Do The Beatles still hold up to modern music?

[cody78]

I realise this is a controversial topic as there are many Beatles fans on here, but I went to see a fantastic covers band last Sunday. They played excellent renditions of songs by Toto, Queen, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi, Meatloaf...and  The Beatles. Now, I don't deny that The Beatles wrote some good songs later in their career, but what struck me was how all The Beatles songs played at the gig the other night were the weakest songs of the night. Even my partner commented that she thought the Beatles sounded out of place and took the life out of the set. I honestly don't believe the Beatles hold up to many artists that followed them. I played a few Beatles songs at an open mic with some random fellow earlier the same day and aside from Let It Be I found their early songs rather dull. 

They may have been amazing from 1962 - 1970 for those who were there, but time has moved on. I can list a thousand albums I enjoy more than a Beatles record, but yet they are still very popular and I often wonder why? I'm not bashing them and I do respect them for their contribution to music and Abbey Road was pretty good. 

So what do others here think? 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by cody78

[Murph]

You have to understand what pop music was, BEFORE the Beatles.

They didn't just change things a little.

They changed things a LOT.

 

[jvi]

I think each generation likes the stuff they first liiked...for me  yeah yeah yeah !  early beatles middle or later !

['Scales]

I can relate to all 3 comments above - Cody, to me they were 'Dad's music' and the songs were too light and fluffy to be of interest. I bought Abbey Road as a teenager but never owned any others until Dad died so I now have the first few LPs.  To Murph's point, yeah - they must have seemed like the coming of punk, metal, psych, prog etc all at once compared to the likes of Buddy Holley, Elvis, Bill Haley or whatever was before them - and whilst nowadays people will flag bands that were around at the same time that had some sort of edge, next to nobody would have had heard of those bands at the time, whereas the Beatles cut through in a world where radio and TV were otherwise local affairs. And to jvi's point, the Beatles' story, life journey and music would have been quite incredible to masses of young people of that generation in the world in which they lived at the time. 

I virtually never listen to their music, but respect that they, more than anyone probably, shaped a rock music scene that gave those of us who came later what we got - and today I play rock not that far removed from their heaviest stuff in a 4 member band consisting 2 guitars, bass and drums. Kudos 🤘

[Notes_Norton]

Some of the Beatles' catalog bores me, and some of it thrills me. The Abbey Road Medley is sublime, while Maxwell's Silver Hammer is not interesting at all to me. A lot of their early work is simple, but often have great B parts that take you out of the tonic key for 8 bars or so in unusual and delightful ways.

I could say the same about Queen, Led Z, Ludwig Beethoven, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi, Bruno Mars, Benny Goodman, Charlie Parker, Dmitri Shostakovich, Etta James, and so many others.

I like music from many generations, and many genres. But I don't know of many artists who can hit a proverbial home run every time.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫

[Narwhal6]

They predate me a little but I'm familiar with most of their music.

For me, the three albums Help, Rubber Soul, and Revolver were where they progressed by leaps and bounds over their previous stuff.

Songs from Revolver like; Dr Robert, She said she said, Paperback writer and Rain could all be released today by a contemporary artist and do well I think. 

 

[Larsongs]

Greatest Band in History! 

[IanHenry]

13 hours ago, Murph said:

You have to understand what pop music was, BEFORE the Beatles.

They didn't just change things a little.

They changed things a LOT.

 

I agree totally with what Murph says, things have to be looked at from the perspective of their era, and you need to appreciate that before all those early artists, Elvis, Chuck Berry,  Budy Holly, Eddie Cochran etc, there was nothing to call Rock'n'Roll, they were working on a blank canvas, every artist that followed just picked up the Batton and took it forward. It's easy for our generation to take this music for granted because, to us, it's always been there.  Everyone who follows owes the people who went before gratitude for creating the genre.

As a side note, how recent are the artists that you mention, I'd guess you are talking about songs that are maybe 30-40 years old!  Sadly I'm of the opinion that Rock'n'Roll has now stagnated, there's little, if any innovation going on now.   

[RBSinTo]

In my opinion, much of the music they composed, as well as many of the covers they did earlier on hold up very well. 

Not that it currently takes much of an effort, considering the terrible dreck that passes for popular music today.

RBSinTo

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by RBSinTo

[Sgt. Pepper]

Do the Beatles hold up today.

That fact that we are discussing them 60 years after they hit the scene, and all 4 haven't recorded a note together since August of '69 I would say YES.

I would rather listen to a 55 year old song than the c-rap out today.

Does Beethoven and Mozart's music hold up? 

[Karloff]

27 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

Do the Beatles hold up today.

That fact that we are discussing them 60 years after they hit the scene, and all 4 haven't recorded a note together since August of '69 I would say YES.

I would rather listen to a 55 year old song than the c-rap out today.

