Why are the Beatles so timeless and important?

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited July 2007 in Other Music
I am a huge Beatles fan. I consider all their albums to be basically of biblical importance and they have had a major influence on me.

That said lets face it people, most of their stuff from 1962-1966 and some stuff even beyond is simple, easy songs, simple easy chords, and dare I say childish stuff. They didnt really make complex songs with complex chord progressions. Yet they are in my mind the most important band of all time, and most likely will stay that way.

Why are the beatles the best band that ever lived? They werent really reinventing the wheel and creating Tool or Mars Volta like explorations in sonic experimentation. But their music continues to inspire and be loved by boomers and by our generation and our children as well.

How can something so simple, be so powerful and important?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Matty BoyMatty Boy Posts: 421
    Lots of people enjoy nursery rhyme songs like Yellow Submarine. I'm a big John Lennon fan but I could do without a lot of the shit that Paul wrote for The Beatles.
  • reeferchiefreeferchief Posts: 3,569

    How can something so simple, be so powerful and important?

    You could ask the same thing about George W.:p

    Simplicity broadens the appeal I guess, makes it easier to apprehend and be loved.
    It's a formula that works in music Nirvana did it, Oasis still do as do many others.
    Can not be arsed with life no more.
  • dunkmandunkman Posts: 19,646
    Matty Boy wrote:
    Lots of people enjoy nursery rhyme songs like Yellow Submarine. I'm a big John Lennon fan but I could do without a lot of the shit that Paul wrote for The Beatles.


    most people are big fans of Lennon.. i actually like Paul more. Helter Skelter is one of the greatest songs ever made...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    It's the simplest truths, that are the most compelling. Also most accessible. I see Beatles as a starting point of pretty much all modern pop and rock music, although the different parts of the Beatles' appeal has fragmented. Parts of the scene got the screaming teenage girls, the protesters go another place and so on.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • walkthamilewalkthamile Posts: 349
    They werent really reinventing the wheel and creating Tool or Mars Volta like explorations in sonic experimentation.

    Attmepts to be "creative and different" could also be seen as trying too hard....especially in the case of Mars Volta! Cmon those guys cannot be serious!
    +--+-Official Upcoming Australasian Tour:Member #9-+--+
  • Music (and the world) was a lot different in 1963 than it was in 1970. The Beatles had a huge impact on that. Songs that we now consider simple, easy, cheesy, etc.. were new and revolutionary at the time.
    coming up

    MSG 1
    Ringo the next night in Boston
    Hartford
    Boston 1 & 2

    hell's yeah...
  • Indian SummerIndian Summer Posts: 2,296
    the Beatles had timing on their side....Rock and Roll was "new" at the time, and they cashed in on it.
    "It's all happening"
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    I am a huge Beatles fan. I consider all their albums to be basically of biblical importance and they have had a major influence on me.

    That said lets face it people, most of their stuff from 1962-1966 and some stuff even beyond is simple, easy songs, simple easy chords, and dare I say childish stuff. They didnt really make complex songs with complex chord progressions. Yet they are in my mind the most important band of all time, and most likely will stay that way.

    Why are the beatles the best band that ever lived? They werent really reinventing the wheel and creating Tool or Mars Volta like explorations in sonic experimentation. But their music continues to inspire and be loved by boomers and by our generation and our children as well.

    How can something so simple, be so powerful and important?

    1. tool is the most over-rated band on the planet. every song sounds the same.

    2. that is why the beatles are so important. sure, tool tries a million weird time signatures... yet every tool song still sounds exactly the same. just being overly complicated does not make a song good. the beatles used very simple music, yet their songs sound so diverse and wide ranging it can be like listening to a different band from track to track. but at its heart is that simple and lovable music that makes it reach millions while still pushing boundaries.

    tool is like those... what are those engineering projects colleges have where you have to try to make a hugely complicated machine do something like pour a glass of water? the more unnecessary steps there are, the better your project. that's how i see bands being experimental for the sake of being experimental. it takes tool 15 time changes, 8 minutes of indulgent guitar solos, and 6 minutes of incomprehensible lyrics to do what the beatls accomplish with 3 chords in 3 minutes. sure, the one LOOKS impressive, but that doesn't mean it's worthwhile.
  • prytocorduroyprytocorduroy Posts: 4,355
    dunkman wrote:
    most people are big fans of Lennon.. i actually like Paul more. Helter Skelter is one of the greatest songs ever made...
    Yeah out the records I have Paul's songs are the ones I listen to more :)

    I have another question though. Why is Sgt. Peppers deemed the greatest by the majority? It's very good, but the White Album and Abbey Road bury it by my ears.
  • markymark550markymark550 Posts: 5,138
    Music (and the world) was a lot different in 1963 than it was in 1970. The Beatles had a huge impact on that. Songs that we now consider simple, easy, cheesy, etc.. were new and revolutionary at the time.
    I agree with this

    I've talked to my parents about the music they listened to when they were growing up and the things they've said about the Beatles closely mirrors your statement.
  • muppetmuppet Posts: 980
    I'd take a simple, catchy song by The Beatles over some pretentious 10 minute long song by Tool any day.

