Many Years From Now...

[tonk]

will the Beatles still be remebered as a great band? I was listening to the radio in the car yesterday and the announcer said it was Macca's 67th birthday. He played a snippet of an interview from Parkinson from a few years back, and then played 'Blackbird'. I think I got something in my eye at one stage. This lead me to think about why the Beatles are regarded as the greatest band ever. Were their songs that good? Was it beacuse they were the first band to 'break the mold' in that they were singer/songwriter's? Was it the unique dynamic between the 4 members? Were they just in the right place at the right time?
A thought occured to me in that if you were born in say 1950, you would have been 13 when the Beatles had their first hit, and 20 when they broke up. In this sense, you could have 'grown up' with them, progressing from the teeny-bop 'Beatlemania' phase into the adult themes and maturity of their later work. Perhaps this is why so many felt they had a unique bond with the band, and were shattered when they broke up.
Will the Beatles stand the test of time? And as an aside, are they still Liverpool's favourite sons? What is the contemporary attitude of Scousers to the Fabs?

[Evs]

will the Beatles still be remebered as a great band? I was listening to the radio in the car yesterday and the announcer said it was Macca's 67th birthday. He played a snippet of an interview from Parkinson from a few years back, and then played 'Blackbird'. I think I got something in my eye at one stage. This lead me to think about why the Beatles are regarded as the greatest band ever. Were their songs that good? Was it beacuse they were the first band to 'break the mold' in that they were singer/songwriter's? Was it the unique dynamic between the 4 members? Were they just in the right place at the right time?
A thought occured to me in that if you were born in say 1950, you would have been 13 when the Beatles had their first hit, and 20 when they broke up. In this sense, you could have 'grown up' with them, progressing from the teeny-bop 'Beatlemania' phase into the adult themes and maturity of their later work. Perhaps this is why so many felt they had a unique bond with the band, and were shattered when they broke up.
Will the Beatles stand the test of time? And as an aside, are they still Liverpool's favourite sons? What is the contemporary attitude of Scousers to the Fabs?

Their songs, especially the majority of the early (pre. '66) ones, often had 'meaningless' lyrics. Not that this mattered one iota, as they often went for a 'sound', the way it all meshed together to make a whole, coherent, exciting 'record'.

From '66 onwards, Martin and Emerick came into their own, producing astounding 'aural invention' on just about every album and single.

They went from the relatively primitive 'Love Me Do' to the still awesome and modern sounding 'Tomorrow Never Knows' in FOUR years. John's more 'unconventional' approach coupled with Paul's natural musicianship was a perfect, but sometimes fractious, relationship. Their competitiveness drove the band forward.

They'll be around forever because they did more for the development of 'pop' music in SEVEN years than could ever be thought possible.

They both created and destroyed pop music, because it's proven impossible for bands to even approach the creative peaks they scalled since.

Oasis have based an entire (phenomenally successful) career on one of their B-SIDES (Rain)

Enough said.

[Leviathan]

Nobody is talking about Oasis today, are they?

They will last.

[apart from the above poster] LOL

[luca brasi]

People listen to great music. Their songs great; they are as catchy and as relevant as ever.

Future bands and musicians will still look to their musical influences and they will find that most of their influences were influenced by the Beatles, thus creating new generations of Beatles fans.

[Bandersnatch]

Surely after 40+ years their music has stood the test of time. There's been a hell of a lot of shit that has dated since, some of it in as little as 5 years.

[jozza800]

No band since have been able to produce quality/memorable songs as the Beatles in such a large quantity.

Most bands you cant count their best songs on one hand. We dont have enough digits to count the number of great Beatles songs!

When the human population has been wiped out and the ants are all that are left, they will be listening to the Beatles!

