..were an exceptionally good, sometimes groundbreaking, pop group. They certainly weren't/aren't the beginning and end of popular culture. We have to remember that the media is packed with people who were brought up to regard Sgt. Pepper as the greatest album ever, and that myth lives on. Personally I never liked it much, still don't. I grew up listening to the Beatles and bought all the early singles, however my top 10 favourite tracks include the Stones, Dylan, Hendrix, two by the Kinks and nothing by the Fab 4.

Yes.

they were better than that.

A Day in the Life on its own dwarfs the careers of Simon and Garfunkel and Elton John. I would have a lesser known, under appreciated track, like The Ballad of John and Yoko over any song by Elton.

Nirvana made some great tracks (Beatles were a big influence according to Kurt) but based their quiet then loud thing on The Pixies I believe so were not so original. I think The Beatles have a song or two like that (Paperback Writer, made some years before. They were not one-trick ponies.

The Stones and Dylan are major contenders also(undeniably I would say) but not so diverse.

Saying that I wouldn't play the whole of Revolver or The White Album, there are tracks I don't want to hear. But the best of the Beatles is better than the best of most acts. They got there first mostly. It's the music that matters.

mate, stop making a fool of yourself.

I admitted in my blog that I grew up liking the Beatles and yes A day in the life, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields, Something and maybe a bunch of others are very good. However do Yellow Submarine, Oh bla di, Maxwells hammer, Octopus's garden and Lady Madonna for example cut the mustard? I would say they are all bollocks.If you like that crap you must be fooling yourself. Add to that the patchy careers that all of them had after the Beatles split then I would say there was a case for re-assessing the god like status that the media bestows upon them.
My point being that it is pretty much a given that Uncut and Mojo are going to provide several articles on them in the coming year and likely Word will too but admittedly to a lesser extent. I recognise their importance to British popular culture however many people blindly ignore the fact that a good percentage of their stuff was less than brilliant.

It's a fair question to ask. Has the myth or legend grown out of all proportion to what they actually produced?

If anyone is being foolish it is Sven arguing that one song dwarfs the career of S & G or Elton. It's exactly that sort of viewpoint that provokes people to try and get some perspective on the four lovable moptops.

Let's not start calling each other fools.

A Day in the Life is a fantastic track. S & G and Elton had their moments but Beatles are in different league. That particular songs stands as a highpoint for pop music and the Beatles, they didn't just come to that out of the blue - it has a history behind it which is in the song itself. I mean, Elton John - name one song that he did that can stand in the same company as the Beatles best. And S & G - yes there are brilliant songs there, I Am A Rock and Homeward Bound to name but a few, but there are not as many standout songs and they are not as varied or radical for the time they were made. Not that it isn't enough just to enjoy a piece of music without caring if it is 'important' but if you ask the question, well that's my view, which I stand by.

There is plenty of their music I can do without but then we can pick out plenty of embarrassing moments for The Stones and Dylan can't we?

I've always rather liked 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer', 'Octopus's Garden', 'Ob La Di Ob La Da' and 'Yellow Submarine'. Before calling these tunes 'bollocks' I'd be very interested to hear your efforts Steve.

Just conducted an experiment. Ten Beatles songs on i-tunes random shuffle:

And I Love Her
Drive My Car
Girl
I'm A Loser
No Reply
Please Please Me
Taxman
We Can Work It Out
Yes It Is
You're Gonna Lose That Girl

No duds there. All great songs, brilliantly sung and played. Not sure you could do the same with any of the other acts mentioned.
(And if you want to compare The Beatles unfavourably with Nirvana again perhaps you'd like to step outside.)
As for the films being "risible". As they're supposed to be comedies I presume that's a compliment.

I'm sure John and George would be delighted to know that you reckon 'A Day In The Life' and 'Something' are 'very good'. Together with a 'bunch of others'.

that it's as much about the sheer breadth of their work and the speed with which they moved from the early "wooh" shake-the-mop-top stuff to Across The Universe etc - I mean they did all that, with so much in between, in just 7 years. Just think about that for a moment - who else has come close to a journey like that? I can't think of anyone,can you?