Does Beethoven and Mozart's music hold up? 

exactly

[Sgt. Pepper]

18 hours ago, cody78 said:

I realise this is a controversial topic as there are many Beatles fans on here, but I went to see a fantastic covers band last Sunday. They played excellent renditions of songs by Toto, Queen, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi, Meatloaf...and  The Beatles. Now, I don't deny that The Beatles wrote some good songs later in their career, but what struck me was how all The Beatles songs played at the gig the other night were the weakest songs of the night. Even my partner commented that she thought the Beatles sounded out of place and took the life out of the set. I honestly don't believe the Beatles hold up to many artists that followed them. I played a few Beatles songs at an open mic with some random fellow earlier the same day and aside from Let It Be I found their early songs rather dull. 

They may have been amazing from 1962 - 1970 for those who were there, but time has moved on. I can list a thousand albums I enjoy more than a Beatles record, but yet they are still very popular and I often wonder why? I'm not bashing them and I do respect them for their contribution to music and Abbey Road was pretty good. 

So what do others here think? 

 

The one thing you need to remember was how much after the first few albums is how they started using the studio as an instrument. How do you accurately recreate some of the music they made without 7 extra musicians? By the time the lads decided to give up touring it was time. Girls screaming and no one can hear, and they were not playing that great live either. 

[fortyearspickn]

I was, I think, 16 when they surfaced on the world stage.  Some of their songs were amazing.  As JVi  noted -  there's a point in our live where our musical sensibilities are heightened and what we hear then creates a foundation. (well, I paraphrased).   But, some of their songs never struck a chord with me.   As Sgt.Pepper said - later albums seemed over-produced. Probably started right after "Sgt.Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."  

[Larsongs]

Their Songs struck the “chord” with more people over the past 60 years than any other Band in History.. And still do… 

[Sgt. Pepper]

In 100 years The Beatles will still be talked about, will Bruno Mars, or P!nk, or Green Day, or Amy Winehouse?

I do not like every song, note, or chord from every band I like. There are lots of stuff from The Beatles I don't enjoy. Rev #9 is annoying after one listen, hell its annoying during the initial listen. Then Ringo has to sing some songs. Dudes you have Paul in the group how about we let him take the vocals. How about them Led Zeppelin's? They made In Though The Out Door. Which is as soft as a male porn star before he pops a blue pill, and the list could go on. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Sgt. Pepper

[DanvillRob]

I think, as a group, we've accurately defined the Beatles.

I was pretty young in 1963 when I first heard them....compared the music that was out there, they were TOTALLY different.....and it started an entire generation, (multiple generations?) of bands and singers!

They're old now....of course.... but so are we.

I think Sgt. is right...most people can't name 3 songs by Toto, Bruno Mars, Pink, Green Day or Amy....but most people can name a dozen Beatles songs.

People remember Chuck Berry,  Buddy Holly,  Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis...they're the greats Rock & Roll was based on....Pink?    Not so much.

Would there be an Eric Clapton, Eric Burden, Mic Jagger without The Beatles?    Not so sure.

[Sgt. Pepper]

1 hour ago, DanvillRob said:

Would there be an Eric Clapton, Eric Burden, Mic Jagger without The Beatles?    Not so sure.

There would.

The Beatles first album was out in '63. I think in '60 they formed and by '62 it was now the lads as we know them as: John, Paul, George and Ringo.

The Stones first album was out in '64. So Mick and the boys were already playing and gigging. I think they stated in '62.

Clapton was in the Yardbirds in '63. So Eric C was already playing and gigging. 

The Animals first album was out in '64. So Eric B was already playing and gigging.  I think they stated in '62 as well.

Did The Beatles influence them. I'm sure, but all 3 guys you mentioned didn't hear them, and then decided to start a band or playing, cause they already were. 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Sgt. Pepper

[DanvillRob]

Just now, Sgt. Pepper said:

There would.

The Beatles first album was out in '63.

The Stones first album was out in '64. So Mick and the boys were already playing and gigging. 

Clapton was in the Yardbirds in '63. So Eric C was already playing and gigging. 

The Animals first album was out in '64. So Eric B was already playing and gigging. 

Did The Beatles influence them. I'm sure, but it wasn't all 3 guys you mentioned heard them, and then decided to start a band or playing, cause they already were. 

Yes.... I knew all that...but all of them were marketed as "Boys from England" or "Boys from Liverpool".   Of course, they would have been 'around', but would they have made it as big as they have?

[Sgt. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

Yes.... I knew all that...but all of them were marketed as "Boys from England" or "Boys from Liverpool".   Of course, they would have been 'around', but would they have made it as big as they have?

I think they all would have gone on to great success had The Beatles not been around. Especially since if there was no Beatles, now there was one less group who was monstrous to contend with.

I'm a Raiders fan, and if the damn Steelers were not winning in the 70's like they did, the Raiders would have won at least 2 more Superbowls. Of that I would bet on.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Sgt. Pepper

[DanvillRob]

Just now, Sgt. Pepper said:

I think they all would have gone on to great success had The Beatles not been around. Especially since if there was no Beatles, now there was one less group who was monstrous to contend with.