[The Prince]

Well, it's been forty years and people are still talking about them. If you look at the level of influence they've had it's astonishing and the fact that you could name forty of their songs and probably forget one of the greatest ones stands a testament to their ability. I've just jotted down twenty songs and forgot Ticket To Ride. To say something as glorious as that didn't make the list underlines their greatness. Even their average stuff isn't unlistenable (Revolution 9 apart).

Bands like Oasis will never manage to emulate them as they're nothing like consistent enough. Definitely Maybe was a great start, the second one was alright (I've always put its place on Top Twenty lists as it being a anachronistic time as 1996 was a great summer, footy, Brit Pop etc) then, the odd song apart, they fell away. Could they match this?

A Hard Day's Night (A Hard Day's Night, Can't Buy Me Love, And I Love Her)
Beatles For Sale (hurried but not bad)
Help (Help, Yesterday, Ticket To Ride)
Rubber Soul (Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood, Michelle, Girl, In My Life - try that for quality!)
Revolver (Taxman, Eleanor Rigby, Tomorrow Never Knows)
Sgt Pepper (With A Little Help From My Friends, Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds, A Day in the Life)
Magical Mystery Tour (more of a compilation but a pretty good one)
The Beatles (Back In The USSR, Dear Prudence, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Blackbird, Julia, Helter Skelter, Sexy Sadie, Revolution 1)
Abbey Road (Something, Here Comes The Sun, Come Together, I Want You (She's So Heavy)
Let It Be (Let It Be, The Long and Winding Road, Get Back)

and that's without the non album singles (Lady Madonna, We Can Work It Out, Day Tripper) and B-sides (Rain, Yes It Is, Old Brown Shoe)

It's not just the level of quality. It's the consistency.

[fan4dmb]

Musically, they will last in the way that Beethoven and Mozart have. In the span of two years they released Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Most bands today can't even release one album every three years, much less one that is on par with just ONE of the aforementioned albums. The Beatles released three. Not to mention they all sound so radically different.

The Beatles didn't have a "sound" and say "oh that sells" and stick with it. They changed, but it was a gradual change.

My only problem I have with the Beatles today is that their name has almost become a franchise. They have kind of been screwing over the fan base for years (compared to other bands) yet when something is released, they charge over the top prices for their products. That to me is a little sad to see. But musically, they can't be touched.

[kellysheroes]

I'm sure they will last the test of time, during the approx decade that they were together they transformed the music scene of the time in pretty much the same way at the start that rock & roll did in the 50's and Glenn Miller did with the big band sound in the late 30's early 40's. Of course there were others in the first rush of the 60's who helped break down the establishment barriers but the Beatles were the first to expand the boundaries of what they were doing - you can track the musical style from the raw gravel in Johns early rock songs through the sgt pepper lsd period but starting to tire as they headed towards the 70's
For me from the break up onwards I always felt it quite strange that the 2 major forces John & Paul were surpassed in the song writing stakes by George who seemed to flourish once away from the group, although John wrote some stunning songs Instant Karma for one, Paul sank into mediocrity for me - frog chorus, mary had a little lamb etc:eek:

[jose1985]

I'm always in the minority when I say this, but I don't like The Beatles. I understand their influence on pop music and that if it wasn't for them many of my favourite bands might never have formed, but when I listen to a Beatles song I just don't get it.

However that being said I do think they'll always stand the test of time with being one of the most influential bands of all time.

[teesred]

I thought that OP was a wind up. They are and always will be the yardstick for any band. They havent just influenced music but popular culture. No band has ever been as consistent and creative and thats why they can never be touched for being the number one of al time. For one band to have two people like lennon and mcartney at the same time is incredible. If they had been in two different bands without and before the beatles they would still have had major success in my opinion.
I understand what you mean when you say it was all new back then and thats true which is why its hard for bands now to be new and creative as it all seems to have been done already but that cant be changed. They dint play their best stuff live and thats the only criticism that can be levelld at them but its never been in question wether they could have done. For the record I think the beatles will be talked about forever just like wings,the band the beatles could have been.

