# Beatles recommendations please



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

OK, I never really got the Beatles. I'm guessing it's being a late 60s baby I grew up in a culture saturated with them so never saw why they were supposed to be special. Still don't. And I can't stand all that wooooo + head shake early stuff.
Quite like most of John Lennon's solo career, Paul not at all, and some of George Harrison's music was interesting but nothing I'd flip over. Ringo is the voiceover for Thomas the Tank Engine. 

So, can some of you recommend some Beatles to listen to that will show why they were such a big deal? I've got Sgt Peppers and it does nothing for me, always end up kicking it off in favour of Albert Collins or Freddie King or JLH or something a bit chewier. 

Not looking for a flamefest (which is why this is going here and not TGP) - really, I'm guessing I'm really missing something. So, what is it?
Thanks


----------



## Vox71 (Mar 25, 2008)

The White Album. My favourite, because it is so eclectic. May be a lot for a newbie Beatles listener to get in to, because it is a double album, but it is a great album.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

hmm best place to start with the beatles, probably revolver and rubber soul... those are the two i keep returning to. i also love love abbey road.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I love the two double disc compilations the red 62-67 and the Blue 67-70. I love it! it's just very happy music and really alot of fun to play. Rubber Soul is a great album and so is Sgt Pepper. Then there's the White album.. Anyway I guess it's like alot of Iconic music, you love it or you hate it. Good luck exploring!


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

I would agree with the double white album and Abbey Road. Abbey Road is my personal favourite of the Beatles.

Brian


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

as many have said above, Revolver and Rubber Soul are 2 of my favorites too.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

My opinion is that in order to reay appreciate the Beatles, you have to play some of their stuff. Forgeting for the moment that their vocal arrangements are impecable, musicaly, the Beatles are allways a little more complex then you first realize....
If on the other hand your tastes follow a 12 bar blues pattern with a great solo, then the Beatls are not for you.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> OK, I never really got the Beatles. I'm guessing it's being a late 60s baby I grew up in a culture saturated with them so never saw why they were supposed to be special. Still don't. And I can't stand all that wooooo + head shake early stuff.
> Quite like most of John Lennon's solo career, Paul not at all, and some of George Harrison's music was interesting but nothing I'd flip over. Ringo is the voiceover for Thomas the Tank Engine.
> 
> So, can some of you recommend some Beatles to listen to that will show why they were such a big deal? I've got Sgt Peppers and it does nothing for me, always end up kicking it off in favour of Albert Collins or Freddie King or JLH or something a bit chewier.
> ...


My recommendation is for Abbey Road. But I'm thinking if you don't get it now you probably never will. Not that I'm a huge Beatles fan but when I hear them I appreciate the musical genius they are.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I think it really is the context I'm missing - I saw a documentary once about Elvis and they made the point about the impact he made by flicking over what was on the other channels at the same time: you had perry Como in a cardian sitting in a rocking chair then BAM! Elvis and everything changed. I'm guessing the Beatles were the same. Same with Jimi Hendrix too. Colours everything that comes afterwards so it's hard to see what all the fuss was about because everything is derivative of it in some way... 

So, thanks for all the pointers folks - so I'm going to head off and give White, Abbey Road, and Revolver a listen then.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> I think it really is the context I'm missing - I saw a documentary once about Elvis and they made the point about the impact he made by flicking over what was on the other channels at the same time: you had perry Como in a cardian sitting in a rocking chair then BAM! Elvis and everything changed. I'm guessing the Beatles were the same. Same with Jimi Hendrix too. Colours everything that comes afterwards so it's hard to see what all the fuss was about because everything is derivative of it in some way...
> 
> So, thanks for all the pointers folks - so I'm going to head off and give White, Abbey Road, and Revolver a listen then.


Out of all the music written from past eras I think the Beatles music holds up the best as timeless. These are songs that could be written today and still be phenomenal hits.


