's not like this guy or gal said that they suck.

if those boy bands bands associated with the same early image of what the beatles were, were more appreciated and respected as musicians and really talented artist in their own right -would you still take that much offense to the comparison?

later beatles for me

[Sagittarius Rising]

Overall I prefer the later Beatles; Revolver, Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour in particular are their strongest of the later albums. I love The White Album and Abbey Road but both albums have too much filler mixed in with the brilliance. The White Album could have been their greatest album if it was only a single album instead of a double.

[dazedcat]

A lot of people have said that about the White Album. Which songs would you omit to make it your greatest Beatles album?

[Wolfman]

Later.

[fenderbass]

At least 6 people disagreed with the premise besides me. There was no stone throwing, just spirited debate. The person who was so passionate about his theory, really showed to stomach for hearing opposing points of view. This was just a discussion about music. Not a blueprint to eradicate AIDS or world hunger.

Yes, i just call it like i see it. he did reiterate his opinion more than enough, judging on how many were opposed and wanted his theory. stickin to your guns goes further in life than crumbling under a majority vote. freedom of speech and a point of view is valued far greater than who says who's dick is bigger and for what reasons on a website.

to add, you mentioned taking away the screaming girls to prove your non-related point, but the screaming girls were part of it. just as if, those talentless acts somehow had more talent, they'd be more accepted as a valid comparison instead of a manufactured insult. the image is the disagreement i believe, not the rate of talent. it had to start somewhere-correct?

[fenderbass]

I used to work in a slaugherhouse before I went to law school.

you have given some important information here: you say you are a lawyer? that means you do like to ARGUE

case closed -you win!

If the talent does not come organically then I would NEVER associate them with a band like the Beatles. Most of these "Boy Bands" are organized by record labels in the same way that Disney's Mickey Mouse Club members were auditioned and hired. How does that compare with the Beatles?

how revealing. you have given some important information here: you say you are a lawyer? that means you do like to ARGUE

case closed -you win!

.

i found this thread to be the most dramatic thing going-

i am not taking sides on this matter, but i do see both sides as a good point and also i have looked at the links that were provided to coincide with the guest members theory. there does appear to be a reasonable explanation in those provided that would show how some people could identify them to what has come around full circle. that's just me.

[fenderbass]

I don't think you can compair the Beatles to a modern act that moves from "pop" to "serious rock" simpley because the latter didnt exist early in their career and devolped partly due to their own devolpment.

??? i don't fully understand that notion. so are you saying that just because the beatles progressed as time moved on that they recieve a free lunch pass excluding their early albums from a comparison?

i thought the early beatles were the main topic of the discussion here from what i gathered ,not the full career from my understanding. am i wrong in that?

[dazedcat]

The Beatles early albums were a product of those times when they were made. The music pushed their "image", not the other way around. They were a huge name in England and had a serious buzz in America but the masses really had no idea about them. They played on that first Sullivan show and the country went wild. I don't believe Brian Epstein manufactured anything other than having the good sense to cut a deal with Ed Sullivan and let the rest organically take care of itself.

Marketing took over after those initial performances on American TV and you could buy anything Beatles related. Lunch boxes, bobble head dolls, even Beatle wigs and suits (really). However, when you turned on the radio back then what you had was just their music, that they predominately wrote themselves, that dominated American hit single and album charts. Films made by them for better or for worse depending on ones' viewpoint, always featured their music above all else. Music that they wrote and performed themselves.

This is why I was so strong about my opinion about any attempt to link early Beatles to contemporary boy bands. There was no manufacturing with the early Beatles, what happened culturally with them happened at its' own natural course and tempo. The music they wrote and played is what fueled everything, the marketing came AFTER their musical impact.

As I said before and now say again, you can't blame Led Zeppelin for Kingdom Come. You can't blame the early Beatles for the Jonas Brothers either.

