Beatles fans, what do you think of this?

Question

http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

He lists some surprisingly good points, but he keeps talking about the simple melodies and how bad the Beatles were with their instruments. The Beatles were catchy in the good way though, and simplicity proves to be good at times. Ramones anyone?

What do you think?

piecies_81: I didn't read all of it (who would to be honest), but the RIAA only provides info for America, even though the Beatles are still the best-selling group in history, though it is debatable whether they are the best-selling act of all-time (Elvis, Michael Jackson).

Answer 1

Too lazy to read all of it right now, but if the writer is criticizing the Beatles' musicianship, This Beatle fan would be the 1st to admit that none were virtuoso material.

What the Beatles *Did* have over pretty much all of their contemporaries was a winning combination of pop sense, amazing versatility, intelligent wit, sophistication, innate melody abilities good enough to make a 6 year old or a 90 year old hum along, & charming personalities that made them stand out from the others.

No other band were, or is like them....

Answer 2

I am and always will be be the worlds biggest Beatles fan!
I saw both shows when I was a teen in Toronto during the summer of 1965. My Dad chaperoned us to the first show, then let us attend the 2nd show alone. I have the greatest mental images of those concerts forged in my memory banks. I will treasure them forever!
Simplicity has its merits. Look at the early Punk scene in the 70's.
I remember an interview with The Who's Pete Townsend back in the 60's. He was asked what he thought of The Beatles. He responded with something like, "I think they're flippin' awful! If you take the balance knob on your amplifier and fade out the side that the vocals are coming from, and just listen to the music it sounds horrible. They can't play their instruments!"

The Ramones are good, and even more simplistic than the Beatles which appeals to me. But they had much more in common musically to an iconic American band from the 60's, that many might have overlooked.
Listen to any up beat Beach Boys tune. Then listen to an up beat Ramones tune. You can almost take Beach Boys harmonies and apply them the any Ramones tune, and visa versa...seriously! I've tried it several times, and it really works!
Take 'Be True to Your School' or 'Drive Inn' for instance, both classic Beach Boys tunes. Then picture The Ramones singing and playing them...its easy, because they could have. Same goes for pretty much all of both bands up beat repertoire. It's all interchangeable! Listen to the Ramones 'California Sun', or 'Rock and Roll High School'. You can just picture the high pitched background vocals of Brian Wilson going "whoo wee hee ooh" on practically every Ramones tune! This 'Beach Boy' type Harmony is applicable all over the place when it comes to many Ramones tunes. You may not have noticed this before, but I can assure you that you will now! Haaa!
I've always been a big Ramones fan, as rudimentary as they are, they've always entertained me in a certain way.
'Cabbies on Crack' is a great tune, and I'm listening to it right now!

But as far as the Beatles are concerned, they are and always will be remembered. When I was a kid all the older people (over 25 or 30) used to tell us teenagers that they were just a passing fad, and in a couple years they will be forgotten. Haaa! You old farts were wrong! (Mom, Dad)
What's funny is that I've been saying the the same thing about much of whats been current since the 80's, and 99% of the time I've been right. Somehow I just can't see hundreds of pop, rock, jazz, and classical composers digging through the 'My Chemical Romance' back catalog as a source of inspiration or material in twenty or thirty years! If they do, I sure as h*ll hope I never get stuck on an elevator!

Edit - I just opened the link today. I've had that 'Piero Scaruffi'
website in my favorites for a couple years now. It's a great music resource for many other bands, genres as well.

Answer 3

Most of the criticisms of Scaruffi's article have been answered on this page:
http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles2.html

Here's my particular favorite part:

"A famous story is about distinguished Times critic Richard Williams. He once received an advance copy of a John Lennon album to review. He started listening to it and realized that one side was simply a long steady drone. He was about to start raving about how revolutionary that music was when he was notified that, by mistake, one side of the record... had not been recorded: Williams had been listening to the noise of his turntable picking up dust on the vinyl. But put the label "Beatles" on it and it becomes a revolutionary piece of music. Pur any other label on it and it goes into the garbage can. "

And here's the NY Times article on Scaruffi:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/arts/15morr.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

@twangone: First off, the guy has an entire site with over 5000 reviewed artists. I highly doubt anyone here could even name that many. Disagree or not, he's a credible, respected critic, and his review contains many purely factual statements that, so far, I have not seen anyone dispute.