----------



## Stratin2traynor (Sep 27, 2006)

I have to admit that I never really got the Beatles either. I've tried listening to them but, I just get bored. It just doesn't click with me. I'll keep trying now and then but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> Out of all the music written from past eras I think the Beatles music holds up the best as timeless. These are songs that could be written today and still be phenomenal hits.


Yes, I think Oasis proved that ;-)


Stratin2traynor said:


> I have to admit that I never really got the Beatles either. I've tried listening to them but, I just get bored. It just doesn't click with me. I'll keep trying now and then but I won't hold my breath.


Hey, maybe we should start a support group. "My name's _____ and I don't get the Beatles" <applause> 
I'm listening to Rubber Soul right now...trying to resist putting on Axis: Bold as Love instead...

Who mentioned covers? I really liked PM Dawn's Norwegian wood and Twelfth Night's Eleanor Rigby though. Siouxie's Dear Prudence was good. Maybe they're going to be like Bob Dylan and the Yardbirds for me too -- love their songs done by other people?


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> I think it really is the context I'm missing - I saw a documentary once about Elvis and they made the point about the impact he made by flicking over what was on the other channels at the same time: you had perry Como in a cardian sitting in a rocking chair then BAM! Elvis and everything changed. I'm guessing the Beatles were the same. Same with Jimi Hendrix too. Colours everything that comes afterwards so it's hard to see what all the fuss was about because everything is derivative of it in some way...
> 
> So, thanks for all the pointers folks - so I'm going to head off and give White, Abbey Road, and Revolver a listen then.


in terms of context, what's amazing about the beatles is that they were a major pop act who got to write their own songs... at the time this was very unusual, in that there were song writers, and there were song performers... that they then rode the cultural wave that was the 60's movement can't be understated either. perfect timing, great band. their early stuff is really just straight ahead pop fluff. very well sung and played, but nothing "for the ages", really.. it wasn't until they started to expand into progressive musical territory that they became the powerhouse they're known for being. rubber soul is the album to listen to, to hear them really expanding beyond the pop framework for the first time.

all this said, i think that too much attention is focussed on the beatles, really.. there were a lot of other important bands pushing the limits at the time... the same thing can be said of jimi, i suppose... the thing with him is that he pretty much invented the blues/rock guitar god thing. he was sloppy as hell, and the labels have wrung every friggin penny out of his career by releasing a lot of stuff that i doubt jimi'd have wanted heard... but when he's on, he's ON, and you can really hear the power and depth of his chops. the famous story is of jeff beck going to see jimi play in a club for the first time, and he meets eric clapton coming out shaking his head. jeff asks him, "is he that bad then?", and eric says, "no he's that good".


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> OK, I never really got the Beatles. I'm guessing it's being a late 60s baby I grew up in a culture saturated with them so never saw why they were supposed to be special. Still don't. And I can't stand all that wooooo + head shake early stuff.
> Quite like most of John Lennon's solo career, Paul not at all, and some of George Harrison's music was interesting but nothing I'd flip over. Ringo is the voiceover for Thomas the Tank Engine.
> 
> So, can some of you recommend some Beatles to listen to that will show why they were such a big deal? I've got Sgt Peppers and it does nothing for me,
> ...


Well, to me, the Beatles had a knack of turning the simplest of chord progressions into something more. Actually, many of their chord progressions weren't that simple, but they rearranged the ones that were by going places with them that you wouldn't have expected. There was always a surprise change coming up somewhere ahead. Don't ask me for examples-I'm not really that analytical. On the surface, their songs do sound quite trite and simple, and poppy and fluffy, but they were streets ahead of anybody at the time with vocal harmonies that weren't just 1-3-5 harmonies. They always managed to add some spice to their music by throwing in little oddball harmonies that their contemporaries just couldn't envision.

Another thing to consider is that they were ever the musical explorers-they pushed George Martin, their producer, to the limit with their willingness to use orchestral instruments and arrangements that other bands of the time would never even be interested in.

They were the first 'group' that really was a group, not just a Frankie Avalon/Bobby Darin/whoever frontman with a backline of unknowns-that was another huge step out of the dark ages.

