The beatles were fucking fantastic!

[Tero]

The Next Beatles Reissue Will Be the White Album, According to George Martin’s Son
“The White Album, which is the next release – that was when [the band] started becoming properly indulgent…There are so many takes of ‘Sexy Sadie’, for instance,” Martin said. “The efficiency went slightly out the window. There’s a lot of stuff. So, it’s getting the balance right.”

Fans hope for full Esher demos of the songs.

[Sean Hayden]

I'd put the Beatles in the difficult for me music thread. I've just never been able to sit and listen to their albums.

[Brian Peacock]

[Tero]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean. We didn’t even talk of albums then. I could turn on the radio prior to the Beatles and hear either
1 How much is that doggy in the window—in Finnish
2 some dreadful symphony
3 hymns on Sunday

[Rum]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean. We didn’t even talk of albums then. I could turn on the radio prior to the Beatles and hear either
1 How much is that doggy in the window—in Finnish
2 some dreadful symphony
3 hymns on Sunday

I agree. At the time it felt like they changed everything - culturally as well as musically. And if you were the right age you felt they were tracking you- and you them as they and you developed. It was an amazing thing to be part of.

[Brian Peacock]

And they did that thing where they sang a high note and shook their mop-tops. That had never been done before. It was truly revolutionary.

[Sean Hayden]

I just don't know what to say.

[Seabass]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean.

Actually, it wasn't. Early on, they were heavily influenced by 'Murkin rock & roll. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard for example. Personally, I preferred their later drugged out music. That's when they really started to develop their own sound. Also, Ravi Shankar!

Chuck Berry cover:

[Scot Dutchy]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean. We didn’t even talk of albums then. I could turn on the radio prior to the Beatles and hear either
1 How much is that doggy in the window—in Finnish
2 some dreadful symphony
3 hymns on Sunday

I dread to think that sounded like. It is bad enough in English. The Dutch version is toe tuning cringing (cant find it!).
We were not much better. Our only pop songs could be heard on Saturday morning; "Children's Favourites". The pirate stations soon changed that.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, before The Beatles all we had was things like this...



... and Danny Kaye records were considered 'edgy'.

[Rum]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean.

Actually, it wasn't. Early on, they were heavily influenced by 'Murkin rock & roll. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard for example. Personally, I preferred their later drugged out music. That's when they really started to develop their own sound. Also, Ravi Shankar!

Chuck Berry cover:

[youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhbCxXTJqmA[/youtube]

I think you have just stated the obvious in this post. Virtually all modern music with a beat links back in some way to the slaves singing and chanting in the cotton fields, the early blues and the jazz that grew out of that. The Beatles were always open about and aware of their roots and paid homage to the likes of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis and the like. Indeed the name the 'Beatles' is an oblique reference to Buddy Holly's 'Crickets'.

They just turned the 'teen music' thing into a huge international cultural explosion without sitting on their laurels. The 'drugged' music started pretty early on - Beatles Help, Rubber Soul and certainly Revolver were already influenced by psychedelics. They kept exploring and expanding over their relatively short lifetime as a band which is what I admire so much.

[Tero]

Yess! Tubby the tuba! Not forgetting:

[Seabass]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean.

Actually, it wasn't. Early on, they were heavily influenced by 'Murkin rock & roll. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard for example. Personally, I preferred their later drugged out music. That's when they really started to develop their own sound. Also, Ravi Shankar!

Chuck Berry cover:

I think you have just stated the obvious in this post. Virtually all modern music with a beat links back in some way to the slaves singing and chanting in the cotton fields, the early blues and the jazz that grew out of that. The Beatles were always open about and aware of their roots and paid homage to the likes of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis and the like. Indeed the name the 'Beatles' is an oblique reference to Buddy Holly's 'Crickets'.

They just turned the 'teen music' thing into a huge international cultural explosion without sitting on their laurels. The 'drugged' music started pretty early on - Beatles Help, Rubber Soul and certainly Revolver were already influenced by psychedelics. They kept exploring and expanding over their relatively short lifetime as a band which is what I admire so much.

Obvious to you, perhaps, but I was responding to Tero's claim that it was brand new. Their earliest albums were fairly derivative I would say. Nothing wrong with that—all artists have their influences, and it takes time to develop one's own style.

[Hermit]

It was a brand new thing in 1964, Sean.

Actually, it wasn't. Early on, they were heavily influenced by 'Murkin rock & roll. Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Little Richard for example.

The Beatles were derivative, yes. So were The Rolling Stones who were just about indistinguishable from any Chicago Blues band when they started, but they were new to us. In Europe, or at least in Germany, where I grew up, Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Jerey Lewis etc got no airplay until after The Beatles kicked the radio stations' doors off their hinges. Until then it was wall to Mantovani's cascading strings, The Typewriter Song and Persil ads.

[Sean Hayden]

That must have been a pretty cool experience.