All You Need is Love: the Beatles Discussion Thread

I think the Beatles both influenced and reflected the best music of their time.

 

Here are several quotes that may spur some discussion. Here's a few from Paul, while he was with the Beatles.

What are your feelings about LSD?
McCartney: I don't recommend it. It can open a few doors, but it's not any answer. You get the answers yourself.

Here's another very interesting one.

McCartney: God is in everything. God is in the space between us. God is in that table in front of you. It just happens I realize all this through acid. It could have been through anything else.

 

Hey everyone! It was hard to narrow it down to ten, so here are my top 11 Beatles greats:

1. Across the Universe
2. Here, There and Everywhere
3. Mother Nature's Son
4. Blackbird
5. Here Comes the Sun
6. I Want You (She's So Heavy)
7. Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)
8. Eleanor Rigby
9. Revolution
10. Tomorrow Never Knows
11. While My Guitar Gently Weeps

Many others deserve mention but couldn't all fit here...

Best Album: Abbey Road
Runner up: The White Album


As for influences, I seem to recall Paul quoted as saying that Freak Out! by the Mothers of Invention was one of the biggest single influences on Sgt. Pepper's

 

Nice list Tobi-Wan. I had an incredibly hard time coming up with my list, and after seeing other people's lists, I keep thinking of all these other songs that should be included. It's too hard for a top 10; it needs to be a top 100 or so.

Interesting quotes, Radiohead. Paul absolutely loved LSD though. For my American History term paper last year, I wrote about the Beatles and their influence on the sixties. Here's a part of it on the influence of the Beatles on drugs including a quote by Paul on drugs:

The impact that the Beatles had on drugs and their popularity was even greater. As symbols of youth and authorities on fashion and style, the Beatles support of drugs helped popularize their use. All four Beatles felt drugs opened their minds and assisted them in writing more mature songs, as Paul here demonstrates:

It (LSD) opened my eyes. We only use one-tenth of our brain. Just think of what we could accomplish if we could tap that hidden part! It would mean a whole new world if politicians would take LSD. There wouldn?t be any more war or poverty of famine.

The Beatles used their immense fortunes to buy full-page ads supporting the legalization of marijuana, and their trials on charges of drug possession were widely reported. In songs such as ?Dr. Robert? the Beatles praised drugs and their ability to expand one?s creativity.

 

How do you guys think The Beatles will be remembered in say 50 years? They're already one of the most important cultural phenomena to appear in the 20th century. Plus, they have directly or indirectly influenced every thing in music today.

I personally think they'll be remembered in the future much like we remember classical musicians and dead poets today. They'll be studied and analyzed and eventually be given their rightful and deserved place in the history of music.

 

I don't know if they'll be remembered like Mozart or Beethoven, if only because their music is so drastically different. But the Beatles will definately be remembered as inovators and one of the most influential, in not the most influential, group in modern music. Basically every artist out there today has been in some way inspired by what the Beatles accomplished.

 

That's a very good (not to mention difficult) question, Radiohead! Unfortunately, I don't think I have an answer for this one; thus, I apologize.

 

I think maybe they'll be remembered as much for their cultural impact as much as their music.

 

I think maybe they'll be remembered as much for their cultural impact as much as their music.

That's very true. Good point.

Several months ago, SPIN magazine released their list of the 50 greatest bands ever. The Beatles, of course, secured the top spot. The writers, however, made a very interesting comparison between the Beatles and popular contemporary acts of today. Check it out:

"With John Lennon's legacy turned into an advertising fire sale, with Paul McCartney's 400 silly-ass love songs to wife Linda, with legions of baby-boom Beatlemaniacs still nattering on about "real music," why do these blokes remain so beloved? And why are they Spin's No. 1 band, more than 30 years after their last proper album? Well, check this scenario: Imagine if, over the course of about five years, 'N Sync (circa "Bye Bye Bye") evolved into Radiohead (circa The Bends), into the Chemical Brothers (circa Exit Planet Dust), and into Nirvana (circa In Utero). That was the Beatles from, say, 1964 to 1969. Their music didn't quite revolutionize the planet, but it blew up the world of pop culture and basically created the rock-band statutes that all musical youth end up following, sooner or later. (For instance, they're the reason your favorite band is so annoyingly anxious to "experiment" with its "sound.") They also made shaggy hair, acid-as-inspiration, and sampling (via the Mellotron) almost acceptable. And, oh yeah, they managed to break up before they started to suck (which cannot be said of most of their peers). After they disbanded, Lennon angrily sang, "I don't believe in Beatles," but the rest of us better recognize. P.S.: R.I.P., George."

Interesting comparison, no? Personally, I think the comparisons will spur arguement, but I admit that it's pretty accurate.

The comparison to N Sync alludes to the days when The Beatles were simply the biggest band of the biggest fad. They were the original "boy band," if you will. Sure, their sound was great and there was room for potential, but their music was largely derivative.

Next, there's the comparison to Radiohead circa The Bends. I'm guessing the Beatles' "Radiohead" period would be during the days of Rubber Soul and Revolver, when they relied heavily on acoustic offerings and made huge leaps in introspective musical composition.