I'm a Raiders fan, and if the damn Steelers were not winning in the 70's like they did, the Raiders would have won at least 2 more Superbowls. Of that I would bet on.

Would there have been The Beatles had there not been a Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry?   I'm not so sure.

[Sgt. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, DanvillRob said:

Would there have been The Beatles had there not been a Buddy Holly or Chuck Berry?   I'm not so sure.

Sure there would be.

If there was no Gregorian Chants would there have been a Mozart? Yes

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Sgt. Pepper

[Sgt. Pepper]

Here is what happened to The Beatles . They were a decent band, and the stars just aligned for them. The right 4 guys, the right studio, the right label, the right producer, the right sound engineers, ect. Everything just happened at the right place at the right time. They end up making some of the most revered music of all time. 

[merciful-evans]

On 10/5/2023 at 6:59 PM, cody78 said:

I realise this is a controversial topic as there are many Beatles fans on here, but I went to see a fantastic covers band last Sunday. They played excellent renditions of songs by Toto, Queen, Elton John, Fleetwood Mac, Bon Jovi, Meatloaf...and  The Beatles. Now, I don't deny that The Beatles wrote some good songs later in their career, but what struck me was how all The Beatles songs played at the gig the other night were the weakest songs of the night. Even my partner commented that she thought the Beatles sounded out of place and took the life out of the set. I honestly don't believe the Beatles hold up to many artists that followed them. I played a few Beatles songs at an open mic with some random fellow earlier the same day and aside from Let It Be I found their early songs rather dull. 

They may have been amazing from 1962 - 1970 for those who were there, but time has moved on. I can list a thousand albums I enjoy more than a Beatles record, but yet they are still very popular and I often wonder why? I'm not bashing them and I do respect them for their contribution to music and Abbey Road was pretty good. 

So what do others here think? 

 

I don't listen to the Beatles much, but they will always be important to me.  I will always want to have their music available at home. Of the other bands covered you mention, only one means that much to me, and that is Fleetwood Mac (the 1st two incarnations). I have no albums of any of the others and never will.

So I may have had a different experience had I been present at the venue you describe. 

 

[NighthawkChris]

What the Beatles did had to be done at some time or another. But if someone did exactly what they did today, well already been done. It wasn’t my generation (gen X if we must). That classic rock was my dad’s music that I got somewhat familiar with. I also had my generation’s music I liked, but as we might know, I liked rock and metal. Still do… but I respect the Beatles and understand how they were the biggest band of all time. And yes, music for the past decade and possibly more are mostly corporate music garbage sounds. No soul, no life. All image and stupidity. Just me again haha! YMMV

[Notes_Norton]

Pop music is more of an evolution than a static thing.

Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, were not far from the jump blues and boogie-woogie that preceded it. They took the music that came before and evolved it. It's not much different from a lot of Louis Jordan and Louis Prima music.

The Beatles did the same thing. Covers of Twist And Shout, You Really Got A Hold On Me, and others showed their roots, and they took it from there. Rubber Soul marked their maturity to me and the place where they ventured pop music into evolved areas.

Do I think some of the stars of today will be remembered? Definitely, but only time will tell which ones will last.

Someone mentioned the Beatles used the recording studio as an instrument. Les Paul and Mary Ford did that, so did Patti Page and others, but as the recording process became more sophisticated, so did the people using it. The Beatles took full advantage of 4 tracks, and advanced the recording studio as an instrument to new levels. Technology, imagination, and don't forget George Martin who was a wizard of an engineer and music arranger.

And what does hold up to modern music mean anyway? Music has evolved past The Beatles, in some good ways, and in some bad ways. Me? I think Count Basie and Frank Sinatra still hold up today. Not as modern music, but with much of their output, as good music.

Some day The Beatles will be thought of the way we think of Frank Sinatra, Duke Ellington, Elvis Presley and so many others today. And sometime in the distant future, they may become just a footnote in history, no more important than Stephen Foster or Al Jolson. And that's OK. It's pop music, it's disposable, it's the voice of a generation.

I've been playing the retirement audience here in Florida since 1985. It's a good, steady market. At first, we played Sinatra, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Patti Page, and no rock music was allowed. The older people die off, and the younger people take their place. The first time we played a rock and roll song (Elvis) some people danced, and others had a fit. A couple of years later it was mostly early rock (pre Beatles) and when we played a standard, someone said, “You know, Harry James is dead.” Now we don't play Elvis songs very much, Beatles still work, but not as well as they did 10 years ago, and we're playing a lot of 80s rock. We also do some 2000 pop songs that appeal to the older audience.  We just play what they react to and learn more of what they are reacting to.

All things must pass (Thanks, George)

If you like The Beatles, enjoy them for what they are. If you don't care for them, that's OK, too. Everything isn't for everyone. Plenty of people don't like Prokofiev's music, and I think most of it is delightful.

There are only two kinds of music, music I like and music for other people's ears.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ♫