They are the only band to have a set of royal mail stamps made in honour of them.:)

[fan4dmb]

I'm always in the minority when I say this, but I don't like The Beatles. I understand their influence on pop music and that if it wasn't for them many of my favourite bands might never have formed, but when I listen to a Beatles song I just don't get it.

However that being said I do think they'll always stand the test of time with being one of the most influential bands of all time.

See, I can completely respect someone who may not enjoy the Beatles but at least has the common sense to know how influential they are.

It's the people that say "I hate the Beatles, they never did anything special..." that get my mind going :confused::confused:

[fan4dmb]

I thought that OP was a wind up. They are and always will be the yardstick for any band. They havent just influenced music but popular culture. No band has ever been as consistent and creative and thats why they can never be touched for being the number one of al time. For one band to have two people like lennon and mcartney at the same time is incredible. If they had been in two different bands without and before the beatles they would still have had major success in my opinion.
I understand what you mean when you say it was all new back then and thats true which is why its hard for bands now to be new and creative as it all seems to have been done already but that cant be changed. They dint play their best stuff live and thats the only criticism that can be levelld at them but its never been in question wether they could have done. For the record I think the beatles will be talked about forever just like wings,the band the beatles could have been.

They are the only band to have a set of royal mail stamps made in honour of them.:)

I disagree. They might have had slight success but not major success. They were the perfect balance for each other. They needed each other to push the other to greater and greater heights. Without Paul's drive for success I think John would have been happy playing in and around Liverpool and Britain for the rest of his days. Without John I think Pauls music would have lost a lot of the edge and been really sappy and syrupy. Their solo work is slightly evident of this.

[Matt R]

See, I can completely respect someone who may not enjoy the Beatles but at least has the common sense to know how influential they are.

It's the people that say "I hate the Beatles, they never did anything special..." that get my mind going :confused::confused:

I'm with the other fella as well. I can see why everyone likes them and can see how massively influential over modern life they have been, but it ain't for me. When I look at the Prince's list, I think 'that'd make a damn good compilation album', but I can't be arsed with a full album. If I did it'd be one of the earlier ones I think.

I actually agree with Alan Partridge on this one...

[moe1971]

I'm with the other fella as well. I can see why everyone likes them and can see how massively influential over modern life they have been, but it ain't for me. When I look at the Prince's list, I think 'that'd make a damn good compilation album', but I can't be arsed with a full album. If I did it'd be one of the earlier ones I think.

I actually agree with Alan Partridge on this one...

what?your a big fan of the britpop bands too?

[Mel Wood]

They are the only band to have a set of royal mail stamps made in honour of them.:)
Cobblers. I've seen loads of stamps with Queen on!

;)

[teesred]

Cobblers. I've seen loads of stamps with Queen on!

;)

Shiiiittt that was childish humour royalty.

[tonk]

It is amazing that the Beatles did everything in the space of about 7 years. All those songs, gigs, movies, media etc. What a time to be alive eh?
As mentioned in a previous post they went from Norwegian Wood (still don't own it!) to The Beatles (white album) in 3 years. Oasis are lucky to put one album out in that time, and even then nowhere as good. Only Bob Dylan can claim such progress in the same time ie 'The Times They are a Changin' in 1963 to 'Blonde on Blonde' in 1966.
This brings me to a point it meant to mention in the OP. I've got a book called 'Magic Circles' by an Aussie acedemic called Bob Mason who analyses the 'conversation' between the Bealtles & Dylan in their songs. To quote the blurb from the back cover, 'Bob Mason documents the early formation of the intense rivalries and complex patterns of influence that emerged within the Beatles, and with other songwriters. These relationships were reflected in their lyrical discussions, which are here traced through hundreds of well-known songs'. Well worth a read if you can get. First published in 2004 by Duffy & Snellgrove.

Just for the record my favourite Bealtles song is 'A Day in the Life'.

[lapland]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.
Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

[Evs]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

Tish and fipsy.

