Janszoon

Every member of the Beatles released music in the 70s. And none of it was music that had adapted well to the new era.

In what way is that "by my logic"?

I don't personally consider a sequence consisting of one weak album, two good albums, one weak album and one good album "a long string of great albums". But, hey, that's just me.

Once again, the game was different in the 50s. Artists and labels didn't think in terms of LPs so that comparison makes no sense.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

NYSPORTSFAN

We are talking about the Beatles as a group not as a solo act and there was no way they were going to compete what they did as a group. Since you mention this John Lennon Plastic Ono Band a very important influence on many acts ranging from White Stripes to even many punk acts. George Harrison unique guitar slide style has been influential on many guitarists.

Once again Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley were recording when the Beatles were around so again I don't buy your logic for one minute. Yes you might think Rubber Soul to Abbey Road as not all classics but hey that's your opinion but not what the general consensus of what other musicians will tell you.

So you are the saying the game was different in the 50's then I guess it took the Beatles and Bob Dylan to change the parameters of what the rock album should be?

Look it's not matter of complexity which the Beatles have in spades over the likes of their mentors it's a matter the craft of writing, playing your own songs and using the studio as an instrument. It's no coincedence the Beatles songs are the most covered in the rock era along with Bob Dylan.

The Beatles experimented in just about every way possible — phased vocals ("And Your Bird Can Sing"), dreamlike guitars running in reverse ("I'm Only Sleeping"), the wild abuse of tape loops ("Tomorrow Never Knows") — the songwriting was as strong as it had ever been. Its dissonance was modern, and the wake it's left is audible in everything Animal Collective has achieved.

The Beatles were not a mere "pop" band. Only a real simpleton would make THAT charge. Nor did they compose a lot love songs (some of the not as a group ). Some of their songs, in fact, were actually quite radical, sophisticated and even weird (for their time period) both musically and thematically,.. namely songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( L.S.D. ), Strawberry Fields, and I Am the Walrus ( as a few examples ).

They also had a lot of varying musical influences other than just pop and rock 'n roll ( like Asian, classical music, British vaudeville, showtune, psychedelic and so on ). They were pretty much the progenitors, or certainly at least ONE of the early progenitors, of what came to be termed "progressive rock". Calling them and I am not saying you a "pop band" who wrote "catchy tunes" and "silly love songs" shows amazing stupidity from some of the people I have read here.

Unknown Soldier

Yawn!

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

Janszoon

Yawn.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Unknown Soldier

Instead of yawning again, I've actually skimmed through and there is some good stuff being written here.

@Janszoon- I agree totally with the first two points above. The Beatles were a 1960s phenomenom and basically as individuial artists they didn't quite click in the 1970s. As individual artists they released some acclaimed stuff, but I always found it a trial to enjoy at times and never really a pleasure to listen to.

Most people when they talk about bands and time periods, fail to grasp the concept of taking a band or artist in the conext of their time.

@NYSports Fan- Its good to see somebody new on here with a real history of rock music, but its no good comparing the feats of the Beatles to those artists in the 1950s, when the music industry was so different then. Also as Neopolitan said, the Beatles achieved so much due to the production techniques that they had available to them.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

NYSPORTSFAN

This is where we disagree things like Automatic Double Tracking, backward guitar leads, amplified guitar effects "I Feel Fine", the obvious use psychedelic use as studio as an instrument in creating psychedelic music via tape loops, phasing, putting their vocals through leslie amps and all sorts of effects you hear on "Tomorrow Never Knows" were innovated by the Beatles themselves. That style of recording was totally unlike Phil Spector or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds. If anything the closest might be Joe Meek but he wasn't intentionally trying to create the psychedelic experience on record was he?

How about how the way "Strawberry Fields Forever" was recorded - Recorded two takes, because John didn't like the first; asked Martin to come up with string arr. for the 2nd; liked the 1st half of the first recording & 2nd half of the second; asked Martin to edit them together even though they were in different keys; succeeded.

Janszoon

Yes, I'm aware they were releasing music during that time but it's not the music that they were famous for. That's why I have used phrases like "in their heyday" when referring to their 1950s releases. It's kind of ironic that judging the careers of the post-breakup Beatles is off the table for you because it was past their heyday but you think it's perfectly reasonable to judge Chuck Berry after his heyday.

Maybe they did change parameters when it came to treating albums as more than just a collection of songs, or maybe that was just a change that would have occurred in the industry anyway and they just happened to be a popular band who were swept up in that change. It's hard to say. But they weren't the first people to write their own songs or use the studio as an instrument.

Did I say those things? Who are you directing these comments towards?

I'm always amazed by how often Beatles fans come to this site and start talking about them as if they're some band no one has ever listened to or knows anything about. They're arguably the most famous rock band of all time. I'm quite familiar with their music, as is everyone else who posts here, and their status as "radical" or "experimental" is extremely overstated. Listen to Strange Strings by Sun Ra—released the same year as Sgt. Pepper—and then see how experimental the Beatles sound. Hell, listen to the works created by Pierre Schaeffer while all the Beatles were still in diapers and then see how experimental the Beatles sound.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

NYSPORTSFAN

It's a friendly debate so don't take it personally now you are bringing in other genres into this in the context of the Beatles genre of pop/rock music a lot of what they did is radical. We are talking about the Beatles as a group not as solo musicians but hey George Harrison solo albums Wonderwall and Electronic Sounds are quite radical for what came out in 1968 right?

The last time I checked the disorienting blur of tape loops, shimmering guitars, backward tapes, ambient passages and bizarre vocal effects of "Tomorrow Never Knows" is quite unlike Sun Ra which is before Sgt. Peppers right? The complete fusion of rock/pop/world music of "Love You To" is unlike Pierre Shaeffer right?

They brought together the classical orchestra, the rock band, and the technology of the studio, bringing together three disparate worlds: pop entertainment, avant-garde composition, and high-brow artistic sensibility. You can’t tell where the art ends and the entertainment begins. “A Day In The Life which is unlike either Sun Ra or Pierre Shaeferr right?

Something like "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" alternates between 9 and 10, but it feels like they do a measure of 3 as a lead-in to transition smoothly from the 3/4 during "I need a fix..." (I.e. measures of 3/4 6/4 3/4 7/4 and repeat). The compositional value in a song like this is quite high and very well thought out. These are not easy time signatures to get to sound so natural and smooth/flowing like this song exhibits. Where is the melodic and total abuse of time signatures in the music of Sun Ra.

I never said the Beatles were the first group to write their own songs and use the studio as an instrument right? Yet in the context of Chuck Berry and Elvis or previoius rock/pop music it was quite radical and an influence on all fronts to many musicians ranging from early Pink Floyd to electronic artists Chemical Brothers.

Look many bands took their influences, digested them and created their own thing but the BEATLES were able to do this with finely crafted songs. Don't be fooled at the keen sense of melodic content of the Beatles music there is lot of strange chord progressions in their music.

Janszoon

Around and around it goes. First you demand that the Beatles not be considered pop because they're so "experimental". Then, when I point out artists from their era or before who were much more experimental, you retreat back into "Beatles as pop innovators" territory. This shifting of goal posts and definitions seems to be a hallmark of conversations about the Beatles status, sadly. It would be great if people could simple say they were a good band who made some great pop music and leave it that instead of trying to make the argument that they were magical beings who shat rainbows.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

FRED HALE SR.

I always wished people would do that with both bands. Brian Wilson puts his panties on one pant leg at a time also. They were both pop bands that added influential elements to their music to add texture. ****ting rainbows would have been great for their stage shows though, the possibilities.