And oh yeah, remember that before their time, there weren't a lot of, if any, artists writing their own material. It just wasn't even considered that a singer, or group as a whole would have any kind of writing chops at all-it was kind of like the Nashville song factories of today back then for pop music, although I must admit, a lot of the big country stars do write their own material now.

You might never 'get it', and that's okay-I have albums in my collection from decades ago by other artists that I bought because they were supposed to be so great, and I couldn't appreciate them. Every once in a while I'll dig them out and give it another try, and they still don't appeal to me. Here's another flamefest target that I could cite as an example-I have never been able to get into Rush. I know they're great musicians, and Canadian, for Heaven's sake, and HUGELY GIGANTICALLY popular world-wide, but their music just doesn't grab me in any big way. I even bought a double Greatest Hits album by them recently to give another listen, and I just can't get into their music. Funnily enough, I saw them live with some friends in the Caress Of Steel era, and ended up being a big big Max Webster fan because of it. I went to see Rush, and Max (unknown to me at the time), the openers of the show, made the big impression that I went away with. For that matter, I don't really get into Hendix's stuff all that much either, as a whole, even though I know he was a great player-it's all just personal preference.

So I just think that if you don't get it, don't sweat it-there's lots of other music in the world for lots of different tastes-that's what makes music rock! For me, Sergeant Pepper's, A Hard Days Night (get the American soundtrack version with the George Martin instrumentals added in) and the White Album are the big ones. As for their solo careers, I tend to agree with you-even though John Lennon was my favourite Beatle, his offerings, being the best of the bunch, still couldn't compare to what the band did as a whole.

Anyway, sorry for the long read, I have some time on my hands today, and thought I'd try to put down some of the reasons why I like the Beatles so much.
-Mikey


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Revolver. 

The first album released in Canada was Beatlemania. Their last was Let It Be. Revolver is somewhere in the middle.

Also, Beatlemania was the first album I ever bought - in November 1963.


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

devnulljp said:


> Yes, I think Oasis proved that ;-)


HUH?????? Sorry, I didn't get that.
-Mikey


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

Paul said:


> I'm pretty sure Oasis covered "Helter Skelter" at one point.


Sorry, it was an oblique reference to Oasis being in many ways a Beatles cover band...even I can hear the derivations in a lot of their stuff. I find Oasis a bit like twiddling the dial on the radio - you hear so many snippets of other people's music. Oh that bit was Gary Glitter...Oh She loves you yeah yeah yeah...Oh The Jam...
But they were very successful playing Beatles songs repackaged as their own.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> Sorry, it was an oblique reference to Oasis being in many ways a Beatles cover band...even I can hear the derivations in a lot of their stuff. I find Oasis a bit like twiddling the dial on the radio - you hear so many snippets of other people's music. Oh that bit was Gary Glitter...Oh She loves you yeah yeah yeah...Oh The Jam...
> But they were very successful playing Beatles songs repackaged as their own.


I for one really, really like Oasis. they make no bones of the fact that they are GIANT Beatles fans and sometimes they think of their music as what the beatles may have been (Did I meantion they have HUGE egos) Oasis is another band that you either love em or hate em.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Spikezone said:


> You might never 'get it', and that's okay-I have albums in my collection from decades ago by other artists that I bought because they were supposed to be so great, and I couldn't appreciate them. Every once in a while I'll dig them out and give it another try, and they still don't appeal to me. Here's another flamefest target that I could cite as an example-I have never been able to get into Rush. I know they're great musicians, and Canadian, for Heaven's sake, and HUGELY GIGANTICALLY popular world-wide, but their music just doesn't grab me in any big way. I even bought a double Greatest Hits album by them recently to give another listen, and I just can't get into their music. Funnily enough, I saw them live with some friends in the Caress Of Steel era, and ended up being a big big Max Webster fan because of it. I went to see Rush, and Max (unknown to me at the time), the openers of the show, made the big impression that I went away with. For that matter, I don't really get into Hendix's stuff all that much either, as a whole, even though I know he was a great player-it's all just personal preference.-Mikey



