Originally Posted by Robert May

"you name it he's done it" ......Rap, Ska?

The frog chorus. Rockin

Punkie

The Undertones and Stranglers are two of my favourite bands, proper musicians who wrote decent songs. Kenny Ball is awesome as well and shows that good music and energy crosses the various musical genres.

If I never heard a Pistols record again I wouldn't miss it. That's all a matter of personal taste but if ever a band was over-hyped well above their capabilities then that was them.

Easy to pull up The Frog Chorus and Mull of Kintyre and have a little snicker fellers but don't forget that Mull of Kintyre was just about the most successful single ever released for many years .

You also need to consider some of the finest and most successful songs ever written - like Yesterday to name but one - if you want to pull out the occasional bum song like The Frog Chorus (a piece for a film).

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

but if ever a band was over-hyped well above their capabilities then that was them.

Sorry, but I feel the same about the Beatles.
But there you go, its all a matter of likes and dislikes. I will listen to some Beatles and enjoy it for what it is. I have even sung a couple of Beatle tracks down the Pub and got a good reaction.
But don't ask me to join in all this "Without the beatles we would been have stuck in the 50s musically" rubbish. Because it just aint so. Likewise Punk or something very similar would have happened without the Sex Pistols and Malcom McClaren.
In both cases the time was right, and a band was lucky.

Originally Posted by Punkie

Sorry, but I feel the same about the Beatles.
But there you go, its all a matter of likes and dislikes. I will listen to some Beatles and enjoy it for what it is. I have even sung a couple of Beatle tracks down the Pub and got a good reaction.
But don't ask me to join in all this "Without the beatles we would been have stuck in the 50s musically" rubbish. Because it just aint so. Likewise Punk or something very similar would have happened without the Sex Pistols and Malcom McClaren.
In both cases the time was right, and a band was lucky.

The Beatles were innovators, right from their beginnings. They aren't known as the Four Lads Who Shook The World for nothing. Top Dogs in the Sixties and yeah a lot of other bands were pulled along in their wake, but no-one could touch them at their height. However much those achievements are the subject of hyperbole, the reality matches and exceeds that. The figures of albums and singles sold, the numbers of fans, the critical acclaim and the impact they made all speak for themselves. They entirely changed the course of popular music and advanced the whole concept. You could say something similar for Elvis.

You simply can't say anything like that for the Pistols.

To give just one example, in terms of recording. Wheras the Beatles were essentially instrumental in creating an entirely new way of working in the studio - ADT, multi-tracking, more complex and layered symphonic song structures, new mixtures of western and eastern sounds, instruments and performers, the very concept of the concept album to give just a few examples - the Punk movement essentially just went backwards to twenty years earlier with very basic rock songs, played somewhat louder, with a good deal less musical skill in many cases and with some shock vocals lobbed in for good measure. It wasn't called the Great Rock And Roll Swindle for nothing
As regards being lucky, there's a phrae from the sporting world - the more I practice the luckier I get. That holds true for music too, I reckon.

Like we both said though its all a matter of personal taste.

Were the Beatles the best band ever, the most important 20th century musicians, the greatest musical innovators, the best song writers, the most influential musicians?

Of course it's debatable - but all those questions are never asked about any other musical act of the 20th century (except maybe Elvis Presley, who wasn't really a song writer).

One thing is for sure, the Beatles were (and still are) the most successful music act of all time.

I've had a tape of Abbey Road/Let It Be in the car for the past week or so - radio reception in central Scotland is lousy and I've had a few trips up and back - and it's been a while since I've listened to it.

As a result my boy is hearing them for pretty much the first time and he's knocked out with them.

He hated Across the Universe though.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

One thing is for sure, the Beatles were (and still are) the most successful music act of all time.

George Martin deserves an awful lot of the credit for the Beatles success though.

Originally Posted by Sprydle

George Martin deserves an awful lot of the credit for the Beatles success though.

..and, of course, he gets it.

Originally Posted by Michael in Toronto

Were the Beatles the best band ever, the most important 20th century musicians, the greatest musical innovators, the best song writers, the most influential musicians?

Of course it's debatable - but all those questions are never asked about any other musical act of the 20th century (except maybe Elvis Presley, who wasn't really a song writer).

One thing is for sure, the Beatles were (and still are) the most successful music act of all time.

If you forget about Queen or The Bee Gees?

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

I've had a tape of Abbey Road/Let It Be in the car for the past week or so - radio reception in central Scotland is lousy and I've had a few trips up and back - and it's been a while since I've listened to it.

As a result my boy is hearing them for pretty much the first time and he's knocked out with them.

He hated Across the Universe though.

Originally Posted by me

Have you listened to Let it Be ... Naked? It's without all of the Phil Specter additions, and over the top mixings. I prefer it.

Just realised how that reads. Listening to the album naked doesn't really change the way it sounds, but it can certainly be a different experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rwp1I2HHU8

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

multi-tracking

Actually, that was a Les Paul invention.

Originally Posted by madsci_guy

Actually, that was a Les Paul invention.

Yes, it was.

The Beatles took multitracking to the stage of making vast sound canvasses. Reverse guitar parts, tape loops, all of thse innovations. I can recommend a read of the big white book of the Beatles recording sessions, some remarkeable things in there.

Originally Posted by Sprydle

Just realised how that reads. Listening to the album naked doesn't really change the way it sounds, but it can certainly be a different experience.

yeah - a good example of where Macca was right to get stroppy. I try to filter out the slushy bits from the album. I wonder if the fillum is available on DVD- I'd like to get it for my boy if it is.

Originally Posted by leccyflyer

Yes, it was.

The Beatles took multitracking to the stage of making vast sound canvasses. Reverse guitar parts, tape loops, all of thse innovations. I can recommend a read of the big white book of the Beatles recording sessions, some remarkeable things in there.

Actually, Les Paul invented loops too. Look up "Les Paulverizer", the very first tape loop effects machine, which Les used extensively in live radio shows. All the Beatles did was copy his true innovation.

And he did it when the Beatles were still in grade school (1950), often inventing his own equipment, because no equipment was available. You ought to pick up some of his albums.

Les Paul also made a multi recording involving his playing 8 different parts on WAX record masters, in 1947, creating your basic "sound canvas". Mary Ford made multiple voice recordings providing a unique sound never heard before.

And of course, every solid body guitar the Beatles ever played, owes its genesis to Les Paul.