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.....

Some people love to attack anything that is admired because it makes them feel happy, OP.

McCartney is a songwriting and melodic genius. You might not like everything he did, you might prefer to listen to other people most of the time, as do I as it happens. But just acknowledge it. There?s loads of dross out there more deserving of your contempt.

When Elvis died those people who had no knowledge of how revolutionary his early music and performances had been mocked him as a fat, sweaty man in a spangly white suit who played Las Vegas between pills.

Siouxsie Sue?s impassioned rant against the ignoramuses who called themselves iconoclasts got me listening to him.

I remember my dad waking me with news that Lennon had been shot and I turned over in bed because all I knew was Imagine, Starting Over and Woman and frankly they are a bit shit if you don?t know the rest of it. I liked The Jam. Still do, but Paul Weller, though great, is not the songwriting genius people say he is.

Blueemerald mentioned that some people have no quality control. I agree, Prince doesn't either. He's still a genius though.

Ps I like Band On The Run. I fell in love to But not in 1973

never thought you were - just seems a great shame that you feel that way.

Personally I've always disliked Oasis, a poor mans Beatles - but having said that I can appreciate the songs they did.

Samantha, you can't sing the blues without caring about Robert Johnson selling his soul at the crossroads!! Now HE'S the father of ALL modern music.

ahh Crossroads - Eric Clapton.

The cream version is fab, but search for Robert Johnson on YouTube, makes BB King look like an x factor contestant ( sort of!!)

I preferred the Kinks too. Much better songs and lyrics.

If I have to make a stand I'm going to say that the Small Faces were one of the most massively under rated bands ever.

aliston - another one gone at 27. I haven't heard of him before, just listened asnd wiki'ed him! Also Woody Guthrie, although he wrote about what was happening in the news.

I always struggle with people who say they don't like The Beatles, simply because I think they are one of the most diverse bands that have ever recorded, so I genuinely think there is something for everyone. And just look at the way their songs evolved from the simplistic stuff when they started ... She Loves You, for example, in 1963...to the creativity of Sgt Pepper in 1967 - that's only 4 years but a million miles apart. I cannot think of a single other band with that evolution of style over any period of time, let alone such a short one.

Macca used to have an insanely good rock voice. Just check out Helter Skelter, Oh! Darling or Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Even if he'd never been a songwriter, he was a great singer. And yeah, he's not so great now, but he's 70 years old and still playing 3 hour gigs.

And The Beatles wrote some really creative and out there songs for their time, which are clearly still influential today ... For example, Tomorrow Never Knows is a dance tune written years before dance music existed as a concept. Listen to Taxman, Helter Skelter, A Day In The Life ... So much modern music is utterly indebted to them, but it's become so ingrained in popular music that you don't always notice.

I've always been pro-Macca and think him and John Lennon complemented each other so well it's hard to say who's best. And George Harrison was also a tremendous songwriter. So I think people do forget a little, as their music is decades old now, and although I'm open to persuasion I'm yet to find a better or more influential band or singer.

can i still be part of the rock/blues quiche when i go back to being vicarinatutu? my usual name is a nod to The Smiths

i like my taste in music....i could be quichy with like minded musical types.....

have to say im heartened to see im not being judged as completely unreasonable!

Most bands didn't need to evolve so much in a short time because they were good to start with

now, see i think they were good to start with - bubblegum yes, but seriously, just nip back and have a look at what was about just prior to the beatles breaking through......

then look 6 months after.

and i will rest my case. really. i will shut up if you can show me that musically there were some good groups about before the beatles, compared to after they broke through. just look a year before, and then a year after.

and they were just raw materials when they started.....

look at blur. bubblegum pretty boy when they started....modern life is rubbish is a bit rubbish.....but go to Think Tank.....or 13, and look at how they evolved and just got better....

same with Bob Dylan.....people hated him when he started to use and electric guitar! called him a sell out.....

the best bands evolve, move and change. and i think the Beatles mastered that pretty early on.

Yardbirds Vicar - they were around at the same time on 'the circuit' and they spawned Jimmy Page who spawned the love god Robert Plant. Case closed. Gavel banged. Robert Plant wins Macca.

Jimi hendrix - session guitarist for Little Richard, he toured with him and got sacked for being too good. His parting words were 'Goodbye Little Dick' before he PISSED all over the Beatles. The blues tradition, Jimi, groups like The yardbirds and the Stones did more for modern music than The Beatles.

The Small Faces.

Roy Orbinson, The Everly Brothers, Little Richard, Elvis, Bo Diddly, Bobby Darin, they all inspired The Beatles.

YANBU. Their music was very original in its time. Great melodies, harmonies and arrangements. Most things since have been more limited in these respects.

Vicar you don't seriously think there was nothing before the Beatles and everything after was down to them?!

Son House.

so there were no british groups before them cocolepew ?

thats what i mean. all those you mention were american.
we had cliff richard.

yay......

I'm always amazed by the album imput at that time too. Bands would put out an album a year. Sometimes more. Quite incredible.

All bands have their influences, because presumably they love music therefore have listened to lots of it. Beatles no exception, theyve definiteky taken elements from others, however, I think they are unique in how much they have gone on to influence others.

I love Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Cream etc BUT none have had the level of influence on other music as The Beatles have. I'm not sure if anyone ever will tbh.

see above post mrskeith

and id already mentioned the Yardbirds, about 2 pages ago.....

i dont particularly love the beatles any more than the stones, or the yardbirds, or the faces, BUT i can appreciate that they were groundbreaking in what they achieved - i fail to see how any one can argue that?

or are you saying there were more successful bands of the time?