Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhylan
For starters, you can only compare the Beatles to a boy band based on their ages when they started and the reaction of their fans. THEY WROTE SONGS, people. Sure, only 3 minute pop songs in the beginning, but it was some of the best pop to be found in 62, 63, 64, etc.
|
yeah they wrote songs...it's mostly either fluff or unlistenable nonsense...
All you need is love, she loves you yeah yeah yeah, love love me do, we all live in a yellow submarine, you should see polythene pam, obli dee obla da, the song drags on....on and on and on and on.
I'll give you Abbey Road. Damn fine album. And Sgt Peppers -- novel and fun, the rest...not that special.
I think their musical career can be summarized thusly:
They put out a lot of trite stuff for a few years. Then, during an age when everybody and their dog was into TM and drugs, they got into TM and drugs and put out a bunch of psychedelic silliness and added some obnoxious Indian sounds to their music.
That's the creative arc -- they followed the trends of the day and capitalized in the process. Good for them.
I think UL is right on:
Quote:
|
They were geniuses for figuring out how to control thousands of dollar-filled screaming teenagers, and in doing so, they defined an industry.
|
I think they were better marketers than musicians -- the rock movie and the original music video, the big stadium gigs, the well publicized haitus with a famous TM guy....very good marketing.
The other thing they did well was pick an excellent time to be born. The fact that their fatuous fluff was the fad of the massive baby boomer generation, a generation with more wealth and time on their hands then good sense, is a big part of their perceived greatness.