Reading Ian Macdonald's Revolution in the Head about The Beatles songs stopped me being such a sceptic and made me see their value more. I'd recommend it.

What other band/act could put out a song like 'Rain' as a b-side.

Adventurous, imaginative and playful (they were). And I think that much as we malign it now there was a sense of a world moment back then in '67 never really equalled before and since (in pop/rock). Even if it all went a bit sour. Sgt Pepper has some great moments too, like Mr Kite, Lucy in the Sky (as covered by Mr John).

...The Best Of The Beatles, were it to exist, would be a filler-free quadruple CD. Name any other artist or band with a 7-year recording career who could match that. So, yes.

Its not easy to distance myself from my personal feelings as I absolutely grew up with the music and even learned to play the guitar with their songbooks. The Beatles remain the cornerstone of my musical heritage. That said, should their comparative lack of live performances post shea stadium count for something in the argument? They never toured Sergeant Pepper or the White Album for instance. Does this add or subtract from the reverence in which the music is held?

Martin

Can you imagine the Hendersons and Pablo Fanques' funky midgets struttin' their trampolinin', fire-eatin', unicyclin', prancin' horsey stuff around George as he took centre stage to within us and without us without mercy?

Stonehenge!

Hmm. I think I would have been forced to find my way downstairs and have a smoke.

Sanitised by Brian Epstein for mass consumption. Only flickers of creativity came through. A Day in the Life is, frankly, half baked and clearly a bodge job of colliding and opposing Lennon and McCartney ideas that don't work. Yesterday is syrupy nonsense and from Pepper onwards, they became insulated and self indulgent. The Beatles were at their best when they rocked - I Feel Fine, And Your Bird Can Sing, Get Back, Revolution, Help etc...they moved a long distance in a short space of time musically, but this was in a time where pop/rock music was still virginal, no-one knew where the boundaries were or what it should sound like. In various interviews both McCartney and Harrison gave massive nods to where they got the influence to change the sound (and influence used here in an Oasis "influence" mode!) - Feedback from the Who, early psychedelia from Floyd and the Pretty Things, lyrical ideas from the Kinks, harmonies from the Beach Boys etc....

They did the spade work for others to follow. Not everyone picked up the baton but, compared to the Stones, The Who and the Pretty Things, insipid and contrived.

"IN MY OPINION!!!"

I grew up with late seventies and early eighties music and don`t really remember the Beatles being feted so much then as they are now. Do they deserve the recognition? Oh yes. The main point has already been mentioned in this thread and that is the fact they got there first. Everything is over analysed (I know I`ve said that somewhere before, too). But in the Beatles case it is with good reason. Pop music is still very young but can anybody see another Beatles out there?

is great but not on the same level as Bridge over Troubled water in my opinion. All bands are influenced by other acts - I dont have a problem with that ie. My Sweet lord and the plagiarism suit that followed. Yes there were similarities but that didnt stop My sweeet lord being a great song.
The main gist of my original blog was the question do they warrant the continual re-appraisal and 'new' angles? - to my mind we risk sucking the life out of their work. Reading all of the articles that have appeared over the life of Mojo magazine for example is rather akin to listening to a classic radio station - sooner or later you get fed up with the constant repeats. Thankfully Word hasnt gone down that road and I hope it never does.

I buy music magazines for a variety of reasons.Chiefly because I like music. Why would you buy a golf magazine if you didnt like golf? Doh!!

...but I'm not sure that pop/rock music wouldn't have happened without them. Bands in the early 60s were evolving even without the Beatles; girls were screaming before the Beatles; a group of 4 men with great hair, style and management would have been discovered; electric guitars would have been made to rawk without the Beatles; people would have learned to sing without 'singing' without the Beatles; Pet Sounds came out before Sgt Pepper; as many artists influenced the Beatles as the other way around.

But no-one evolved as quickly and burned out so efficiently.

The quality of back catalogue depends on who your 'Beatles' were. Mine is REM, yours may be Elton John, and no-one can argue with either.

