Beatles Week On BBC2/BBC4

[donaldstott 0]

I often have my ipod on shuffle in the car and pretty much have the entire Beatles back catalogue on there. For the most part I shuffle past any Beatles song that comes on, its sounding very dated all of a sudden to me. Will always listen to 'While my guitar gently weeps' though..

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though

 

Watch the footage of any of their gigs from 60-66 and you will see absolutely nothing else but screaming, tearful teenage girls - exactly like any "Take That" type band since.

 

Maybe their later music would have given rise to gigs with more "serious" fans but we'll never know.

 

But that was a first though wasn't it? Regardless of latter fanbase, for me their later stuff vindicates their talent, in particular John Lennon.

 

Whose solo stuff was dross.

Now that is overrated. Not by you like

[Guest alex]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

Hold on tho, every teenager from every generation thinks "their" music is the one and only and a particular band of that era is the band.

 

Say a bad word to my wife about the Bay city rollers and .......

Are you saying they're just like the Bay City Rollers then?

[PaddockLad 17645]

Belittling by comparing them to Take That just shows your prejudice though, and digging up all these articles doesn't really prove much. Of course the Beatles were influenced by previous bands but I would still state they took their genre further than anyone else.

 

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

Weeelll....it could be argued that The Kinks "invented" heavy metal with their track "Girl I want to be with you (all of the time)"......the use of choppy guitar chords which are left hanging in the air...this hadn't really been done before, and that particular sound went on to influence the up and coming heavy blues gutarists of the West Midlands around that time (Tommy Iommi of Black Sabbath,Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple etc) and also ex public schoolboy Jimmy Page (Led Zeppelin) who collectively it could be said laid down the basic style for every heavy metal cock/poodle rocker thats ever donned a pair of spandex leggings

[ChezGiven 0]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

"All You Need is Love" was written in 7/4.

[Happy Face 29]

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

 

 

Can i just add..I LOVE the Beatles. Always have. Always will.

[NJS 4411]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

I was old enough to see punk supposedly revolutionalise music but it was all exaggerated despite the enthusiasm of the fans - punk was supposed to kill disco/dance music but the 70s ended ruled by garbage like the Bee Gees and Michael Jackson - just like now the charts are still dominated by populist shite.

 

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

[Tooj 17]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

They used feedback before Hendrix iirc.

[ChezGiven 0]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

Hold on tho, every teenager from every generation thinks "their" music is the one and only and a particular band of that era is the band.

 

Say a bad word to my wife about the Bay city rollers and .......

Some of them are right, some of them are wrong. There have been three musical revolutions since the late 1970s, Hip Hop, Punk and Dance music. The lucky ones were 17/18 at their height.

 

Hip Hop took a long time to form so its hard to pinpoint a year.

 

Everything else is derivative.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

"All You Need is Love" was written in 7/4.

 

Like Stravinsky's Firebird and compositions by The Dave Brubeck Quartet?

 

[/Wiki warrior]

[Guest alex]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

I was old enough to see punk supposedly revolutionalise music but it was all exaggerated despite the enthusiasm of the fans - punk was supposed to kill disco/dance music but the 70s ended ruled by garbage like the Bee Gees and Michael Jackson - just like now the charts are still dominated by populist shite.

 

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

It's all a question of taste but I don't think the simple equation that popularity = shite/just people jumping on the bandwagon quite works. Even in the above you've lumped Michael Jackson in with the Bee Gees and there's really no comparison in terms of their talent and ingenuity as artists (at the end of the 70s). I take your point about Punk like (wasn't The Dark Side of the Moon no. 1 at the beginning of the 80s even though punk was meant to have killed porg rock?) and I agree movements are generally hyped beyond what they actually achieved. Acid House changed UK music a lot more for example.

Edited September 9, 2009 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

They used feedback before Hendrix iirc.

 

For one note in an intro.

[Tooj 17]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

They used feedback before Hendrix iirc.

 

For one note in an intro.

It's a good intro though.

 

WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[Renton 21985]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

 

Interesting that you think a studio band would produce singles as opposed to albums, I would have thought the opposite would be true. I'd agree the Beatles never had any 'concept' albums mind.

 

I'm not a musician HF or even much of a music head so I can't give you specifics on any musical techniques they may have devloped. But for me personally what makes them stand out is their melodies, and how prolific they were. Also remember the time frame here, they were one of the first bands to actually write and play their own music. That's a massive step which simple can't be over emphasised.

