The Beatles

[Alba Badger]

I loved the Beatles as a kid age 9 to about 14/15 to the point of obsession and for some reason just drifted away from their music mid teens. Dipped back in now and then, used their music to get the kids interested in music but it didn't have the same magical effect on me until now. I'm now 36 and have gone Beatles mad this year.

I can't get enough of them. Worked my way through every album and incarnation and the body of work is simply stunning for such a relatively short time frame.

I watched the latest film about the touring years two nights ago and was utterly blown away. Will there ever be another band like them? I just can't see how it could be possible now.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Saw them live a number of times, both at Wembley and in Brighton.

Best group ever (with the exception of Ben Nevis and the Summits )

 

[Surf's Up]

I never really appreciated them at the time (the Stones were my band) and I never saw them live as a result but I have grown to really appreciate them over the years. They were songwriting geniuses but, and this is only an observation not a criticism, I suspect they relied enormously on George Martin for the arrangements of their songs which are nearly always the perfect complement to the songs themselves.

 

[Weststander]

Saw them live a number of times, both at Wembley and in Brighton.

Best group ever (with the exception of Ben Nevis and the Summits )

If you aren't joking, what a lucky person.

I grew up in the 70's listening to their vinyls (and four-track cartridge in the family car), played by my Dad, plus the Christmas TV showings of their (mediocre) movies.

No other band created 30 or 40 amazing, varied tracks, which half the world adored. Lennon and McCartney were pop music geniuses, way ahead of their time. Lennon's vocals were unique and incredible.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My best mate saw them play at the Cavern from the start (when a spotty teenage Cilla worked in the cloakroom). I asked him once how many times; "20-30". That's quite something. He told me about the time he saw them in their new suits and with their new instruments, and how everyone realised they (locals with little cash) would probably never see them live again.

Oddly, the Beatles are far from my mate's favourite band, and he waxes lyrical about numerous other bands from the time (Little Richard playing a New Brighton, etc).

For me, in the 60s, I loved them, but I found them strangely overhyped, even as a 5-8 year old. I love my music (and listen to maybe 30 tracks a day on the train to and from work) but I have no Beatles on my iPod (I did, but I wiped it). As a 5-8 year old, the music that made me go 'wow' was:

Telstar by the Tornados (the first record that blew me away)
Shakin' all over by Johnny Kidd and the Pirates
Kite by Simon Dupree and the Big Sound
Break Away by the Beach boys
Marrakesh Express by Crosby Stills and Nash
Walk away Renee by the Four Tops
You've lost that lovin feelin by the Walker Brothers
Baby Come back by the Equals

Oh, I could go on . . .

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My all time favourite band. I saw them at the Hippodrome in 63. They weren't even top of the bill, Helen Shapiro was.
As a 14 year old, when Love Me Do got to 17 in the charts in Nov 62, I was hooked and have been ever since.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Hooked since early 60s when they had two series of bubblegum cards out. I didn't get my first record until the please please me EP. I now have just about every conceivable piece of their music in my collection. Just love their stuff.

 

[PoG]

I'm now 36 and have gone Beatles mad this year.

Please go and see the Bootleg Beatles, they play the Brighton Centre every year, December this year. Its brilliant they really do the lads justice, this will be my third time this year.

I'd also recommend delving into the solo stuff too. All Things Must Pass, Ram, Plastic Ono Band etc etc

 

[GT49er]

Please go and see the Bootleg Beatles, they play the Brighton Centre every year, December this year. Its brilliant they really do the lads justice, this will be my third time this year.

I'd also recommend delving into the solo stuff too. All Things Must Pass, Ram, Plastic Ono Band etc etc

Agree 100% about the Bootleg Beatles - absolutely fabulous performances, including playing live a lot of songs the Beatles never did play live - A Day in the Life, for instance.
Have to differ with you about the solo stuff, though. I have delved, and there are a few gems to be sure, but on the whole a load of awful c---! (IMHO, of course).

 

[ChicagoRichie]

I actually have a tattoo in memory of my father (a big Beatles) fan. "And in the End, the Love You Take, is Equal to the Love You Make"... The final lyric to "The End Medley". We definitely bonded over The Beatles as father/son, and that band will always own the lion's share of my heart. No other artist, band... etc... could possibly take their place.

I've listened to so much Beatles music in my life, even all of the completely obscure stuff, countless times. So, at some points I drift away from them for a bit. However, I always make my way back to them. There's just something about their music that isn't from this world.

