• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Were the Beatles that good or did they have help?

shacky

shacky

Addicted Member
I've been in a Fab Four mood today. Listening to The White Album, Revolver and just now Rubber Soul.

I continue to be amazed at the beauty and creativity of the melodies/intricacies in their songs.

Not being a musician myself I can't imagine the imagination and musical know how needed to create these epic pieces. I know George Martin helped especially with classical instrument backings and I would think with other aspects.

So a question for better minds than mine - do you think their output was all from just the four of them? And if so wouldn't it qualify as genius?
 
Register to hide this ad
No expert here. Just a guy with an opinion.

The Beatles certainly (and admittedly) begged, borrowed and stole where ever and when ever they could. There is no shame in doing so in music (and especially pop) and if what comes out the other end is in a better package than what went in as influences then the artists garners respect. The Beatles were experimenting from the top, with a fanatically adoring public hanging on every utterence (musical and otherwise). This indeed makes a difference and could qualify as help. Martin didn't hurt, but there were at least three musical geniuses in that band. Ringo is my favorite drummer of all time as well. Some great things came together at the right time for the Beatles, but without four great minds to exploit that potential the phenomenon simply would not have been. So my position would be: yes they were original and yes they were geniuses.
 
They were musical geniuses and far better together than they were as solo acts, IMO. Together they reached a critical mass that could hardly be contained. Maybe that's why the band "exploded." Too much creativity pulling them in separate directions.
 
I'm not a mega Beatles fan, I just enjoy their music and respect them for what they did. Say what you want, but the amount of amazing music that came from that group in a short time frame will most likely never happen again.

Allow me to throw out a couple of dates...Feb 9, 1964 the 1st Ed Sullivan appearance. Jan 30, 1969 the Rooftop Concert. Do some simple math and you will realize that most everything important regarding the Beatles and album release dates all went down in 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to put it in perspective...take a look at some of the members profiles on this forum and many have been posting here for 5 years or more. While many of us have sat at our computers following threads and typing responses for a 5 year period, could we have accomplished what the Beatles did in the same time frame?

Enough said.
 
toups said:
Don't forget the impact and influence of George Martin!:yes:
Click to expand...

I don't. If you consider three of the Fab Four musical geniuses (I'm more inclined to say two, given their various subsequent solo careers), then George Martin has to be considered a studio genius. He knew how to get the best out of them, how to get Ringo's celebrated "dead" snare and tom-tom sound, what to put in the front of the mix and what to pot down, how to use effects (tape and other) to punch up their sound and add that trademark wry Beatle wit, and most importantly, how to motivate a bunch of hugely talented twenty-something potheads. All you have to do is look at what happened when they ditched Martin to work with Phil Spector: Let It Be, not an awful album, but certainly not what we'd come to expect from the boys. The songs were good, but the production and overall quality was ... meh.

Put it this way: if the entirety of their earlier work had been no better than Let It Be, do you think they'd have really been the Beatles we still listen to forty-five and fifty years later?
 
Yes, they were ahead of their time and I think destiny conspired in their favor.
The right guys at the right place at the right moment.
They were presented to George Martin considered by many as the fifth Beatle and he did participate in some of their songs like the piano riff in "IN MY LIFE".
They also developed new recording techniques like overdubbing which was widely used in the Sgt. Pepper's album.
They were the first group to use synthesizers (although timidly) in the Abbey Road album (Maxwell's Silver Hammer).
They also helped to release some new artists like Eric Clapton, Bad Finger, Harry Nilsson, Marmalade and Mary Hopkins as far as I can remember.
 
I didn't grow up during the Beatles short tenure as the top of all things music. Far from it! I was an 80s/90s kid. The Beatles were my dad's generation. When I was growing up my dad occasionally played his Beatles records but was more likely to spin The Animals, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Lovin' Spoonful etc. My mother, was barely a teenager when the Beatles broke up, so she didn't have as strong an attachment to their music as people my father's age (she was more apt to play country music or Elvis.)

I did, however, hear from teachers and other adults over and over again (especially when the Anthologies came out) that the Beatles were the be all and end all of Rock and Roll. I played as many Beatles songs as the next kid but never thought of them as superior to everything else out there. After all, I was the kid who owned albums by Vince Guaraldi, Wynton Marsallis, BB King and Dave Brubeck so my tastes were different.

The problem with the Beatles for me is they've been played to death! This is the same for other sacred acts of music (e.g. Elvis) I know the music so well that it's lost its meaning (if it had one.) That said, after hearing their really early stuff when they were a bunch of roughnecks trying to sound like Buddy Holly and other early R&R, I can get into that! Of course, Buddy Holly gets regular play here (as does pre-Army Elvis.)

I also think this is one of the reasons Ringo is my favorite of the 4. Outside of "With a Little Help from my Friends" his little songs don't get much play. I have respect for a guy who can cover Carl Perkins and do it well.

Post Beatles, I can't stand any of the other three. Imagine is probably the worst song ever written and I have been subjected to it more times than I can stand.
 
shacky said:
I've been in a Fab Four mood today. Listening to The White Album, Revolver and just now Rubber Soul.

I continue to be amazed at the beauty and creativity of the melodies/intricacies in their songs.

Not being a musician myself I can't imagine the imagination and musical know how needed to create these epic pieces. I know George Martin helped especially with classical instrument backings and I would think with other aspects.

So a question for better minds than mine - do you think their output was all from just the four of them? And if so wouldn't it qualify as genius?
Click to expand...

Read The Black Swan. It explains.
 
They also gigged for like a million nights in a row in Germany. In such ways, experts are made. Lots and lots and lots of practice. Just a thought.
 