Then, there's the Chemical Brothers stage, when The Beatles decided to use the music studio as another instrument. The result was songs that could not be adequately replicated live, but were groundbreaking and influential nontheless. In fact, during this stage, they made rock and roll and pop music into acceptable art forms with Sgt. Peppers and The White Album.

Finally, there's the Nirvana stage when The Beatles decided to rely less on the studio. (Abbey Road, Let It Be) Their time together, however, had made them emotionally exhausted and seemingly jaded about their own success.

All that within a span of about 5 years. Wow.

 

Interesting comparisons, Radiohead. And very sound ones, at that. Looking back, it is hard to think of the Beatles as a boy band, but that is exactly what they were. I've been to *Nsync concerts (not that I'm proud of it; I'm not a fan of them) and it is similar to what Beatlemania must have been. But while all of Nysnc's albums have been basically the same contrived pop drivel, the Beatles revolutionized their own sound into something timeless.

 

But while all of Nysnc's albums have been basically the same contrived pop drivel, the Beatles revolutionized their own sound into something timeless.

Very true. But NSync would really impress me if they started taking risks like the Beatles did. One of the things that separated the Beatles with most other bands is that they were not afraid of potentially alienating their audience. The popular acts today seem to follow a set formula and are unwilling to take risks musically.

 

Interesting comparisons, Radiohead. And very sound ones, at that. Looking back, it is hard to think of the Beatles as a boy band, but that is exactly what they were.

I agree, Adi_Gallia_9. However, I think there's one very important difference between the early Beatles and N'Sync; namely, The Beatles wrote virtually all their songs (with the exceptions of covers - 'Roll Over Beethoven', etc.). On the other hand, N'Sync....well....I think they spend more time on their choreography than writing.

 

Well, the Beatles did cover tons of songs in their early albums. What makes them great though, is the fact that they were able to write songs with their own unique style. NSync has now started writing songs, but I'm still skeptical of their potential.

 

I'll give Nsync credit for the work they do put into their dances and into their live shows. But I have heard the songs they have written and while it's possible they could go somewhere with them, they don't have the genius of Lennon/McCartney. But at their last concert, Nsync did do a medly of Beatles songs which my sister, who saw the concert, said was well-done.

I think the main difference between these two groups are that the Beatles are a band, while *Nsync are self-proclaimed entertainers.

 

I think the main difference between these two groups are that the Beatles are a band, while *Nsync are self-proclaimed entertainers.

Well said, Adi_Gallia_9!

Okay Radiohead, Adi_Gallia_9 and whoever else, I?ve got a question for you all. What, in your opinion, was the single most damaging/misunderstood event for The Beatles in terms of public relations from 1962-1970.

a) John?s statement that The Beatles were ?More Popular than Jesus.? (March 4, 1966)
b) The decision to play the Budokan in Nippon, Japan. (For all the Asian JCers out there.)
c) The decision to stop touring and focus on their studio work.
d) The trip to India.
e) The Beatles' admitted experimentation with drugs. (As Adi_Gallia_9 pointed out in a previous post.)
f) John?s decision to leave Cynthia for Yoko.
g) The final break-up of The Beatles.
h) ???(Please feel free to add anything that I have missed).

 

I don't necessarily think any of those things were damaging in that it hurt their sales. Even their final albums sold well, as did the Anthologies and Beatles One.

But in terms of public image, John announcing the Beatles are more popular than Jesus, definately didn't help. It angered many adults (which lead to teenagers liking them more, undoubtedly), lead to bad press, and lead to Beatle burnings. But that was relatively short-lived and harmless to their careers.

To this day, on the other hand, people remember Yoko. The Jesus comment isn't as well known. But everyone knows that to some degree Yoko broke-up the Beatles. The public hated her and blamed her then as many still do. John and Yoko loved each other dearly, I believe, but the things they did together like the bed-in gave hurt them in the public's eye.

 

i also think that none of those things they did really caused them any damage to their musical success, either critically or financially.

the problem with yoko is that she was a nice enough girl to john, but was a b*tch to everyone else. i mean, she sent a check worth half a cent or somethin' to julian! talk about adding insult to injury. aside from her being asian, i can't say i blame most ppl for not liking her.

musically, my favourite beatle songs are let it be, octopus's garden, and don't let me down. lyrically, i like across the universe, strawberry fields, and i am the walrus. when listening to music, in my opinion, i find that the music is more important than the words, however, so i tend to listen to the former songs more than the latter ones. i find that, and i'm generalising here, paul was the better composer and john was the better lyricist.

 

The moment when John screams that good ol' rock'n roll scream on Don't let me down is one of the finest musical moments ever captured. A close runner up is when Paul does the same thing at the end of Hey Jude. I wish I could do that.

~PAd

 

Hold up, Adi_Gallia_9 and JollyJedi! [face_shocked] I know that none of these events hurt The Beatles' record sales, etc. I was more talking about public relations/image (with a society as a whole) at the time (1962-1970).

N-E-ways, thank you both for your responses.

