The Beatles Were Quitters!!!

[foreverblue]

It's not so much whether those early songs were pop or rock. Songs like "I Saw Her Standing There", "Can't Buy Me Love" and "She Loves You" were guitar based rockers, complete with guitar breaks, for what that's worth.

Incidentally, the early Beatles albums had lots of American remakes too, Chuck Berry, Arthur Alexander, Carl Perkins, Buddy Holly, etc. I would agree the Stones were harder rockers but we're talking degrees here.

It's more the lack of acknowledgment that the later Beatles were often very poppy later on. "Eleanor Rigby" and "The Long and Winding Road" are lush pop and even have strings on them.

I think what we're really talking about here is the old argument that album artists are inherently better than singles artists. Somehow, that translates into the Beatles being a mere a pop band until they started making meaningful albums. It's all very silly and myopic.

ok it would be fair to say.. paul was occupied with keeping them a pop band but the others were responsible for them evolving into a serious rock band.

those early tracks like you mentioned they were playing a rock and roll blueprint that had already been done by chuck berry etc. the stones wre the same huge berry and bo diddley influences . both the beatles and the syones came into their own by the mid sixities

 

[oscar gamble]

those early tracks like you mentioned they were playing a rock and roll blueprint that had already been done by chuck berry etc. the stones wre the same huge berry and bo diddley influences . both the beatles and the syones came into their own by the mid sixities

Here's where I don't think you give the Beatles enough credit. I'd argue they'd already come into their own by the time they were doing "She Loves You", I Saw Her Standing There", "Please Please Me" and "Help!". I don't think it's fair to sort of write them off as a mere pop band until they turned into album artists.

 

[LG]

I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone who listened to the Beatles later albums thinks they are Poppier than the early works.

In fact I cannot take that seriously and neither do many other fans.

The Beatles always could knock out a hit whenever they wanted, but Abbey Road compared to any record before Rubber Soul...night and day difference.

Nice try at trolling as usual Oscar, you have a gift for that at least.

 

[oscar gamble]

I find it absolutely hilarious that anyone who listened to the Beatles later albums thinks they are Poppier than the early works.

Like I said up above, it depends on your definition of pop. To me "Eleanor Rigby", "The Long & Winding Road", etc. are very poppy. Those songs have strings on them. "Elenor Rigby" is among the most recorded songs ever.

Not everything they did was that poppy, of course. Those are merely examples of how the Beatles produced a lot of pop later on.

In fact I cannot take that seriously and neither do many other fans.

Perhaps this is your entire problem. You're not even trying to get the gist of what I'm saying.

Nice try at trolling as usual Oscar, you have a gift for that at least.

Could you try to be a little more condescending?

 

[LG]

^^Your game is obvious to more than one of us and has been especially noticeable recently.

Me condescending for speaking the truth about you?

All anyone has to do is read your posts to see what your agenda is.

I don't take you seriously because your intentions here are plain for us all to see and you know that. Are you so bored in your other haunts you have to play your tired old game here?

The Beatles had two distinct intervals, I am not going to bother debating that with you and the second half of their discography is by far the better of the two. Because they had grown beyond their early days on every level.

 

[oscar gamble]

^^Your game is obvious to more than one of us and has been especially noticeable recently.

Me condescending for speaking the truth about you?

All anyone has to do is read your posts to see what your agenda is.

I don't take you seriously because your intentions here are plain for us all to see and you know that. Are you so bored in your other haunts you have to play your tired old game here?

I have no idea what you're talking about unless you mean my agenda is that I appreciate the Beatles in their early years. That's not an agenda though. It's simply an aesthetic. You're claiming I'm wrong in thinking the Beatles were "a real rock band" (as you put it) before Rubber Soul?

The Beatles had two distinct intervals, I am not going to bother debating that with you and the second half of their discography is by far the better of the two. Because they had grown beyond their early days on every level.

They may have grown but whether they got better is purely subjective. You ought to know that. There is no right or wrong answer.

 

[LG]

Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew....did I get that gem right?

All I can say is you have got our attention and by that I mean quite a few of the mods not just me although you seem to enjoy singling me out for whatever reason.

Of course it's all subjective, but in cases like this the weight of Empirical evidence and the band members themselves support my argument far more than your's.

Tell me, do any of their early records come close to the The White Album? The early Beatles could not have recorded that one, they had to grow and become better musicians/songwriters and more polished in the studio.

 

[oscar gamble]

Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew, Mew....did I get that gem right?

All I can say is you have got our attention and by that I mean quite a few of the mods not just me although you seem to enjoy singling me out for whatever reason.

First of all, I couldn't even tell you who most of the mods on this board are nor do I care. You must have an awfully high opinion of yourself. As far as your opening salvo above, it was a joke. Geez man, are you really such a stuffed shirt that you're still letting that bother you a week or two later?

Of course it's all subjective, but in cases like this the weight of Empirical evidence and the band members themselves support my argument far more than your's.

LOL, this is priceless. First, you admit it's all subjective, then you start talking about evidence. If it's all subjective, there is no evidence. Again, this ought to be obvious.

Tell me, do any of their early records come close to the The White Album? The early Beatles could not have recorded that one, they had to grow and become better musicians/songwriters and more polished in the studio.

But you see, the fact that the early Beatles couldn't have recorded the White Album entirely misses the point. That doesn't mean that their early stuff wasn't just as good or that I wouldn't like their earlier stuff better. I'll take "She Loves You" over "Rocky Raccoon" and anything over "Revolution 9" for example.

 

[Jake T]

I don't understand this debate about the Beatles being a rock band. There were no rock bands before the Beatles came along. There were rock and roll performers such as Chuck Berry and Little Richard, but no rock bands. Of course they played pop music, that's what everyone did in those days.

 

[oscar gamble]

I don't understand this debate about the Beatles being a rock band. There were no rock bands before the Beatles came along. There were rock and roll performers such as Chuck Berry and Little Richard, but no rock bands.

The Johnny Burnette Trio
Buddy Holly & the Crickets
Bill Haley & the Comets
The Ventures
Link Wray & the Raymen

There were even rock bands in England before the Beatles, like Johnny Kidd & the Pirates who did the original version of "Shakin' All Over".

There were thousands of rock bands before the Beatles, some popular, most not.