The Beatles: What am I missing?

[cricky101]

Originally Posted by forgop

Elvis, Beatles, The Doors, Grateful Dead, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush....all of them....meh

Originally Posted by bobarian

Yeah, a bunch of no names, never heard of 'em.

What could they possibly have contributed to popular music ??

[14holestogie]

No offense, Andy, but if you're 41, the Beatles songs you were hearing on the radio were 10-15 years old by the time you were hearing them (I'm assuming late 70's by the time you were listening). They should have seemed a little dated. Now, if you were listening as these songs were appearing for the first time, then you'd understand what Rev is talking about.
It was inventive stuff that opened doors and challenged others to keep up.

[blugill]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

No offense, Andy, but if you're 41, the Beatles songs you were hearing on the radio were 10-15 years old by the time you were hearing them (I'm assuming late 70's by the time you were listening). They should have seemed a little dated. Now, if you were listening as these songs were appearing for the first time, then you'd understand what Rev is talking about.
It was inventive stuff that opened doors and challenged others to keep up.

None taken, that's what I'm asking. What am I missing?

[Gophernut]

Originally Posted by forgop

Elvis, Beatles, The Doors, Grateful Dead, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush....all of them....meh

I am a huge Rush fan, and to even have them included on this list, is a huge honor if you ask me. Yes, I do understand you don't necessarily like them. I have honestly never even thought of them in this league, and they are my all time favorite band.

[floydpink]

Originally Posted by forgop

Elvis, Beatles, The Doors, Grateful Dead, The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Rush....all of them....meh

Just about listed the soundtrack of my life.

[mosesbotbol]

The later the Beatles recording, the more I like it. I loved John Lennon's solo work. I like the Stones much more as a band, but Beatles have better song writting and composition IMO.

[14holestogie]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

The later the Beatles recording, the more I like it. I loved John Lennon's solo work. I like the Stones much more as a band, but Beatles have better song writting and composition IMO.

If you listen to their earliest stuff next to their later stuff, the growth these guys showed in their 6-7 year life was unparallelled.

[Parshooter]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

If you listen to their earliest stuff next to their later stuff, the growth these guys showed in their 6-7 year life was unparallelled.

Thanks to drugs.

[68TriShield]

I prefer not to be in any camp.

[markem]

Originally Posted by 68TriShield

I prefer not to be in any camp.

Then why do you belong to that nudist camp?

[mosesbotbol]

Originally Posted by Parshooter

Thanks to drugs.

Lennon & McCarthy are the song writing pair of all time.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

Lennon & McCarthy are the song writing pair of all time.

Paul McCartney wasn't bad either.

[The Poet]

Originally Posted by Parshooter

Thanks to drugs.

Though I am reluctant to bring this up, it remains a valid reason why you may be "missing it" with the Beatles. The use of hallucinogens such as mescaline, psilocybin, and most notably LSD not only affected the perception of the members of The Beatles (and other bands) but also effected their music as well. It also follows as the night the day that the understanding of their music by the fans was changed by the fans' own usage of these substances. This change in their music began as early as Revolver and Rubber Soul, but reached a mind-expanded peak with Sgt. Pepper. You can believe this or not, but there's no way you can truly "understand" an album like Sgt. Pepper (or Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, or Traffic's Low Spark Of High Heel Boys, or many others) unless you've "dropped" an hour before you listen to them. Under the influence, you then can grasp what they are doing, both musically and lyrically, in a way that's just not possible when you're "straight". But once you have this revelation, this epiphany, you can never hear it the same way again, no matter what condition your condition is in. Me, I've dropped nothing stronger than an Advil for nearly 40 years, yet I still "get it."

I'm certainly not suggesting you return to the days of Owsley's blotter and windowpane LSD-25 in order to find out what you are missing, but merely point out the potential roadblock to this. And it does not mean one can't appreciate their music (or not, as the case may be) without chemical aids. One does not need to be a mathematician to enjoy the music of J.S. Bach, yet such a knowledge will give one a more complete understanding. That's all I'm saying here.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by The Poet

Though I am reluctant to bring this up, it remains a valid reason why you may be "missing it" with the Beatles. The use of hallucinogens such as mescaline, psilocybin, and most notably LSD not only affected the perception of the members of The Beatles (and other bands) but also effected their music as well. It also follows as the night the day that the understanding of their music by the fans was changed by the fans' own usage of these substances. This change in their music began as early as Revolver and Rubber Soul, but reached a mind-expanded peak with Sgt. Pepper. You can believe this or not, but there's no way you can truly "understand" an album like Sgt. Pepper (or Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon, or Traffic's Low Spark Of High Heel Boys, or many others) unless you've "dropped" an hour before you listen to them. Under the influence, you then can grasp what they are doing, both musically and lyrically, in a way that's just not possible when you're "straight". But once you have this revelation, this epiphany, you can never hear it the same way again, no matter what condition your condition is in. Me, I've dropped nothing stronger than an Advil for nearly 40 years, yet I still "get it."

I'm certainly not suggesting you return to the days of Owsley's blotter and windowpane LSD-25 in order to find out what you are missing, but merely point out the potential roadblock to this. And it does not mean one can't appreciate their music (or not, as the case may be) without chemical aids. One does not need to be a mathematician to enjoy the music of J.S. Bach, yet such a knowledge will give one a more complete understanding. That's all I'm saying here.

What do deadheads say when they sober up?

What the Hell is this awful music??!!!

[gorob23]

Originally Posted by The Poet

Me, I've dropped nothing stronger than an Advil for nearly 40 years, yet I still "get it."

Not true! What about that cigar we had at the Deck .... had to be some thing in that

Look it is really easy either you like it or you don't. I for one have found that as I have gotten older my taste have changed so much it amazes me. AND if there is shot singer involved I LIKE IT!

Come on Shakira enough said. So dose want a sing-a-long!

Rob

[shark]

Originally Posted by mosesbotbol

The later the Beatles recording, the more I like it. I loved John Lennon's solo work. I like the Stones much more as a band, but Beatles have better song writting and composition IMO.

+1. IMO, it seemed like their music style began to mature around the "Help" album, with "Revolver" even more so. Sgt. Pepper's was and still is a masterpiece. Magical Mystery Tour, not so much.

[RichardW]

You shoulda been there -- were born too late

[T.G]

LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!!!

*sob*

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by T.G

LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!!!

*sob*

[blugill]

I think everyone on this forum can agree that Lady Justin Cyrus Spears is bad music and no one should listen to it. They have a limited shelf life and will fade into New Kids territory soon enough.