 

Then there's their cultural impact, which was massive, and the fact we're having this discussion now proves it. No other band comes close. What do you think the reason is for them being overrated?

[PaddockLad 17645]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

I was old enough to see punk supposedly revolutionalise music but it was all exaggerated despite the enthusiasm of the fans - punk was supposed to kill disco/dance music but the 70s ended ruled by garbage like the Bee Gees and Michael Jackson - just like now the charts are still dominated by populist shite.

 

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

 

Not really....John Savage's critique of punk rock "Englands Dreaming" basically says punk rock came out in a significant way as a reaction to the overblown prog rock/heavy metal excesses of the 1970s....why have three artics full of gear for ELP's mid 70s stage show or Led Zep travelling in seperate private jets when all you need is 3 chords an amp and some enthusiasm i.e. the much quoted "do it yourself" ethos of early punk....which is ironically where the Beatles pretty much started in the clubs of Hamburg, but after Shea Stadium they decided they didnt really want to go to where the likes of Led Zep ended up and they became a studio band as mentioned above. This suited all except George Harrison, who was later quoted bemoaning the chance to compare his skills against the likes of Jeff Beck or Tom Petty, and quite possibly paved the way for the frankly awful Travelling Wilburys

[NJS 4411]

It's all a question of taste but I don't think the simple equation that popularity = shite/just people jumping on the bandwagon is as bad as people as what is really manufactured rubbish (which is even me showing my prejudices I suppose). Even in the above you've lumped Michael Jackson in with the Bee Gees and there's really no comparison in terms of their talent and ingenuity as artists (at the end of the 70s). I take your point about Punk like (wasn't The Dark Side of the Moon no. 1 at the beginning of the 80s even though punk was meant to have killed porg rock?) and I agree movements are generally hyped beyond what they actually achieved. Acid House changed UK music a lot more for example.

 

As an admitted outsider to disco/dance/soul I lumped them together more from a group that was meant to be killed as was the case with prog rock as you say.

 

Of course "good" music can be popular and "manufactured shite" can occasionally be enjoyable - I was just talking in general terms.

 

 

Again admitting bias I think the ubiqutous "Beatles or Stones?" question I always saw as an establishment versus outsider thing which would make me lean towards the latter even though I don't really like either. I mention this as a possible explanation for my antipathy.

[ChezGiven 0]

Only a couple of people on this forum can judge the impact the Beatles had. The ones who were alive at the time.

 

Anyone else is just guessing on the basis of what they've read or been told.

 

 

Its strange you say that, at 43 I am the youngest of 7 so there was all sorts of music being played and lying around the house from my older brothers and sisters but I cant really remember any Beatles stuff.

 

You're not one of them then.

 

Imo, to appreciate a musical revolution you have to have not heard any music that came after it or is a derivative style before listening to it. The only way to fulfil that criteria is either to have spent your life listening to music pre-1962 and then at the age of 17/18 listen to the Beatles for the first time. Impossible if you have a radio or TV.

 

When my dad (a professional musician) talks about listening to The Beatles for the first time, he talks about the first moment he heard it and the difference to anything he had heard before. His love for them comes from this moment, one which you can not re-create for later generations.

 

I was old enough to see punk supposedly revolutionalise music but it was all exaggerated despite the enthusiasm of the fans - punk was supposed to kill disco/dance music but the 70s ended ruled by garbage like the Bee Gees and Michael Jackson - just like now the charts are still dominated by populist shite.

 

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

 

This is going to sound a bit cuntish but my Dad (who is my reference for all things The Beatles) went to the Royal Academy of Music in 1967 where he spent most of his time obsessing about Beatles lyrics and music with his pals. I'd call my dad a proper music fan, especially when he can watch obscure prog rock documentaries on BBC4 and name the drummer and recount their antics at a party in Ealing in 1971.

 

We're all struggling to name the one thing that made The Beatles so special because none of us were there. As HF has pointed out, The Beatles werent the first people to record a song in 7/4 but no-one else did so whilst referencing Motown, capturing the social and political aspirations of people undergoing a cultural revolution and mixed it with the French national anthem.

 

Going to wiki straight back at you.."Eclecticism and freedom of expression, in reaction to the rigidity and aesthetic limitations of modernism, are the hallmarks of the postmodern influence in musical composition" Louis Andriessen.

[Renton 21985]

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

 

Pure music snobbery there NJS. I don't think its helpful or true to categorise people like that either.

