English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

honestly, i don't see what's so good about the beatles. it's not like they were that much different then any other band back then. can someone put it into words?

2007-06-05 17:27:52 · 13 answers · asked by octopus 3 in Entertainment & Music Music Rock and Pop

13 answers

A better way to phrase that question would be "What ISN'T so great about the Beatles?" If you think the Beatles sound like every other band back then, then you've never really listened to them much. And if they do sound similar, it's because so many bands back then tried to immiate their unique style. The Beatles did everything and influenced every body. They were the first band to experiment and try different sounds, lyrics, and recording techniques that nobody had done before. If it weren't for The Beatles, there would be no Rolling Stones, no Led Zeppelin, no Doors, no Elton John, no Billy Joel, no Pink Floyd, no Jimi Hendrix, no David Bowie, no Kiss, no Alice Cooper, no Ozzy Osbourne, no Aerosmith, no U2, no Nirvana, no Smashing Pumpkins, no Radiohead, no Coldplay, the list goes on. The Beatles either influenced these artists or paved the way for them.

2007-06-06 03:32:19 · answer #1 · answered by GK Dub 6 · 0 0

Wow, that's a loaded question. Prepare to get an earful.

Andy, The Beatles came over in '64, played The Ed Sullivan show and overnight they were a sensation in the states.


OK, longgoneobb,
their lyrics were not political at the beginning.
Actually, they never really got too political. Early Beatles were love and feel good songs. Later Beatles were encouraging mind altering chemicals, but still love and introspective songs.They never really political.


Lennon, on the other hand,
got extremely political
when the Beatles broke up.

2007-06-06 00:34:41 · answer #2 · answered by Mello Yello 4 · 1 0

The Beatles were actually considered retro when they were first played. I was a junior in high school. Surf music and Motown were the style then and the Beatles were neither, although their roots were in rhythm and blues. Most of their earlier music was based on "black" music from the 50's and before. They were just new and different and of course had "long" hair. Not that much longer than I wore mine but just longer than most. Look up some pics of Pat Boone. Also they were from England...we didn't even know they listened to rock and roll in England. They were different, fresh and I guess we were just ready for a change.

2007-06-06 00:37:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well back in 1964 when I was young, I thought they were a big deal, but, not now. Looking back I only really liked their first 4 albums, it was different and a refreshingly new approach to rock/pop, but as they went on their music got weirder and more druggy sounding and I hated it, or most of it, just my opinion. Paul and John did much better on their own in the 70's, I thought. I have to say, I be;lieve them to be over rated, from what they really were.

2007-06-07 10:51:57 · answer #4 · answered by BoosGrammy 7 · 0 0

well, depending on how old you are...it kind of matters. back in ole 67' people considered the beatles sort of a revolution not just a band. it was a brit pop invasion. they also helped towards war effort, peace movements, etc. so they really changed the world in way. now if you live during 67' then i dont know what to say. thats all i got.

edit: 64'

.....

2007-06-06 00:34:03 · answer #5 · answered by Andy 1 · 1 0

the world, much like today was going thru a tough time, and the beatles were there for everybody when they were most needed. it didnt hurt that they (paul and john) were probably some of the best songwriters in pop cultures history. and yes, most of there lyrics were about the times, which created an even bigger sensation for them.

2007-06-06 00:38:03 · answer #6 · answered by Michael 2 · 1 0

YOU MUST NOT BE A MUSICIAN. IF YOU WERE YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW THAT THE BEATLES WERE VERY INNOVATIVE IN THEIR MUSIC. ALWAYS WILLING TO TRY NEW THINGS. US DIFFERENT CHORD ARRAIGNMENTS TO PLAY THEIR MUSIC. RINGO'S BEATS WERE ALWAYS DIFFERENT AND A LITTLE OFF THE BEATEN PATH, BUT RIGHT ON THE MONEY EVERY TIME. THE WERE THE LEADERS OF THE PACK THAT FOLLOWED THEM IN THE ROCK AND ROLL BUSINESS. THEY WERE ALSO THE FIRST BAND TO PROVE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO TOUR TO HAVE SUCCESSFUL ALBUMS SALES. THE TOUR OF 1966 OR 67 WAS THE LAST TOUR THEY PLAYED, YET SOLD MANY, MANY ALBUMS AFTERWORDS, SUCH AS ABBEY ROAD, AND THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD. THEIR HARMONIES WERE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THE KEY EACH AND EVERY TIME. THEY WERE AS PERFECT AS A BAND COULD EVER BE. AND JOHN'S STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE MORE POPULAR THAN JESUS IS/WAS TRUE. THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO HAD NEVER HEARD OF JESUS CHRIST BUT THEY KNEW WHO THE BEATLES WERE.

2007-06-06 00:41:27 · answer #7 · answered by BOOMBOOMBILLY 4 · 4 1

They defined their time. They were the biggest band of the 60's. The songs are great and timeless.

2007-06-06 12:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by krupsk 5 · 0 0

they were the first to write and sing their songs.no one did alot of things before them.they "invented studio techniques still used today.they were far superior musicians to everyone at that time.they found stereo recording.

2007-06-06 00:38:41 · answer #9 · answered by meanmmustard 2 · 0 0

they were the FIRST boy band. now you look back and there not much different but back then they were the first. and PRACTICALLY all of there songs are catchy or good, not just some.

2007-06-06 00:32:58 · answer #10 · answered by LADIDAH 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers