Like Bond-mania, Beatle-mania was huge in the 1960s ;D
Anybody here like or have any type of relation to The Beatles, or are old enough to have experienced Beatle-mania?
[url]- YouTube
Overated in my opinion, Stones were better.
Never been a fan.
I experienced the hype, but I was a bit too young to enjoy it
I had several cousins who were fans.
When I started to like rock music, the hype was over. My Sweet Lord (a terrible track) was a hit when I started to listen to the Top 40 on the radio, and watch progams like TopPop en Tienerklanken (Teenage Sounds) on Dutch/Belgian television
Never liked their music. Rather poor musicians, some good songs, but nothing special.
Yes, The Stones were much better.
your average Beatles fans.
I like them. I don’t like the Stomes pretty much
That’s what the Stones are for me 
I can’t say I’ve ever liked The Beatles. In fact, I can’t say I’ve liked much music after 1960 (I’m a big fan of Jazz, Classical and Crooners).
But there was so much, especially in Jazz after 1960.
Well, there was some good stuff after 1960 (Miles Davis springs to mind), but Jazz originated from the 1920’s. Likewise, Crooners came more from the 1940’s and thereabouts. Maybe I should have said that I didn’t really like any new music genre’s after 1960.
[quote=“Dillinger, post:6, topic:2228”]I like them. I don’t like the Stomes pretty much
That’s what the Stones are for me ;)[/quote]
Same here. Stones never impressed me…
Well…
I was a huge fan of The Beatles and still like them to some degree.
And I don’t look anything like those guys in the pic that Yod posted! 
The Beatles were what drove me to learn to play guitar and compose my own music.
So, they were an undeniable influence on me.
I also liked The Rolling Stones. However, to be blunt and honest with you guys…they were crap musicians!
But, that is what made them so good!
I have to completely disagree with Scherp on the musical ability of The Beatles, though. The weakest musician among them was Ringo Starr and he wasn’t a terrible drummer (just not as good as some–including Charlie Watts). The rest of them were quite proficient.
They were highly innovative and unique, too.
And it is arguable, but I doubt The Stones would have made it if The Beatles hadn’t come along first. By that, I mean The Stones wouldn’t have reached their level of international fame if The Beatles hadn’t been so popular. After all, The Stones were successfully marketed as the anti-Beatles.
However, I can understand why and how some people just don’t “get” The Beatles or are not fans.
It is similar to the way I feel about John Ford in the cinematic realm.
I feel Ford is important to the history of cinema and that he developed many things that a lot of my favorite directors reworked, expounded, and expanded upon. But, I am not a fan of his work, per se.
I can totally see how someone else might feel the same way about The Beatles and their importance to the realm of Rock and Roll.
However, that all said…
For the past few years I have noticed myself not listening to much Rock of any kind, anymore.
It just doesn’t appeal to me, anymore.
Occasionally, I get wistful and nostalgic and I drag out some of the stuff I was into when I was in High School and just out (The Jam, The Clash, The Buzzcocks, and such).
But, on an average day…I just don’t care about Rock ‘n’ Roll like I used to.
Your average Stones fans…
;D
[quote=“Chris_Casey, post:11, topic:2228”]Well…
I was a huge fan of The Beatles and still like them to some degree.
And I don’t look anything like those guys in the pic that Yod posted! ;)[/quote]
Your not a scouser that’s why Chris ;D
Love the Beatles (like the stones as well). It’s easy for someone to declare something so hyped & popular ‘overrated’ (had this discussion many times here before) but the Beatles actually live up to this hype. They weren’t good live when they came to the states but the George Martin production fit the band perfectly from their early years, peaking around Revolver & Sgt. Peppers (probably the best LP ever made/Just ask Brian Wilson 
) & on to Abbey Road & the ‘White’ album (an album that obviously highlighted the group’s disarray but heralded by many for it’s ‘organized confusion’).
While I was born the year they broke up, I obviously did not live ‘phony Beatle mania’ but had the pleasure of discovering their music through vinyl I was given as a kid. Years latter they were also the same LP’s that I first attempted to scratch, launching my DJ career.