    Songs don't need complicated time signatures or binaural recording techniques in order to be good.
  • TeslarockerTeslarocker Posts: 123
    danny72688 wrote:
    I have another question though. Why is Sgt. Peppers deemed the greatest by the majority? It's very good, but the White Album and Abbey Road bury it by my ears.

    I think I agree with you, at least in regards to Abbey Road. They put out their most sophisticated music with that cd
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,483
    The beatles accomplished what they did in 7 or 8 years, and called it quits before they put out any bad music, or experienced a fall from grace or popularity...they went out on top!

    Compare them to the Who or the Stones, who insist on releasing marginal albums (often repackaged or live) just so they have some product out to promote when they tour.
  • that's where i get my info from as well. I'm only 29, so I wasn't there myself, but my parents were. I grew up listening to this stuff and lisening to them tell stories of old concerts (especially Woodstock) and what it was like at the time.
    I love my mom's old Beatle cards, magazines, pictures and newspapers clippings.
    I agree with this

    I've talked to my parents about the music they listened to when they were growing up and the things they've said about the Beatles closely mirrors your statement.
    coming up

    MSG 1
    Ringo the next night in Boston
    Hartford
    Boston 1 & 2

    hell's yeah...
  • the Beatles were only around as a band for 6-7 years. The number of records and amount of great music they put out in that short time is amazing.
    coming up

    MSG 1
    Ringo the next night in Boston
    Hartford
    Boston 1 & 2

    hell's yeah...
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,853
    They werent really reinventing the wheel and creating Tool or Mars Volta like explorations in sonic experimentation.

    um, yes they were.

    Within You Without You
    Strawberry Fields
    Mr. Kite
    I am the Walrus

    there's just a few songs that puts Tool's....haha....."sonic experimentation" to shame
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • gtbrown77gtbrown77 Posts: 141
    danny72688 wrote:
    Yeah out the records I have Paul's songs are the ones I listen to more :)

    I have another question though. Why is Sgt. Peppers deemed the greatest by the majority? It's very good, but the White Album and Abbey Road bury it by my ears.

    I would agree...White Album and Abbey Road are much better than SPLHCB. But, it was SPLHCB that REALLY changed the direction of music for The Beatles (and in general) at that time (well, that and The Beach Boys Pet Sounds). Even Ringo thinks that SPLHCB wasn't that good of an album...

    The Beatles are so timeless and important because of the range of music that they performed, the catchy hooks, the simplicity of some songs vs. the complexity of others. Almost anything that has been done in music in the past 45 years - The Beatles did it first. They were a TALENTED group of guys who could write wonderful songs - particularly the songwriting duo of Lennon/McCartney. Even during the later years that were filled with fighting and leaving the band and Yoko's prescence - when it came to the music, there was nothing that could stop them - not even Paul's ego or John's addictions.

    Plus they had George Martin producing their albums. I think his knowledge of music and his willingness to experiment with whatever they brought to the table only helped to expand their reach to people through the music.

    They were the right band at the right time. If a band were to come along today doing what they had done 40 years ago we'd all be bored and say (to quote George Harrison from the Simpsons episode) "Ah...it's been done before".

    If you haven't already, watch the Anthology documentary...if you walk away from that not knowing the answer to your question, well, then you just don't get it.
    "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
    -John Lennon
  • prytocorduroyprytocorduroy Posts: 4,355
    gtbrown77 wrote:
    I would agree...White Album and Abbey Road are much better than SPLHCB. But, it was SPLHCB that REALLY changed the direction of music for The Beatles (and in general) at that time (well, that and The Beach Boys Pet Sounds). Even Ringo thinks that SPLHCB wasn't that good of an album...
    That pretty much what I figured. It's all relative to the time it came out. Too bad I wasn't around for it, must've been crazy awesome times!

    And also my post probably made it sound like White and Abbey Road get no recognition which is totally untrue. I just don't get the Sgt. Pepper's worship because I wasn't there (doesn't help my parents weren't really heavy into them) ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.