EDIT: For the person making a fuss about the Beatles being the highest-selling artist, firstly, that article was written roughly ten years ago. Secondly, the RIAA's stats are not entirely trustworthy for anything before about 1980 because the records were shoddily kept, and in many parts of the world still are not accurate. It's purely an estimation.

Answer 4

The Beatles had a long list of songs that were very simple which yes, is very good at times, but many of their melodies were not simple at all. Some good examples are "Baby Your A Rich Man" "Come Together" "Got To Get You Into My Life" "Eleanor Rigby" and "Paperback Writer". Another band that proves simplicity is good is The White Stripes. Just a drummer and a guitarist and they sound great.

Every single one of their songs is catchy. How many other artists can you say the same thing about?

You can tell when reading some articles how biased the writers are. Such is the case with this one.

Answer 5

I don't think anybody even considered The Beatles to be anything more than competent musicians. However, the fact that they were pretty much evenly matched on their instruments made it work for them. I can't say how often I've heard a virtuoso in another band and the rest of the group sounds truly horrible in comparison. That combination just doesn't work.

Answer 6

The Beatles were well ahead of there time i think they were great musicans and outstanding songwriters just listen to the songs Yesterday and A Day In The Life and Let It Be they even had sucess after they broke up especially Paul and John! George had some sucess 2 and Ringo a little! They are and wil be remembered as one of the greatest rock and roll bands of alltime! There greatest album in my view is Abbey Road

Answer 7

It's a done deal. If the Beatles hadn't done it at the time, who would have? There was nothing before or since like the impact they had. A Beatles' concert produced nothing but a ROAR of joy that surely reached into Heaven. During their last tour, instruments were not plugged into amplifiers. Youngsters will not understand. You had to be there.

Answer 8

I didnt check out your link,but then again I ve heard this arguement before about 30 years ago.George Harrison really wasnt the best improvisor on Guitar(a quote by himself) and Ringo Starr even admitted he wasnt the best drummer.But they stuck together and their was magic in the simplicity of their madness

Answer 9

I wish you would have started off by telling us just what musical values you would use to decide who's the best.

Just saying some other genre has chosen a less popular figure as best means little without some explanation.

I don't know of any rock critics of any stature at all who are ignorant of rock history? You pulled that out of your hat.
and seem to be wearing it quite low!

Most of these absurd generalisations you make aren't worth anyone's time, concerning rock critics.
Most of them do in fact support lesser known artists and are just as flummoxed about public taste, as well as corporate taste, as anyone.
They aren't paid shills, either.
That's too easy.

To say the Beatles Aryanized music makes me laugh my butt off. If you don't hear the influence of black artists in their work you are totally deaf.
The influence is there from the start, vocally and in their writing.

The cute white kid bit is totally wrong. look at the lyrics of most pop music and stop trying to be cute yourself.
and that includes rock n roll, which was cute from the start.

all your opinions about kinks stones etc.. are just that. your opinions. they carry no weight with me.
I've heard tons of crappy kinks material. and lots of less than stellar stones. and neither of their worst material is as good as the beatles worst, in my opinion.

"it had no difficult content, it had no technical innovations, it had no creative depth."

so when the hell was difficult content the sign of good material?
or technical innovations. though I might add they did a darn good job of keeping up.
no creative depth?
you phony jerk! that's hilarious.

the rest of your blather wasn't even worth reading.
In fact, it sounds a lot like a bunch of fundamentalist christian crapola, typical old jazz player whine, .. you know.. sour grapes and jealousy.

pfah!
TWANG

Answer 10

The Beatles were amazing. Between 1964 and 1966-67 the music was COMPLETELY different. I wasn't even born then, but I know the music. They were WAY before their time. They were simply amazingly talented. Bottom line.