[fenderbass]

The Beatles early albums were a product of those times when they were made. The music pushed their "image", not the other way around. They were a huge name in England and had a serious buzz in America but the masses really had no idea about them. They played on that first Sullivan show and the country went wild. I don't believe Brian Epstein manufactured anything other than having the good sense to cut a deal with Ed Sullivan and let the rest organically take care of itself.

Marketing took over after those initial performances on American TV and you could buy anything Beatles related. Lunch boxes, bobble head dolls, even Beatle wigs and suits (really). However, when you turned on the radio back then what you had was just their music, that they predominately wrote themselves, that dominated American hit single and album charts. Films made by them for better or for worse depending on ones' viewpoint, always featured their music above all else. Music that they wrote and performed themselves.

This is why I was so strong about my opinion about any attempt to link early Beatles to contemporary boy bands. There was no manufacturing with the early Beatles, what happened culturally with them happened at its' own natural course and tempo. The music they wrote and played is what fueled everything, the marketing came AFTER their musical impact.

As I said before and now say again, you can't blame Led Zeppelin for Kingdom Come. You can't blame the early Beatles for the Jonas Brothers either.

so you are aware that they did use a planned marketing strategy and it wasn't just accidental and based off of talent alone.. marketing lunchboxes, and other products would also coincide with the image factor being presented.

i doesn't appear to me that blaming was the issue but more of a comparison of what the new bands emulate based on what the image of the beatles were in that period of success. people sometimes don't read between the lines. that's what i got from this dramatic thread. if you recall robert plant was quoted in 1988 as saying something to the effect, while pointing to a judas priest poster that-"if i had anything to do with this , anything at all-i am sorry" meaning that he admittingly recognized that there would be a comparison based on the approach, the music, the intent and otherwise. fans of led zeppelin know that as a band they were much deeper than just a heavy metal band and plant has discredited that relation many times, but he did realize that people affiliate led zeppelin as possibly the first of heavy metal bands and that acts would follow in those footsteps to retain the same success, even though they never got the "sound" exactly right. that's the exact similarity indentified with this thread. just a different group of bands. thanks for your explanation. i see both sides and choose to be neutral.

[Strider]

^^^Yes, and he speaks in italics…is he trying to be ironic?

[Rock Historian]

I seems sort of weird to me that Rock Historian just drops out of this debate in a huff and goes away mad, and then all of a sudden an new member appears to defend his "right to free speech" and all the points he was making.

Just saying.

Are you surprised that another member possibly understands my view. Is that such a shock?

I didn't drop out- i have a very busy life outside here- if you can imagine that. what's your excuse?

And i also find it funny that you went to law school...so i was debating with a laywer? -go figure. No need for me to go further with you after your last friendly post full of smart remarks slithering in and out of your response. When a thread becomes more of a negative vibe or an argument vs. an exchange of ideas or a disagreement- it's not fun anymore. (and if you can actually tell me, that was fun for you-than you must be a defense attorney) I have a right not to respond to you. Are you trying to force this to continue??? That's what it sounds like- I even gave you the last word. You should be extremely satisfied with that. You Win!!!

I'll give you one thing-in the short time you've been a member here, you've made some friends and the company you seem to mesh with will have you ready to ruin the boards soon enough. Your on the right path.

Do you think the stuff you post is infallible? I'll give you a bit of inside info- if you post something on this forum that another "know it all" member believes deviates from their orthodoxy, you either have to explain your position endlessly (which I've done) or you are dismissed as a hater or as you liked to call it - a "fanboi" of some sort. In that case-I pull the plug.

Argue with yourself if you like- because it's not a matter of wanting you or anyone else to agree- i just know when to say when.

I do appreciate your opinion-(the respectable parts of it) regardless if you have disagreed with me.

This should all make sense to you-with your level of education.

On to another topic for me.

[fenderbass]

^^^Yes, and he speaks in italics…is he trying to be ironic?

hello strider, i was initially confused on what the heck your tid bit was supposed to mean until i read higher up.

i don't want to sound combative, but it's day 2 on this website for me and your accusing me in a roundabout way of some sort of false posing affiliation of or with another member? who i've never even met and also blasting my italic writting? is that is the proper way for me to see this? if so ,how absurd.

maybe i should have stuck to being a guest user.