Battra92 said:
I didn't grow up during the Beatles short tenure as the top of all things music. Far from it! I was an 80s/90s kid. The Beatles were my dad's generation. When I was growing up my dad occasionally played his Beatles records but was more likely to spin The Animals, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Lovin' Spoonful etc. My mother, was barely a teenager when the Beatles broke up, so she didn't have as strong an attachment to their music as people my father's age (she was more apt to play country music or Elvis.)

I did, however, hear from teachers and other adults over and over again (especially when the Anthologies came out) that the Beatles were the be all and end all of Rock and Roll. I played as many Beatles songs as the next kid but never thought of them as superior to everything else out there. After all, I was the kid who owned albums by Vince Guaraldi, Wynton Marsallis, BB King and Dave Brubeck so my tastes were different.

The problem with the Beatles for me is they've been played to death! This is the same for other sacred acts of music (e.g. Elvis) I know the music so well that it's lost its meaning (if it had one.) That said, after hearing their really early stuff when they were a bunch of roughnecks trying to sound like Buddy Holly and other early R&R, I can get into that! Of course, Buddy Holly gets regular play here (as does pre-Army Elvis.)

I also think this is one of the reasons Ringo is my favorite of the 4. Outside of "With a Little Help from my Friends" his little songs don't get much play. I have respect for a guy who can cover Carl Perkins and do it well.

Post Beatles, I can't stand any of the other three. Imagine is probably the worst song ever written and I have been subjected to it more times than I can stand.
Click to expand...

Lennon really was a sad case. With the group to hold him in check, he was great. But when freed from that, his life seemed directionless. I really didn't want to hear him after the Beatles. Wings was barely passable.
 
dr*audio said:
They were musical geniuses and far better together than they were as solo acts, IMO. Together they reached a critical mass that could hardly be contained. Maybe that's why the band "exploded." Too much creativity pulling them in separate directions.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
dr*audio said:
They were musical geniuses and far better together than they were as solo acts, IMO. Together they reached a critical mass that could hardly be contained. Maybe that's why the band "exploded." Too much creativity pulling them in separate directions.
Click to expand...

beautifully said:thmbsp:
 
You cannot be as good both in the studio and in concert as Paul McCartney was (and is) and be faking it. Not by a long shot. And if you think none of them did great work after the Beatles then you are not listening.
 
Belo said:
They were the first group to use synthesizers (although timidly) in the Abbey Road album (Maxwell's Silver Hammer).
Click to expand...

The Monkees, the Stones, the Doors, Simon and Garfunkel, Perrey and Kingsley, The United States of America, and Silver Apples all used synthesizers before The Beatles.
 
Belo said:
They also developed new recording techniques like overdubbing which was widely used in the Sgt. Pepper's album.
Click to expand...

Les Paul and others used overdubbing before The Beatles. In fact, it was first developed as a technique before The Beatles were even born.
 
Battra92 said:
I didn't grow up during the Beatles short tenure as the top of all things music. Far from it! I was an 80s/90s kid. The Beatles were my dad's generation. When I was growing up my dad occasionally played his Beatles records but was more likely to spin The Animals, Gerry and the Pacemakers, The Lovin' Spoonful etc. My mother, was barely a teenager when the Beatles broke up, so she didn't have as strong an attachment to their music as people my father's age (she was more apt to play country music or Elvis.)

I did, however, hear from teachers and other adults over and over again (especially when the Anthologies came out) that the Beatles were the be all and end all of Rock and Roll. I played as many Beatles songs as the next kid but never thought of them as superior to everything else out there. After all, I was the kid who owned albums by Vince Guaraldi, Wynton Marsallis, BB King and Dave Brubeck so my tastes were different.

The problem with the Beatles for me is they've been played to death! This is the same for other sacred acts of music (e.g. Elvis) I know the music so well that it's lost its meaning (if it had one.) That said, after hearing their really early stuff when they were a bunch of roughnecks trying to sound like Buddy Holly and other early R&R, I can get into that! Of course, Buddy Holly gets regular play here (as does pre-Army Elvis.)

I also think this is one of the reasons Ringo is my favorite of the 4. Outside of "With a Little Help from my Friends" his little songs don't get much play. I have respect for a guy who can cover Carl Perkins and do it well.

Post Beatles, I can't stand any of the other three. Imagine is probably the worst song ever written and I have been subjected to it more times than I can stand.
Click to expand...

This is a good post.....a lot applies to me also. I have never been into the Beatles..I am 48yrs old so when I started listening to music in a serious way the Beatles were done. Sure I used to hear the songs on the radio, but even then I guess I never heard the "genius" in the music.
I was a hard rocker, progressive rock devotee.....As well as my first love of music R&B, so with that why I never latched on to the Beatles seems weird (mainly to others).....I also did not like the other stuff that went along with being a Beatles fan.....All the screaming, paparazzi and pop music, never clicked with me.
Sgt Pepper got me close, maybe within a 10' pole......but not to the point that I ever bought any of their albums. Two yrs ago my wife bought me the 1967-1970 Blue Album at a flee market, I think I have spun it twice, had it not been for her I still would have none of their albums.
The recent re-issues have me thinking to buy Sgt Pepper....but I will probably wait till it pops up at a used record store.

Growing up nobody in my house listened to the Beatles, so I think that was part of it, that early in the 70's hispanics were not Beatles fans it seems.

I am not sure what it is, and not that I am interested in "fixing" my problem. And even when I hear people talk about all the influence they had on so many bands I listen to, it never made me want to find out why.
I can appreciate that they were probably fantastic writers......One cannot deny their huge influence on pop culture and pop music for sure.

So chalk me up into that very small group of humans that for whatever reason don't listen to the Beatles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom