Re: Beatles Apreciation Thread
Eva´s Dad wrote:RICjunkie wrote:I'd have to rate Pink Floyd and Led Zepplin way ahead of both the Stones .
Agree . As to the Beatles - I think you can´t really take them in this kind of ranking, because they are of a different category. They are not only a pop/rock group, but more a piece of art or a cultural institution. You are right: they are/were not the best musicians, not the best singers, not the best looking guys etc., but they had a synthesis of good songs, a good performance, good lyrics, intelligent/intellectual statements, acting out a lifestyle of a generation and inviting to identify with.
And nowadays everybody knows them and their songs, they are part of the collective knowledge. If we have nearby a village festival with this terrible Bavarian ooomta-music, you can be sure to hear a lot of Beatles songs, but only one Stones song (starting with S).
GünterGünter I agree with your assessment of them being pop stars. The 60's version of Backstreet Boys. The Beatles success was partly that Brian Epstein was such a good promoter (got them that early gig on Ed Sullivan) and partly I think that 90% of all the women in their child bearing years wanted Sir Paul to father their offspring... (question - how DID he wind up with that psycho Heather Mills???)
Come to think of it, I've never heard a song by The Who converted to Muzak (elevator music).
I do agree with their early image being right place right time. What they did from there was no backstreet boys sceenario. Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers, The White Album, Abbey Road changed music, and pop culture.
Not many bands you first heard when you were 6 years old could evolve with you and keep your attention thoughout their career and beyond. They turned on the music switch in me. Of course I went on to the Who, Stones, Zep, and then to the blues but the Beatles is where it began.