[fenderbass]

I seems sort of weird to me that Rock Historian just drops out of this debate in a huff and goes away mad, and then all of a sudden an new member appears to defend his "right to free speech" and all the points he was making.

Just saying.

greetings ledtiki, i have no quarrles here, i do see both sides. i love the beatles and they are my equally favorite band along with lz. i don't take it that personal when a person states a claim. i joined this site because music is a part of me and i love to learn from others and also share stories. it's my pastime. i have heard of other folks deliberations on this topic before just not on here. i think you raised some good points to back your message and on the flipside i read the links and the messages opposing. i find this blog or topic the most interesting and dramatic of any page going at the minute. i do think it got carried away but i wanted to add my two sense in. not sure if it was done proper but i tried. no, i don't think the beatles were a boy band, but i also do not get insulted by that. they did establish a lot of guidlines for artist to follow and even if it was not intentional-they have influenced the maunufactured groups and they use the same stradegy techniques of marketing and resort to playing the same pop oriented happy music that made the beatles famous. i willl remain neutral but i at least wanted to write.

[fenderbass]

http://musiqology.co...jonas-brothers/

This is the exact message is was getting across. For those who care to read it. (check it out - not a long read) It explains my point. The movement, the association, etc.(not the level of musicianship).

this link is a decent explanation as to how it all came around full circle. while there is no fact in the blog or proof in the pudding that would have members agree with this link or the opinion you have of this era i can see the similarities you compared them with. do you know much about their later albums? if so, what is your favorite one?

[Rock Historian]

this link is a decent explanation as to how it all came around full circle. while there is no fact in the blog or proof in the pudding that would have members agree with this link or the opinion you have of this era i can see the similarities you compared them with. do you know much about their later albums? if so, what is your favorite one?

Fenderbass, welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy your time here. It's great site for anything Zeppelin and as you can see other bands and music as well. To answer your question, I do own six Beatles albums. My two favorites (because I like both of them equally) are Abby Road and Sgt. Pepper- I also think Revolver and Get Back are great too. I enjoy some of the White Album but it contains a good sum of "fat" of you will. I love Paul McCartney and Wings, I grew up listening to that stuff. I'd have to say that as individual members I enjoy their solo projects almost as much. Ringo's stuff was usually kinda cooky, but it was great. "It Don't Come Easy", "Photograph", "Your Sixteen", "Back off Boogaloo". Gotta love it. I like Paul's solo work best followed closely by Ringo. I never was that big of a Lennon or Harrison fan on their own. Their is also another Beatles thread here, if you haven't found it yet. - thanks!

[Rock Historian]

No not at all. I'm actually pleased that someone was able to join the forum just in time to agree with you. It was looking very lop-sided the way things were going before.

I'm part of the 1 %, I'm very wealthy and don't need to work anymore.

When I was asked if I had a guilty conscience I said, "I don't have a conscience, I used to work at a slaughterhouse before I went to law school."

Does that not sound tounge in cheek to you? It was meant to be a joke. But don't worry. Even if I hadn't gone to law school I could still debate better than you. I'll even tie half my brain behind my back if that makes it more fair.

That sounded really sad. But do I need to share "the win" with the other 8 people who disagreed with your theory too?

Oh I don't think the situation is all that dire. Stop being so doom and gloom. We were just talking about the Beatles. It's not the end of the world if we don't agree with your theory.

If I post something and someone doesn't agree with it I wouldn't let it ruin my whole day. You just said a minute ago that you had another life outside of this forum, so why does it matter to you so much if and handfull of people voiced oppisite opinions of yours?

So you found it "interesting" that someone agreed "just in time"...what would be a good time?. For me, the thread was already over after the fanboi comment. as your still already nausiating post reveals-you are indeed a "joke" . You obvously enjoy the argumentive side of things, and also like I mentioned to you, your on the right track to ruining the forums....nice work! see ya around.