Frank Whittle invented the jet engine....Rolls Royce perfected it, if you get my drift....

The Beatles opened the door but the Stones ran through it...

And in any case, to quote Homer Simpson, "...why are they bothering. Everyone knows Rock Music gained perfection in 1973..."

that the strongest argument David makes is that they were the first to marry singing/playing with writing so successfully and that is what sets them apart in the history of popular music. However once they had shown the way others followed and some more successfully - not necessarily in terms of sales and influence but in terms of longevity. It seems that most artists have a creative purple patch - this is certainly true of the other artists I suggested might have at least a comparable back catalogue. In further analysis I may have been wide of the mark with both Bowie and Elton John who both followed their purple patch with a lesser canon of work. However Simon and Garfunkel are similar to the Beatles in that they imploded at the top of their game and Rolling Stones deserve comparison because of a)the volume of quality songs in their 'purple patch' and b)their live performances have never been matched for any length of time by any other band.

but the Stones ran through it'?? Where to exactly? To twenty years of stadium rock pantomimic drudgery? If the Fabs hadn't showed them how to write songs they'd be sad old men playing sub-standard R&B and...hang on.....isn't that where we came in?

then The Beatles invented the concept of the self-contained unit in music- a unit which had its own look, language and humour and which permitted no outsiders into the inner sanctum therefore creating an irresistible mystique- the 'band' in other words. Whilst this self-sufficiency was primarily musical ( in the sense that they wrote their own tunes and were therefore free of any 'old school' influence from Tin Pan Alley )it was also sociological- not in terms of class but in respect of the members' distinct provincial status. Their undiluted Liverpudlian accents, coupled with their common look ( haircuts, suits ) emphasised this 'gang' memtality further and came into its own when the band went to America. There they might have been aliens from another world and nowadays we can only imagine how exciting that must have appeared to US teenagers at the time. For this alone The Beatles' place in history would have been assured. But then they had to go and re-define popular music and write the most impressive and beautiful music in the entire pop canon.
Nobody had the effect the Beatles had on the world. Not even Simon and Garfunkel...

Both the Bay City Rollers and the Spice Girls did for different generations at different times. The difference is that neither developed beyond the hysteria and hype whereas the Beatles did.I am not for one minute denigrating all of the work of the Beatles and wasnt when I posted the initial blog but HONESTLY is She Loves you really that much different to Shang a Lang? The Beatles have and deserve their place in history for the way in which they developed as much as anything else - if they had have stopped after the first 4 or 5 singles I really dont think they would be remembered in the same way.

Had they stopped straight after She Loves You their place in pop history would still have been assured. Obviously not remembered in the same way (doh!) but they would have been hugely significant nevertheless.

I agree with Sven. Yeah yeah yeah.

you know you love them.

Wings are better than The Beatles.
So are Supertramp.
And Keane.
Lots of Beatles songs are silly soppy love songs. For girls.
So there.

here's your prize.

David says, "People started thinking in terms of records rather than songs. The person sitting down at the piano or the guitar was hearing a finished waxing in their heads. The only person who came before them who could claim anything like the same creative autonomy was Buddy Holly."

Granted, the songwriting component had yet to be 'absorbed' into the recording process, but didn't Frank Sinatra and Nelson Riddle get there before Buddy? There seems to be a consensus that "Songs For Young Lovers" and "In the Wee Small Hours" were the first thematically unified long players.

Frank may not have been a songwriter, but he sure lived up to the creative autonomy part of the equation.