I don't think there will ever be another band like them, for quite a few reasons. The main ones not even having anything to do with their ability. Just certain things like the timing of them coming along, was perfect. Music is segregated far more into genre's now, and a band under a big label isn't really going to be allowed to mess with so many different types of music. You're kind of forced to have an identity, and keep on a one way street... at least when you're coming up. Once you've made it big, you can kind of do whatever the hell you want. But by then, for most bands... complacency kicks in. Which is when you see the decline in their work.

One of the most amazing things to me, is that they didn't burn out or decline in the midst of all of that fame sooner. Six-plus years operating in the climate they did, is like the equivalent of sixty years for any other band. It was pure chaos, and they just kept turning out brilliant album, after brilliant album.

Some of their solo stuff was quite good, but it was never the same. Wings had some good tunes, "All Things Must Pass" was a great album... In my opinion, John had the best and biggest impact with his solo work. However, many think I'm silly for saying that (he is my favorite Beatle, so I'm biased). Ringo, kind of just kept being Ringo.

 

[whitelion]

Growing up in the Sixties you were either Rolling Stones or the Beatles and I liked the Beatles. (I'm more of a Stones music lover nowadays).

I never bought one single record of either at the time as I grew into soul and reggae and then onto rock in all its forms. I've only subsequently bought Rolling Stones music - never a Beatles record - good songs but too commercial for me.

 

[gripper stebson]

One of my best buddies is George in The Vox Beatles. They recently played two 15,000 sell out gigs in Korea. Crazy.

Here he is doing his thing. Go Dave!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEwo9IiB8L0

 

[KVLT]

Alan: Yeah, I like all the bands. I’ve got a broad taste, from the Brit-pop bands like UB40, Def Leppard, right back to classic rock, like Wings.
Ben: Who’s Wings?
Alan: They’re only the band The Beatles could have been.
Ben: Well, I love The Beatles.
Alan: Yeah, so do I.
Ben: What’s your favourite Beatles album then?
Alan: Tough one. I think I’d have to say, The Best of The Beatles.

 

[Steve in Japan]

Some years ago I bought the Apple USB containing the complete works. I think I was plugging a noticeable gap in my music collection - had lots of Stones and zero Beatles.

I'm glad I bought it and I certainly didn't pay anywhere near what it seems to cost now.

Love all the classics, but as an observation amidst all those classics there is (say it very quietly) quite a lot of dross. IMHO naturally.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Please go and see the Bootleg Beatles, they play the Brighton Centre every year, December this year. Its brilliant they really do the lads justice, this will be my third time this year.

I'd also recommend delving into the solo stuff too. All Things Must Pass, Ram, Plastic Ono Band etc etc

Agree 100% about the Bootleg Beatles - absolutely fabulous performances, including playing live a lot of songs the Beatles never did play live - A Day in the Life, for instance.
Have to differ with you about the solo stuff, though. I have delved, and there are a few gems to be sure, but on the whole a load of awful c---! (IMHO, of course).

I loved the Bootleg Beatles at Brighton centre. The nearest thing to the real thing.

I taught my kids well, as they both love Beatles tracks too. I had fun at my daughter's wedding reception, where the best man announced that he was the biggest Beatles fan ever. My daughter replied, 'Have you met my Mum?'
In the end, we called it a draw, after asking questions for over an hour, and neither of us getting one wrong.

I disagree about being either Beatles or Stones, as I have Stones records too. I wouldn't have gone to a live gig of theirs as I didn't particularly like their performances, but their music was good.
I did go to a Who gig at the Aquarium (now the Sea Life centre) which was brilliant.

 

[pearl]

always found them a bit too squeaky clean (boy next door you could take home to meet your parents)
My older brother is a musician and was a big influence, grew up listening to Hendrix, Miles Davis, Yes, Soft Machine, Tangerine Dream, John Mclaughlin etc. etc.
We had one Beatles '45 - Day Tripper / Try to See it My Way.

Oddly, I now have 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' in my head!

 

[Alba Badger]

I might take my lad to that. I had a pal that went every year and took his boys when old enough.

 

[whitelion]

I loved the Bootleg Beatles at Brighton centre. The nearest thing to the real thing.

I taught my kids well, as they both love Beatles tracks too. I had fun at my daughter's wedding reception, where the best man announced that he was the biggest Beatles fan ever. My daughter replied, 'Have you met my Mum?'
In the end, we called it a draw, after asking questions for over an hour, and neither of us getting one wrong.

I disagree about being either Beatles or Stones, as I have Stones records too. I wouldn't have gone to a live gig of theirs as I didn't particularly like their performances, but their music was good.
I did go to a Who gig at the Aquarium (now the Sea Life centre) which was brilliant.