Hey dont' you worry about "not Getting" Rush. Alot of people don't dig their music. They are another band I'm a huge fan of. I love the arrangements, the lyrics, I even love Neil Pearts books. People really think it's strange when a woman loves Rush... And New Rush at that.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

September, 1963. I was 7 years old. My parents had taken us to visit relatives in England. I was laying on the floor in front of the TV, working on homework I had been given to take with me, surrounded by relatives in conversation. There's a variety show on - for some reason I believe it was "Top of the Pops" or something like that. The host comes out holding a rubber beetle and the audience goes nuts. All conversation stops and everyone turns to the tv and sits quietly watching these four boys in their suits play 2 songs. My first exposure to the phenominon. I decided then and there that I was to become a pop star. As soon as I got back to Canada my mom took me to Kresges and I buy my first record. For Christmas I get my first guitar and for my birthday I get lessons.

Well, I never quite made pop-star status but if it weren't for the four mop-tops from Liverpool then I probably wouldn't even be a member of this forum.

Fact is that even their early stuff was anything but simple. Pull off some of those chords - even better - learn one of George's early solos. So darn simple but at the same time I'll bet that you learn something new about the fretboard in the process.

And these were 19/20 year-old kids.

And then there is the wealth of "newer" material. From beginning to end there is a lifetime of learning for a musician in the body of their work.

This past weekend I had tickets to see what's left of the Searchers. It was a great show and they paraded all of their "hits" (Love Potion #9, etc). The bass player's telling stories about the whole Mersey Explosion. How the Searchers were on the same circuit as the Beatles and how they all knew each other and used to help each other out with gear, vans, girls, etc.

I'm sitting there, listening to the songs thinking what an absolute world of difference there was in talent between the two acts. How amazingly amazing that the Beatles ever came to exist.

They're a musical miracle .... and every song has some relevence - even the seemingly throw-away stuff. Geeez - listen to Dizzie Miss Lizzie or Money, or I'm Down....... what? 2 tracks live off the floor? wow. Now put on the 2nd side of Abbey Road and let it play through. What - maybe 5 years between those recordings....quadruple wow.

Say it with me - wow.....:bow:


----------



## Apostrophe (') (Dec 30, 2007)

devnulljp said:


> OK, I never really got the Beatles. I'm guessing it's being a late 60s baby I grew up in a culture saturated with them so never saw why they were supposed to be special. Still don't. And I can't stand all that wooooo + head shake early stuff.
> Quite like most of John Lennon's solo career, Paul not at all, and some of George Harrison's music was interesting but nothing I'd flip over. Ringo is the voiceover for Thomas the Tank Engine.
> 
> So, can some of you recommend some Beatles to listen to that will show why they were such a big deal? I've got Sgt Peppers and it does nothing for me, always end up kicking it off in favour of Albert Collins or Freddie King or JLH or something a bit chewier.
> ...


It's funny you like Lennon, but not McCartney because I'm the same way, even within the Beatles catalogue. McCartney is a great pop writer, but at times he gets way too whimsical and superficial for my tastes. His bass playing is what I enjoy most about him.

Personally I think Abbey Road is their best output. Really polished, excellent production, tasty guitars, great harmonies, songs that work and flow together. I'd recommend I Want You and the B-side medley.

Revolver is #2, it's more of an experiment that bounces between McCartney's uber pop and Lennon's drug/alternative rock. I love the guitar tone on this album. I always liked And Your Bird Can Sing and Tomorrow Never Knows here.

The White Album has grown on me. It's weird in that it has no cohesion amongst the songs, yet manages to collectively work together. If they took the best here and made it into a single album, it may have been their best effort. Here I like Dear Prudence, Yer Blues, Happiness is A Warm Gun, While My Guitar and Savoy Truffle for its saxes.

Pepper is very good but overrated. Sags too much in the middle for me.

Rubber Soul is good but overrated. They could have trimmed it by a couple of songs.


----------