I wasn't thinking about albums with my original comment. I was just thinking about how they imagined the rush of the final record of "I Want To Hold Your Hand" or "Eight Days A Week" when they were writing it. Most of the songs Sinatra recorded had been done before, often repeatedly. He would have sheet music and an arrangement provided by someone else. There was a road map laid out. Not so the Beatles. This is not to belittle anyone, let alone Sinatra, who was a different kind of genius.
But look at all those chartbusting number one Beatles singles from "She Loves You" through "Paperback Writer" to "Hey Jude". The thing that still amazes is that they weren't on albums. Part of that was tradition, but the greater part of it was that they knew they could write another one just as good tomorrow. They wrote "Penny Lane" and "Strawberry Fields Forever" for "Sgt Pepper". While they were still making the album the record company asked for a single and so they gave them two of their best ever recordings as a double A side, knowing that left them two light on the album.
I don't know anyone else in the history of pop who was that confident.

accept the fact that they were, and are ( and probably will be ), the most important and influential force in popular music and just move on to another topic? The mere fact that the band can provoke such a lively discussion as this- almost forty years since they split- should tell us all we need to know about their enduring inluence and longevity. Can't see Radiohead doing the same in 2037. ( Or Simon and Garfunkel ).

that you're not the same Steve Turner who's written books about The Beatles then?

Yes - but alongside that answer I must mention Neil Finn who is way more consistent than both Lennon and McCartney and gets nowhere near the credit he deserves.

I can never quite fathom why Abba are held in such high esteem. At the time of their release, I seem to recall that the rock media(and any serious music fan, for that matter) was of the opinion that their records were without exception poorly written, badly produced and very badly played rubbish. What has changed?

Their music belongs in the musical garbage can of history along with the exploitative, manufactured and entirely synthetic trash that dominates the charts in general and the Eurovision Song Contest in particular. Their music ranks with nonsense such as Ding-A-Dong, Diggi-Loo, Diggi Ley, Boom Bang-A-Bang and Making Your Mind Up.

On the other hand, The Brotherhood Of Man were, in my opinion, far better. Figaro was a masterpiece.

I find it odd that, out of the entire Beatles catalogue, it's always the same handful of duds that's held up for criticism whilst ignoring the huge majority of Lennon n McCartney n Harrison material that's already proven timeless in every sense. And citing the back catalogues of the Stones, Abba, Simon & Garfunkel and ... strewth ... Elton John, where the reverse is true, undermines any credible argument.
It's all subjective and down to personal taste. They don't have to be everyone's favourite band to prove their value to popular music.

Saying the Beatles are over rated is the easiest way to get a rise out of a music fan. I tried it recently to predictable results. Describing Imagine as "mawkish B.S." didn't go down too well either.

Sgt Peppers was the first album I bought (on the advise of my older brother) and I never really liked it. There are a number of great Beatles songs but I've never felt the need to own them and my heart sinks a little when the Beatles come on the radio - the sheer predictablitly is a bit depressing. On the other hand, I never tire of hearing Waterloo Sunset, an equally predictable choice from the same era which somehow never ages.

I understand their importance, influence and impact. I know they were great song writers and that their recording techniques were ground breaking. I just don't want to listen to them.

break, for a moment there I thought you said you never tired of listening to 'Waterloo'...

If you think about it the name is pretty dreadful for a start. As far as the music goes, whilst 'Sgt Pepper's ...' will always have a special place in my heart for being the first album I can ever remember listening too, on a day to day basis I actually find The Beatles to be rather more dull than some of their contemporaries - I'm more of a Stones girl myself. Even one of the best tracks on that album - the reprise of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - was origionally done by Jimi Hendrix and only included because the 'Fab Four' actually thought his version was better. None of their songs really move me, and that's important. You know that sort of knotted excited feeling you get in your stomach when you hear a particular track, whether it be for the first time or not - I have never had that with any Beatles tracks. Whereas for others, like Dusty Springfield and particularly the Stone's 'Give Me Shelter', I have. As for Sven who said that they were not one trick ponies - for much of their earlier stuff they were and then things just went a bit wierd towards the end. I agree that the band's myth has really rather run away with itself, largely because of Lennon's murder and all the emotion which this has therefore attatched to the band. For those of you who used their massive output as an argument, all I have to say is that it should be about quality not quantity.

that Joanna echoed my sentiments exactly. I have not said that I didnt like the Beatles but I do believe they are hyped beyond all reasonable justification. If you take the classic Stones singles such as Brown Sugar, Jumpin Jack Flash, 19th Nervous breakdown,Satisfaction,Honky Tonk Women and Paint it Black I believe you have in those 6 songs alone a body of work at least the match of the Beatles. They could also do the ballads pretty well too witness Angie,Wild Horses, Ruby Tuesday,As Tears go by et al. Okay,they have done some duff stuff since but at least they are still doing it.

as I do also, and then you acknowledge that the Beatles are at least matched by them, does that not mean you are saying The Beatles were also pretty great?