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-vs-rolling-stones-debate/

The battle between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones has been going on ever since they first crossed paths on the charts almost 50 years ago. The argument at the time, and one that still persists, was that the Beatles were a pop group and the Stones were a rock band: the boys next next door vs. the bad boys of rock. But it’s not that clear cut, and never has been. So who’s better? We asked two of our writers to choose side and make their arguments. Then we give you the final word. Here goes …


The Beatles Are Better Than The Rolling Stones

These bands have more in common than their respective critics acknowledge: They’re both British, they both grew up with American rock ‘n’ roll records that made up their early repertoires and they both shaped 20th-century music as we know it. But only one group continued to cut new paths at every step: the Beatles.

That’s not to take anything away from the Rolling Stones’ greatest achievements of the ’60s and ’70s. Indeed, the band’s four-year string of classic records starting with ‘Beggars Banquet’ and ending with ‘Exile on Main St.’ has never been, and probably will never be, matched. They were often called “the best rock ‘n’ roll band in the world,” and for a long stretch there, there was no denying that claim.

But the Beatles got there first. They were innovators where the Stones were practitioners. The Stones covered Chuck Berry, but so did the Beatles … a couple of years earlier. The Stones perfected the art of the rock ‘n’ roll single in the mid ’60s, just as the Beatles did several months before. And the Stones dabbled in psychedelic music on the clumsily executed ‘Their Satanic Majesties Request’ album, following a template laid out on the Beatles’ revelatory ‘Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band.’

In a way, the Beatles’ breakup in 1970 sealed their legend. They went out just as they began to stumble creatively. Had the Stones broken up after they made ‘Exile on Main St.,’ this debate may be leaning in the other direction. But they’ve trudged on for 40 more years. Granted, calling it quits in 1972 would have robbed fans of classic records like ‘Some Girls’ and ‘Tattoo You.’ But it would have also spared us such career-blotting albums as ‘Black and Blue’ and ‘Voodoo Lounge.’ The Beatles never got to the point where they made an album as pointless as ‘Bridges to Babylon.’ We can all be thankful for that.


The Rolling Stones Are Better Than The Beatles

Well, now we have two disagreements. If, as you suggest, we limit this debate to the end of each band’s undisputed golden era, the Beatles get the nod — even giving the Stones two extra years in their prime, and therefore the classic ‘Sticky Fingers’ and ‘Exile on Main Street’ albums.

It’s adding what the Stones have done in the rest of the 43 (!) years since the breakup of the Beatles that gives them an ever-so slight edge in this race. You’re right, ‘Some Girls’ and ‘Tattoo You’ are the only front-to-back classics from this long span of time. But those albums — and a slew of fantastic singles from lesser but often still very good albums — prove that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards have been able to do one very important thing John Lennon and Paul McCartney couldn’t: keep merging their talents and personalities to make culturally relevant music for a much longer time than their competitors from Liverpool.

Could the Beatles have incorporated reggae and disco and punk into their sound? Or found another way to lead rock music through the changing times as well as the Stones did twice, as far into their career on ‘Miss You,’ ‘Start Me Up’ or ‘Respectable?’ On paper, sure. But in real life they didn’t and the Stones did, and that counts for a lot.

There’s one other crucial thing the Stones have done time and time again that the Beatles never did — perform their best music successfully live onstage. Again, it’s entirely possible, likely even, that the Beatles could have returned from their self-imposed 1966 stage exile and delivered great versions of ‘Hey Jude’ or ‘Come Together’ night after night. After all, McCartney’s been doing an incredible job of it with his solo band for decades. But again, for the Beatles that’s theoretical, and for the Stones it’s proven fact.

Oh, and if we’re gonna discuss pointless music from the mid-’90s, I’m gonna have to bring up ‘Real Love‘ and the second-rate Traveling Wilburys slab of blah ‘Free As a Bird.’ But really it comes down to this: Maybe it’s more romantic, a better story, to burn out like the Beatles did. But it’s much harder and more impressive to do what the Stones have done: not fade away.

At the time - you couldn't be both.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Love all the classics, but as an observation amidst all those classics there is (say it very quietly) quite a lot of dross. IMHO naturally.

Not just your opinion - hugely outweighed by a mountain of classic pop records, but there is some absolute drivel in there too. Maxwell's Silver Hammer anyone? Yellow Submarine? No?

 

[brakespear]

although not my favourite band (generally because I don't think of them when I think of bands, maybe over-familiarity?), growing up in the 70's there was still a lot of the feeling of the Beatles phenemon still around (maybe due to the lack of easy, at-your-fingers availability to information, music and movies), much more than just a band. Although it's funny how my favourite Beatle has changed over the years. I still don't think anyone has ever recorded a better run of songs than Side 2 of 'Abbey Road' though.

Usually when I'm cooking the Christmas dinner I just listen to The Beatles and realise just how good they were