[NJS 4411]

they were one of the first bands to actually write and play their own music. That's a massive step which simple can't be over emphasised.

 

Then there's their cultural impact, which was massive, and the fact we're having this discussion now proves it. No other band comes close. What do you think the reason is for them being overrated?

 

 

I have no issue acknowledging those points (though I'm unsure if the first one is proven) - being honest I don't really underestimate their influence either - as CT has said I just think their actual music is overrated.

[Guest alex]

It's all a question of taste but I don't think the simple equation that popularity = shite/just people jumping on the bandwagon is as bad as people as what is really manufactured rubbish (which is even me showing my prejudices I suppose). Even in the above you've lumped Michael Jackson in with the Bee Gees and there's really no comparison in terms of their talent and ingenuity as artists (at the end of the 70s). I take your point about Punk like (wasn't The Dark Side of the Moon no. 1 at the beginning of the 80s even though punk was meant to have killed porg rock?) and I agree movements are generally hyped beyond what they actually achieved. Acid House changed UK music a lot more for example.

 

As an admitted outsider to disco/dance/soul I lumped them together more from a group that was meant to be killed as was the case with prog rock as you say.

 

Of course "good" music can be popular and "manufactured shite" can occasionally be enjoyable - I was just talking in general terms.

 

 

Again admitting bias I think the ubiqutous "Beatles or Stones?" question I always saw as an establishment versus outsider thing which would make me lean towards the latter even though I don't really like either. I mention this as a possible explanation for my antipathy.

I like both the Beatles and The Stones although it's a shame the latter didn't pack in after 'Out of Time'. It's funny how you're supposed to like one or the other though - a bit like Blur v. Oasis, etc.

[johnthebrief 0]

I fucking hate the Beatles

 

Scouse twats

[NJS 4411]

Music to me is always divided between stuff that "proper" music fans - people who take it seriously - like and stuff bought by and listened to by more casual listeners who are often influenced just by the notion of popularity. I've always considered The Beatles to be on the latter side of the divide.

 

Pure music snobbery there NJS. I don't think its helpful or true to categorise people like that either.

 

 

Probably but I'll bet if you asked people who bought 10 or less albums a year what they are I could give a pretty good guess as to what they would be.

 

I'd also add that its evidenced by the number of people who "grow out" of music and have an overstated sense of nostalgia for what was popular when they were interested in it because they haven't bought anything since.

[Happy Face 29]

Happy Face, I take your point, not that I read magazine such as Q or care about their scores. But, out of interest, which bands (if any) do you think have been more influential in the development of British rock music than the Beatles?

 

I wouldn't argue that anyone's been more influential, but David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, The Clash/Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd have all been as influetial.

 

I would rather listen to all of those in preference to the Beatles (except The Stones) but disagree they have been as influential. The Beatles are their Daddy, the common root.

 

Interestingly enough I'm just listening to covers of Bowie and Pink Floyd songs by Camille O'Sullivan as I type. She is one hot chick, but I digress.

 

I think the Beatles pioneered the album as opposed to the single....mainly because they became a studio band rather than a live band. Other than that, there's not really much you could say they pioneered....other than manufactured hysteria courtesy of Brian Epstein.

 

They did some messing with four tracks and found sounds...but i think that was inspired by others. What would you give them credit for? A specific technique in the evolution of music, anything comparable to Hendrix's feedback or Van Halens tapping.

 

Interesting that you think a studio band would produce singles as opposed to albums, I would have thought the opposite would be true. I'd agree the Beatles never had any 'concept' albums mind.

 

I'm not a musician HF or even much of a music head so I can't give you specifics on any musical techniques they may have devloped. But for me personally what makes them stand out is their melodies, and how prolific they were. Also remember the time frame here, they were one of the first bands to actually write and play their own music. That's a massive step which simple can't be over emphasised.

 

Then there's their cultural impact, which was massive, and the fact we're having this discussion now proves it. No other band comes close. What do you think the reason is for them being overrated?

 

Because it's received wisdom that "no other band comes close".

 

When the bands I named above are just the ones from British Rock history who I think have been AS influetial musically, if not culturally.

 

I'll agree, The Beatles cultural significance is not overrated.

 

Musically, nobody could live up to that level of hype.

[Guest alex]

I thought it was class to see their performances on Saturday night like. I think it gave an inkling into just what made them special. They were brilliant live and probably a bit different to anything that had been seen before because they did have that universal appeal.