As far as Sgt Pepper goes, while that is not a bad album, it is given far too much focus by the lazy media, ie including the BBC and tabloid press, as the greatest album ever made. The more knowledgeable (like me of course!) generally agree that Revolver is the Beatles best one, but not necessarily the best ever.

Of course Joanna is speaking words of wisdom to sum them up as one-trick ponies who went a bit weird at the end. Thanks for that insight. Now I'll stop wasting my time listening to them.

...suffer from the phenomenon highlighted here; devoted long-term fans on one side, and on the other - NOT people who dislike the act per se, but people who are not "fans" and whose irritation with the number of column inches still being used, pushes them into adopting a contrary position.

For what it's worth (albeit slightly off-topic), I think this thread is a useful reminder of Word's strength. Namely, the variety of content (and breadth of age and range of interests of the contributors to the mag). Word is varied enough that, when there is a Beatles article for example, you CAN flick past it without feeling short-changed. Not the case with Uncut (my subscription to which I have recently cancelled), where they never seem to publish anything other than BeatlesStonesLedZepWhoSpringsteenBeatlesStonesLedZep....

Kudos to Dave and Mark for a publication that accommodates both camps represented in this thread!

which has major feature on our favourite foursome, also TV doc Pop Brittania with look at managers of famous acts such as guess who!

I love Frank Zappa and The Beach Boys
The Beatles don't really do much for me

they didn't call it Beatlemania for nothing though
the extend of their legacy goes far beyond music

which is the main explanation I see for people harping on about them :D

It saddens me that so many people feel the need to assert some kind of bogus "indviduality" by denigrating the accomplishments of the great. Isn't it enough that the Beatles have so clearly added to the sum of human happiness and continue to do so? Isn't the mere fact that we are having this discussion in 2008 all the evidence anyone should need of their greatness and continued relevance? Isn't it silly to pit band against band, artist against artist as if they were gladiators in some imaginary arena?

if you were to write a history or encyclopedia of pop/rock certain acts would have to feature heavily like Beatles, Dylan, Stones. The fact that you or I might cringe when we hear When I'm 64 or think Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands is a bit tiresome to listen to doesn't change that.

If you ever want to realise the significance of The Beatles, just take a plane to Las Vegas and book a seat at the Cirque du Soleil 'LOVE' show at the Mirage.
There in purpose built theatre you can listen and watch in sumptous sound quality to an homage that makes you realise that if you were around in the 60's the music is still as vibrant and significant as it was 40 years ago.
Just remember that the technology of the Sixties was primative by todays standards. The average working class kid could probably only listen on a single play Dansette machine or in my case the Curry's own make cheaper alternative. But by some quirk the Beatles created music for the time in our lives when we would have the necessary equipment to enjoy stereo pressings on such iconic albums as 'Revolver'.

