to think the way the Beatles revolutionised music has been largely forgotton?

[VicarsGoingForGoldInKungFu]

i was as guilty as the next man of slating Macca at the opening of the olympics....but then, DH made some "awwwwwww" noises and started to dig out his Beatles collection,( then his Wings collection, but i forgave him and we are still married).....and then that got me googling and i ended up with Dangermouses The Grey Album.....which got me to listening to The White Album......

and then i got googling a bit more and i think that people forget how they completely revolutionised the music scene, how they started, and how they ended up making some really really excellent music. The White Album is brill. id never really listened to DH beatles albums before tbh.....

and i feel a bit guilty now. Macca did deserve to be at the olympics.....just because he is now 70, and wobbles a bit, doesnt and shouldnt erase the musical history that he and his band mates gave us. He shouldnt be cast aside. (and honestly - if you re watch, the backing track started too early and he only wobbled at the start....he got going and was on tune!)

Now we have simon cowell who tells us what we will buy.....all those other bands that people cited as worthy of playing the opening ceromony......they are only here because the Beatles changed things. They did it first, i just think things have moved on so much and so fast that people forget. I am not a raging Beatles fan, but i acknowledge what they did.

so, it is with hands in pockets and staring at the floor that i say "soz macca". I have travelled the boards and i have said this on many of the nay sayer threads....but we should just stop a mo and go give the White album a listen.....

Sorry for typos, Winder

In what way did they do a complete 180?
Obviously, they did change their music as they grew older and became influenced by many other things, like different cultures, different musical styles, instruments and drugs. Same as the Stones. I love the Stones, in fact Paint it Black is in my top 3 favourite songs of all time.
That's what all musicians do isn't it? Their influences change their outlook and their musical style. Well, all except for Cliff Richards

They changed musically massively, and image wise. For the better.

The Beatles were marketed and packaged at the beginning as well. Brian Epson had a vision if how they should look.

Andrew Loog Oldham did the same with the Stones, its just that they were cooler

Like most bands really, at their best when they're all off their tits. The red hot chillie peppers have been shit since they got clean.

That's why I don't understand why people think they had no marketing and were just 4 lads who got lucky. Yes, they did get lucky but were moulded on the way. In my opinion it wasn't until they were secure and confident enough to be themselves did they get good!

*chilli

Yeah, I'm with you on the "dated" argument, Vicars - most of the music I love is 30-50 years old and you can tell, but it's still brilliant. Also, by the very definition of revolution, something that's revolutionary in its time won't sound as out there today as it once did. To head into a completely different genre for a sec, Lord of the Rings sounds full of fantasy cliches today because to some extent it created the fantasy cliches. Same with anything groundbreaking - once the ground is covered we get used to it. It's always good to look back and understand the legacy we've been given, I think. As well as enjoy some bloody good music.

I've got to say that I don't think Elvis invented rock and roll so much as put an acceptably white face on it so that the majority would notice it and start buying the records. :-/ Not by any means saying that he did nothing new, or that he wasn't historically important, but his style of music didn't suddenly spring from nowhere.

I LOVE the beatles and quite simply would not give the time of day to anyone (musically) who thought they were overated.

John and George have always been my 'favourites' but Paul is one bloody talented man- I've realised this more so with time actually and have much respect for him.

This is with regards to their work together as the beatles- John's solo stuff is better but nowhere near the standard of what they achieved together, in my opinion.

agreed leg

mrskeithrichards - i must know that Stones started life as a blues band - i would argue that they did a complete 180.....

thats what made the Beatles different - most of the bands out of London at that time - The Yardbirds, The Stones, The Who - all started life as London blues bands.....

The Beatles started as a rock and roll band.....they were writing their own material from the start. I do believe they were different,

i also love the stones, we have the stones, the who, the yardbirds, The Kinks, aswell - but the beatles were different, i dont believe they just got lucky. The didnt sound like any of those other bands from the start.....yes they grew and evolved as every other band thats any good should do.....i love Blur and the way in which their sound evolved over time, The jam evolved, the clash evolved.....i love those groups.

Dh wants me to stop arguing now so ill go for a bit!

Yes, I much prefer John to Paul but can cheerfully concefe that his solo stuff is a bit pants too!

The early stuff was dirge though, hardly song writing at its best. She loves you yeah yeah yeah. She loves you yeah yeah yeah and so on. Love love me do, you know I love you .

Ray Davis was a much superior songwriter to most of them.

yes they grew and evolved as every other band thats any good should do.....i love Blur and the way in which their sound evolved over time, The jam evolved, the clash evolved.....i love those groups.

Definitely, any body of creative work should surely evolve over time - people change and get experience, and their work will change too. It always bugs me when people complain automatically about a band's new stuff not being a patch on the old, just because it's not the same. It's not supposed to be! Look at how the Clash evolved, and then look at Mick Jones in B.A.D. and Joe Strummer in Mescaleros - totally different stuff but you can see exactly how those people would go from here to there. It's all authentically them.

God, I'm really pontificating, aren't I? Sorry everyone. Got work to do so must stop farting around online.

(Though I do agree the Beatles got immeasurably better! Anyway, SHUT UP self.)

The Beatles were a great band, but they didn't 'do it' on their own. Bands like The Yardbirds, Cream and the Small Faces were also important in the uk scene and spawned some of our greatest musicians and bands.

In terms of live performances and rock spectacles Pink Floyd changed the landscape! And Jimi Hendrix probably developed more recording techniques than the Beatles could dream of. (I know he was American, but he was way ahead of the Beatles)

I know bands evolved but my point was the Beatles very quickly ditched their happy head bobbing bubble pop in favour of what I much prefer them for.

The Stones still are a blues band!

I like to think that if John Lennon was still alive he'd have a twitter account and plenty to say about Macca ;)

Totally agree re cream etc. It was an exciting time music wise, just wish I'd been around to see it!

I've been lucky enough to see the stones and the who live. Not bad for a 27 year old who grew up stealing her dads records and idolized bands I thought I'd never get to see!

I have a huge picture of Macca's head on my dining room wall.

Its part of the set, it would look weird if I cut him off the end.

So there he is, his great big face staring out at me when I eat my dinner.

But anyway - however crap he is now, however much he milked his divorce from whatsherface - the Beatles were bloody brilliant and I loves them.

MrsKeith, my DD2 met RONNIE WOOD at her school last week! He took assembly ;)

Heartening to see (despite the disagreement) that so many of us have awesome taste in music! I declare the rock/blues quiche OPEN!!

And we have macca to thank for it ;)

I think you had to have lived through that time to appreciate what they did for music - they worked with the most basic of recording equipment and produced amazing and ground breaking music, all with the help of George Martin.

They also wrote a huge amount of songs for other performers.

I prefer Lennon's work over McCartney's and Harrison produced some stunners too.

It must be so tempting to carry on in the limelight, he's never introduced as a former leader of Wings - its always The Beatles, a hard habit to break.

Don't get me wrong I do adore the Beatles I just think it's daft to say they revolutionised or epitomise the era.

from your name I gather you were 'on the other side' - there were always two camps, Stones or Beatles!

Samantha - its a shame you've no interest, its interesting when you do take the trouble. Nothing wrong in learning something new.