Sometime being over popular makes it hard for listeners to hear a band’s music for what it’s worth but I heard Sgt. Peppers for the first time (with the pullout cutouts & all) I was floored. For the Benefit Of Mr Kite, She’s Leaving Home & Day In The Life can never be considered ‘pop’ song & are 3 of the best & impactful songs I’ve ever heard (for those who haven’e heard the LP in it’s entirety, do so). One of the first groups to use orchestral music as well as sitar, their latter tracks paved the way for future production (not to mention ‘sampling’ years before hip hop) songs like I Am The Walrus & Tomorrow Never Knows are great examples of Martin’s groundbreaking talents.
Again, it doesn’t surprise me to be in the minority with this.
[quote=“I…I…Idiot, post:14, topic:2228”]Love the Beatles (like the stones as well). It’s easy for someone to declare something so hyped & popular ‘overrated’ (had this discussion many times here before) but the Beatles actually live up to this hype. They weren’t good live when they came to the states but the George Martin production fit the band perfectly from their early years, peaking around Revolver & Sgt. Peppers (probably the best LP ever made/Just ask Brian Wilson ) & on to Abbey Road & the ‘White’ album (an album that obviously highlighted the group’s disarray but heralded by many for it’s ‘organized confusion’).
While I was born the year they broke up, I obviously did not live ‘phony Beatle mania’ but had the pleasure of discovering their music through vinyl I was given as a kid. Years latter they were also the same LP’s that I first attempted to scratch, launching my DJ career.
Sometime being over popular makes it hard for listeners to hear a band’s music for what it’s worth but I heard Sgt. Peppers for the first time (with the pullout cutouts & all) I was floored. For the Benefit Of Mr Kite, She’s Leaving Home & Day In The Life can never be considered ‘pop’ song & are 3 of the best & impactful songs I’ve ever heard (for those who haven’e heard the LP in it’s entirety, do so). One of the first groups to use orchestral music as well as sitar, their latter tracks paved the way for future production (not to mention ‘sampling’ years before hip hop) songs like I Am The Walrus & Tomorrow Never Knows are great examples of Martin’s groundbreaking talents.
Again, it doesn’t surprise me to be in the minority with this.[/quote]
Absolutely the only thing I disagree with here is where you say “they weren’t good live when they came to the States”. They were absolutely perfect live in those days. If you listen to some of their live performances from '64 and '65 it is outrageously amazing how good these guys really were.
In those days they didn’t have throw-back speakers or monitors. They couldn’t hear themselves at all–especially with all the crazy screaming fans going full throttle to boot.
Yet, when you listen to sound-board recordings they hardly ever, if ever, miss a beat, a chord change or anything. That is some damn amazing work under the conditions they were in. They were known to flub a lyrical line or two from time to time, though; but, musically they were generally spot on.
Otherwise, I think all of your points are perfectly valid, compadre.
A band which is able to make an unbelievable song like I’m the Walrus is hard to top. Or A Day in the Life. Or Strawberry Fields Forever. Or Eleanor Rigby. Or …
Their albums from Revolver onwards are all great, but not perfect. There is always a bit too much pop on them. But their are so much of these incredible songs. Lennon and McCartney were extremely talented songwriters when working together. And Harrison was also very good.
agreed 100%
Of course what created Beatle-mania in the first years was probably a new unique sound compared to earlier 1950s rock n roll
And also their look with long hair, which was quite new for early 1960s
Their first songs might not have been so special apart from the new sound, but later on they developed their song writing and arrangements
I’m personally not a fan, but obviously they had a great impact on 1960s popular music
I think they also experimented a lot with drugs, so they weren’t as clean and nice as they seemed :o
Yes, they took evrything the 60s gave them. Sex, drugs, rock’n roll (and geraniums).
But they were innovative from the beginning on. Always experimenting with the structure and the sound. Doing stuff nobody did before.
Of course doing drugs was nothing unusual among rock musicians in the 1960s
And famous people like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and The Doors’ Jim Morrison even died of heavy drug use 