Charlie I accept your comments and not for one minute do I dispute the fact that the Beatles are still talked about more than any other band but 'Love' is part of the problem. The show I am sure is significantly better than the cd - Mojo for one did a very psychophantic review of the cd and made it sound like an essential purchase and a very important piece of music.I listened to it and wanted to love it but sadly I couldnt. Without wanting to offend the people involved in recording it I didnt see it as much more than a 'Stars on 45' type tribute and,as such, quite disposable.The same with the anthology cd's - all of which I own by the way - I have probably played each of them twice in their entirety.This is part of the problem - the legend surrounding them is colouring everything about the band and criticism however slight is not encouraged. It is the same with Elvis and is not healthy for the current music scene when everyone and everything is compared with this golden age that is held up as the shining beacon that it clearly was not.Most of the artists of that period in time had little or no control over their output, most of them were shafted with bad record deals and had to release often mediocre product to fulfil contract requirements.I accept that it was exciting because it was new but the troubles of those times were possibly worse than current ones - cold war, Vietnam, mods versus rockers, economic decay, Union controlled country going nowhere. Just how golden was that age? Our children have greater opportunities than we ever did as far as I can see. Yes,the Beatles made some absolute cracking songs and so did a few others. I watched a Paul McCartney concert over the holiday period and very good it was too with a substantial slab of his back catalogue played. The American production however was sentimental beyond belief - linking up with a NASA space mission, showing 3 generations of the same family meeting him at a concert in Minneapolis, couples with tears in their eyes when he played for example 'I will'.I have fond memories of the Beatles but also have fond memories of many other bands/concerts/cd's etc and just feel that the saturation doesnt do them any favours.In many recent years I believe that the Beatles have still been one of the biggest selling artists - you can look at this from 2 angles - they must have been good to still sell in such large quantities or the music business is so stagnant that people are buying music made 40 years ago in favour of current releases. They are I guess both valid points but oddly most of the responses to my blog were from Beatles fans but I would suggest that few if any of you are still buying Beatles product.If this means that all the people buying Beatles cd's are newly into music and are going to leap to all sorts of new music as a result of this new listening experience then great - sadly I dont believe that to be the case and it is more of a nostalgia excercise than anything else.

you'd need to write a dissertation or a book - actually that Ian McDonald has done it pretty well, better than I ever could.
You seem to have an issue with Mojo - maybe you should post on their website - see what their readers have to say?

Actually Sven I don't have an issue with Mojo or Word per se - I only mentioned Mojo because theirs was the review that I read. I confess now that my original blog was intended to be provocative however the issues widened as the debate raged. I have enjoyed participating in this discussion and apologise if I have upset anyone which wasn't my intention at all. You are right though the complex issues could be covered more succinctly and with far more skill by one of the professionals which I guess is why we all subscribe to Word and allow them to educate and entertain us. The fact that they also provide this platform is wholly welcomed by me and,I suspect,many others wanting to indulge in the fantasy of being erudite and literate.
Is your other job as a football manager by the way? If so please say Hi to Nancy.

one Steve. Good blog sir. Now then, let's do Dylan....

The Beatles soaked up pretty much all that had gone before them, and re-fashioned it in such a way that it influenced virtually everything that came after. You can start with those first three or four LP's and work your way through the influences and references, either forward through psychedelia, rock, folk, prog, punk, and beyond, or back through rockabilly, country, show tunes and standards. The first LP I ever bought was 'A Collection of Oldies' when I was 11, and I could still probably make a pretty good stab at taking you through my current collection, some 33 years later, in sequence, radiating out from those first purchases with their Chuck Berry,Motown and Buck Owens covers. From the Beatles ... to Dylan to Byrds to Band to Eagles etc. ; or ... to Cream to Led Zeppelin to Howlin Wolf and Muddy Waters; or ... to Smokey Robinson to Stevie Wonder to Aretha Franklin etc.

There is one self evident truth in Steve's 'Love' post above, namely that established Beatles fans are probably not the ones buying the 'new' product. OK every now and again you might want to replace something or upgrade if a re-master comes along but surely a substantial proportion of those CD sales are accounted for by newcomers. If so, great - it doesn't have to be a result of a stagnation in the current music scene. Perhaps this new younger audience simply wants to check out the band that most current bands still either cite as a key influence, or claim to be better than. (See also Razorlight / Dylan at this point). I can think of no better entry point to the wonderful world of rock.

To place the Beatles in a social context you need to look further back to the post war years in Britain and the fact that the Beatles burst on to the scene in 62/63 in a more innocent and optimistic time.

It wasn't until later in their career that musicians (and the fab 4)became politicised.

Whatever you views on their musical merits (and they stand way above most modern chart music) you can't deny the impact they had in their short career and the development in their sound from 62 to 69 is light years ahead of most (all?) others.