[Rock Historian]

Oh brother! Get over it already!

Buddy, you have no clue. If i had the time , energy and interest id pull up some of the "brain-surgon" + comments you've made so far that members had to re-word just to explain things to you on a child-like level so your brain could process them easier. Don't try and make this a match of wits, first you have to get over yourself and the fact that you have no abiltiy to grasp a topic and conduct yourself in an adult manner. That 700 dollars wont come in handy because you can't buy a "life".

[Reggie29]

"Beatlemania" aside, I like all facets of The Beatles music as they were constantly changing and having George Martin and Brian Epstein didn't hurt either.

During the early sixties they were the quintessential pub band playing Chuck Berry and the like's covers.

They re-invented pop music which was pioneered by Frank Sinatra et al. I would never consider Elvis a pop singer but he was and still is popular.

Love Me Do is a great song that was a hint of what was to come, the catchy lyrics and swing feel coupled with Lennon's harmonica was at the time very fresh and different.

They were constantly changing and passing the envelope through Beatles For Sale, Rubber Soul and Revolver were all different but still had a sameness that is inherent in all their songs.

St. Peppers is probably their greatest album but it is all subjective whether it is or not.

Someone said there was a lot of "filler" on their albums.

Once again this is subjective given the amount of songs they wrote both individually and collectivelyand to my knowledge they recorded everything they wrote and except for a song or two released eventually on Anthology I don't know if there are any more unreleased songs out there.

One song that is a Rock classic IMO is, I Am The Walrus which is still as potent today as it was in 1967.

Lyrically they were brilliant and musically profound and influenced more musicians more than any other band with the possible exception being the Blues Masters and Led Zeppelin.

Without The Beatles it is quite possible that music today would not be the same and we certainly would not have the diversity we have now, "Boy Bands" not withstanding..

[Reggie29]

A lawyer, eh?

Is the collective noun for Lawyers, a Brothel of Solicitors?

[Rock Historian]

A lawyer, eh?

Is the collective noun for Lawyers, a Brothel of Solicitors?

careful, you might get blamed for posing as my alternative profile!

Reggie, you seem to be keen on defintions:

Isn't the word "lawyer" also a high class synonym for "scumbag"? just asking

[danelectro]

Dang, I've been gone a while. This place is kind of frisky these days.

IMO it's nearly impossible to define the Beatles by trying to pin them down to era's. They demonstrated considerable growth as musicians and songwriters 63-64. To my ears it sounds like every album built on the work of the previous as they continued to push forward. If there's an exception it'd be Beatles For Sale. Though when you take into consideration that songs like I'll Follow The Sun and I'm A Loser are on that one you see how they built on that with Help. In many ways every album is an era.

[TheStairwayRemainsTheSame]

Oh goody! Rock Historian and Reggie joining forces. This should be as fun to watch as a couples skating event at the special olympics on ice.

Be careful if they don't start reporting for you "insulting" them aha, *sigh*.

Their later and mid stuff, definitely - Abbey Road is the one of the best albums ever made in my opinion. With Revolver and Rubber Soul for a close second

However, you have to remember it was the early stuff that gained them attention and threw them into mainstream music in the first place. It's good, but it was intended for the masses. This popularity they gained with hits like "All My Loving" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand", allowed them to maintain a strong fan-base and while they redefined their style and revolutionized music forever after the LSD- trips.

[danelectro]

I disagree that the early stuff was intended for the masses. The band had a difficult time getting signed, I'm sure everyone remembers the famous Dick Rowe comment. How they attained massive success is anyone's guess. But I don't doubt the fact that they were thumbing their noses at the v-necked sweater crowd played a part. I realize looking back at the band after nearly half a century has passed makes them seem timid. But in their time their sound was that of raucous rock and roll. It was new, it was exciting, but it definitely wasn't some lockstep attempt to fit in with what was popular at the time. That runs completely opposite to the belief that they were so innovative. The Beatles were at the apex with a select few and society came along for the ride not the other way around.