Adi_Gallia_9, once again, it is very hard to argue with your well-reasoned analysis. Well done! The only thing that I would add is that each of those events hurt The Beatles public image in different demographics and locations on the globe. For example, in Japan some conservative sections of the population were put off by the fact that The Beatleswere playing at the Budokan, which was a haloed place reserved strictly for Sumo Wrestling. As a result, their was actually protests outside their shows their - but eventually quite a few bands started to play there and that ended the controversy. In terms of John's comment that The Bealtes were "more popular than Jesus," this really hurt them in the Bible Belt of America (hence, the burning of their albums, as you mentioned Adi_Gallia_9).

One point of yours, Adi_Gallia_9, that I really hit home (and one that I tend to forget) was the fact that as these gaffes in public relations occurred, more younger fans really attached themselves to The Bealtes because of their rebellious nature. So, thank you, Adi_Gallia_9; because that was quite a poignant observation. ,

Lastly, before I forget; let me just say welcome aboard, JollyJedi. We're glad to have you with us on the thread.

 

The moment when John screams that good ol' rock'n roll scream on Don't let me down is one of the finest musical moments ever captured. A close runner up is when Paul does the same thing at the end of Hey Jude. I wish I could do that

Don't we all.

 

Let's go through the list:

a) John?s statement that The Beatles were ?More Popular than Jesus.? (March 4, 1966)

This certainly hurt their public image, especially in the conservative regions of America, but only in the short term. For the sake of evidence, here is the exact quote that started the controversy:

John Lennon: "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I am right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now. I don't know which will go first--rock 'n' roll or Christianity."

Clearly, that was a huge deal since radio stations started organizing public bonfires of Beatle records and one church reverend even threatened to revoke the membership of any church member who agreed with Lennon. In John's defense, he had to say the following:

"I'm not anti-God, anti-Christ or anti-religion. I was not saying we were greater or better. I believe in God but not as one thing or as an old man in the sky...I wasn't saying the Beatles are better than God or Jesus. I used Beatles because it's easy for me to talk about the Beatles. I could have used TV or the cinema or anything popular and I would have gotten away with it..."

Ironically, KLUE, the radio station which organized a public bonfire for Beatle records, was knocked off the air the next morning when a bolt of lightning struck their transmission tower, knocking their news director unconscious and causing extensive damage to their radio equipment. Apparently, God is a Beatle fan.

b) The decision to play the Budokan in Nippon, Japan. (For all the Asian JCers out there.)

I'd actually replace this with another event that occured in an Asian country. After the Beatles played a concert in the Phillipines, they were invited to dine with President Ferdinand Marcos and First Lady Imelda Marcos. Unfortunately, the group was exhausted and decided to decline the invitation. Needless to say, the President and the First Lady were not too happy and, soon, neither was the whole country. Again, though, this was a short term setback and not one that lingered for years.

c) The decision to stop touring and focus on their studio work.

I'd say this had the most impact on the public perception of Beatles. When they finally decided to stop touring, they became more comfortable with what they could do in the studio. The result? Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, et al. So, after they stopped touring, people perceived them as more than just a band: they became artists.

d) The trip to India.

I'm not sure how influential this was in terms of public perception, but it certainly influenced the Beatles at least temporarily. With the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, the band was looking for some direction and they hoped the Maharishi could fill the void. Also, the songs they wrote in India made up the bulk of the music in The White Album.

e)The Beatles' admitted experimentation with drugs.

I don't think this hurt the Beatles in the minds of the public. Drugs were certainly a taboo subject, but people simply didn't have the knowledge about drug use that we do now.

f) John?s decision to leave Cynthia for Yoko.

Pretty influential in the public's view of the band. But, most of that opinion was formed after the Beatles broke up.

g) The final break-up of The Beatles.

Well, nothing will effect a band's record sales like breaking up.

 

Ironically, KLUE, the radio station which organized a public bonfire for Beatle records, was knocked off the air the next morning when a bolt of lightning struck their transmission tower, knocking their news director unconscious and causing extensive damage to their radio equipment. Apparently, God is a Beatle fan.

Is this true? I've never heard about this before. [face_shocked] Is this something you just heard about, or is there some source you can direct me to? Very interesting...

 

Wow, Radiohead! Yet, another well-reasoned analysis. Well done!

Also, thank you for bringing up the Marcos fiasco, that petty gaffaw totally slipped my mind.

 

That is interesting about the radio station being hit by lightening. Now if only I can get God to be a Red Sox fan, too...

Radiohead, I agree that the Philippine event definately had an impact and was worth mentioning. That was one of the few times that Beatles ever were poorly recieved by a country.

 

I saw a Beatles special where they showed an episode of AMERICAN BANDSTAND after the Beatles had just quit doing live performances, where Dick Clark was asking the kids if the Beatles were still popular and they're all like "They're so over." and "We don't like them anymore. They're like the Monkees". Then Dick showed the psychedelic short film of their latest single STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER where they're out in their Sgt. Pepper look for the first time. Some of the kids thought it was wierd and didn't like their mustaches. But one kid loved it. I liked seeing that reaction to "New Beatles".