My daughter is learning 'She's Leaving Home' and 'Hey Jude' in music lessons.

[AntonioLFC08]

Nobody is talking about Oasis today, are they?

They will last.

[apart from the above poster] LOL

Hope so, I'm going to see them on 9th July at Wembley :)

[tonk]

Resurrecting old threads has become quite the thing of late, so if I may....

Anybody buy the remastered box set? Worth it?

[LFC vs PFC]

I'm an Elvis fan, myself!

[Kid of the Kop]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.
Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

That is the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this forum. And that's saying something.

The Beatles had everything. The talent, the ego's, the compatability, the drive, the accents, the attitude and most important of all the luck. Never has anyone been in teh right place at the right time. Except for Elvis of course.

[lfc_all_the_way]

Personally I really enjoy the less "renowned" songs of the Beatles. The Beatles' 1 album, for example (their 27 biggest hits) I can't fucking stand. The music is simplistic, displays virtually no musical ability, and for me is just pop trash. Music, for me, needs to be complex and layered, and many of the Beatles' greatest hits are not. I can play some of their songs on the guitar, and taking into account my guitar ability is near to non-existent, that's saying something.

For me, it's in the songs such as "Day In The Life", "Tomorrow Never Knows", and "I am the Walrus" where the Beatles show their brilliance.

In the end, I am somewhere in the middle--I truly appreciate the Beatles and all they've done for music, but I don't enjoy all of their music. The Prince is correct about their consistency, however. Most great artists have had at least one or two dud albums; with the Beatles this is not the case.

[the beast]

overly rated.

[luca brasi]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.
Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

I don't know who the Beetles are but my 3 year old loves The Beatles "Hide your love away", which is also one of my favourites.

My other faves are And your bird can sing, Dear Prudence and Don't let me down.

[Femmefootyfan]

All four of my kids love the beatles all of them are under the age of 20. My youngest love the edgey stuff. Hands across the universe and the ilk. 40 years from now they will still be going strong.

[chimlie3]

My 7 year old loves the beatles, she even knows who sings the songs, who wrote what songs and can also tell from their solo songs that they were in the beatles. Her favourite song is 'for you blue'. So yeh, i'd say that in 20 years time they'll still be remembered, and infact i can't see their popularity waining in my lifetime.

[The Prince]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.
Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

You know when you get those 'what am I doing on here?' moments...

[muse100]

40 years from now? No chance.
20 years from now- not sure- ask any teenager who the Beetles were , most would not have a clue.
Most 20 somethings would not be able to name a tune.

What made them appealing is that nothing like this had been seen before- as you said Tonk they broke the mould.

Bollox - I reckon they will still be being played 40 years from now in the same way that that big band jazz is still popular 70 years on.
bollox - the teenagers that I know all know who the Beatles were
and more bollox - my two daughters, both in their 20s love the Beatles as do most of their friends. I played at my daughter's 21st last year and was specifically asked to do some Beatles songs. The recorded music had a healthy selection of their songs as well.

They'll be here for as long as music exists. They were simply too influential and are too iconic to ever disappear (at least that's what I think :) ).

[fan4dmb]

Resurrecting old threads has become quite the thing of late, so if I may....

Anybody buy the remastered box set? Worth it?

Haven't purchased the box sets but have Abbey Road, White Album, Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul and Yellow Submarine remasters. Sounds amazing! The clarity is back and it just sounds really good.

If you're going to throw down mass amounts of money on a box set, get the mono one. Stereo was seen as a "fad" back then and they never gave the stereo mixes much importance. The mono mixes are the way that albums like Sgt. Pepper and White Album are meant to be heard. Shame they didn't release the mono albums individually as well.

[muse100]

Timeless stuff.

The musicianship on this video is truly stunning. Capturing the sound and feel exactly. Very impressive.

Fab Faux do Abbey Road (http://www.vimeo.com/11237479)