# Which was the better Beatles Period



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Which was the better Beatles Period

How good were they first 4 albums fair, poor or Rubbish


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

50/50 between good and rubbish at this stage, so guess they were only half bad


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

There. That settles it! Nothing to see here! :tiphat:


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 50/50 between good and rubbish at this stage, so guess they were only half bad


No much room for discussion there Eddie. 
( But I stay out, to young to judge)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Pugg said:


> No much room for discussion there Eddie.
> ( But I stay out, to young to judge)


Ah but the poll is young too, lets see what we get in a day or too ( a day in the life - note not in the first 4 albums)


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> *Which was the better Beatles Period
> 
> *


George Harrison was the better Beatles. Period.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

I havent even voted as I am sure the vast majority will vote "good", and I've seen too many Beatles polls to bother with them anymore. The options of the poll are very general though and it's hard to decide if the results, regardless of how they turn out, really mean anything. More interesting and applicable to the great music of history would be: would any Beatles albums be voted for in a poll that asked for the " most profound music" or "most awe-inspiring music" or "greatest emotional/conceptual depth", or the like?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> George Harrison was the better Beatles. Period.


I would say John


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I would say John


No question he was the best artist of the bunch.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I have little interest in the Beatles pre-_Help!_ but if the first four (or five if I include _Help!_) albums are to be judged as 60s pop music in its purest sense then there was little better around and the group came on leaps and bounds within a relatively short period of time, becoming more sophisticated album by album. _Rubber Soul_ - album no.6 - was the culmination of their pop period before the experimentation and studio trickery started to kick in.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Of the early Beatles I'm mostly dissatisfied with their (rock 'n' roll) covers (too soft/sweet), with the exception of those of the _Please Please Me_ recordings and the Ringo funnies. The Lennon/McCartney stuff is already very good, though. I consider _A Hard Day's Night_ as one of their highlights. _Beatles For Sale_ yielded some great classics, too.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

elgars ghost said:


> I have little interest in the Beatles pre-_Help!_ but if the first four (or five if I include _Help!_) albums are to be judged as 60s pop music in its purest sense then there was little better around and the group came on leaps and bounds within a relatively short period of time, becoming more sophisticated album by album. _Rubber Soul_ - album no.6 - was the culmination of their pop period before the experimentation and studio trickery started to kick in.


Exactly my thoughts :tiphat: have to keep in mind the state of early rock at the time. They were at the forefront of its development. I know people that equate tuneful and accessible automtically with worse, and less accessible, angry music with better, which of course doesn't make sense.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Exactly my thoughts :tiphat: have to keep in mind the state of early rock at the time. They were at the forefront of its development. I know people that equate tuneful and accessible automtically with worse, and less accessible, angry music with better, which of course doesn't make sense.


I would hope those aren't the reasons. The Beatles music, by and large (especially during this period) lacks depth and is too often one-dimensional (they expanded from this somewhat with later works). Mozart or Haydn or Bach, for example, wrote plenty of accessible, tuneful, cheerful music that is far more compelling and exhibits far greater depth of insight, composition, melody, etc.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Good God there are a lot of early insect lovers here........


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Please Please Me, A Hard Day's Night, and Help! (just beyond this poll's end) are my favorite Beatles CDs.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

1966................


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I don't know if I should vote based on my impressions of the music, or vote based on what the music was/is and vote based upon how well it did what it intended to do.

Personally, I find it too poppy and lacking in sophistication, but that was it's intention, and in that regard, it's excellent.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't know if I should vote based on my impressions of the music, or vote based on what the music was/is and vote based upon how well it did what it intended to do.
> 
> Personally, I find it too poppy and lacking in sophistication, but that was it's intention, and in that regard, it's excellent.


Yes, indeed, masterpieces of the sort :cheers:


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Jay said:


> 1966................


1824... ... ... ...


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Jay said:


> 1966................


And 1967bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Revolver followed up by Sgt. Pepper. Oh yes! Those were indeed the days.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

But were takin about the first 4, not the good stuff


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> But were takin about the first 4, not the good stuff


The Beatles could do some mean covers. Money, on their second album, is probably my favourite cover by any band. Some may disagree, but I found the originals all better than the Stones' covers, except Love in Vain.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The Beatles could do some mean covers. Money, on their second album, is probably my favourite cover by any band. Some may disagree, but I found the originals all better than the Stones' covers, except Love in Vain.


Even better, more intricate, than Brahms' cover of Beethoven's 10th with his first symphony?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Even better, more intricate, than Brahms' cover of Beethoven's 10th with his first symphony?


I used to think Brahms' First sounded like Beethoven, but it definitely doesn't follow Beethoven's style of composition.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I used to think Brahms' First sounded like Beethoven, but it definitely doesn't follow Beethoven's style of composition.


It was a joke!

(Though I suppose you don't see the humor in your Brahms/Beatles comparison).

Anyway, I agree that Brahms doesnt sound that much like Beethoven. One might say his symphonies sound as if Beethoven were starting to become Mahler. Of course, Brahms is really just ... Brahms.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> More interesting and applicable to the great music of history would be: would any Beatles albums be voted for in a poll that asked for the " most profound music" or "most awe-inspiring music" or "greatest emotional/conceptual depth", or the like?


And would it matter if they weren't?

Assuming we're comparing like with like (not Beatles with Beethoven) what else of its kind was better than The Beatles at that time (first four albums that is)?

And just to check - which are folks counting as the first four?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_discography


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> And would it matter if they weren't?
> 
> Assuming we're comparing like with like (not Beatles with Beethoven) what else of its kind was better than The Beatles at that time (first four albums that is)?
> 
> ...


As OP I say we go with the first 4 UK releases as per below
https://www.beatlesbible.com/discography/united-kingdom/
1. *Please Please Me
2. **With The Beatles
3. **A Hard Day's Night
4. **Beatles For Sale*


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> As OP I say we go with the first 4 UK releases as per below
> https://www.beatlesbible.com/discography/united-kingdom/
> 1. *Please Please Me
> 2. **With The Beatles
> ...


Good on you, keep them in line Eddie.


----------



## WaterRat (May 19, 2015)

AfterHours said:


> The Beatles music, by and large (especially during this period) lacks depth and is too often one-dimensional (they expanded from this somewhat with later works)...


There are some good songs on the early albums, but it's hard to sit through an album of mostly teeny fluff. Any more light-weight and they'd disappear.

It started to pick up somewhat by their 3rd or 4th album, or at least with Rubber Soul.


----------



## Guest (May 20, 2017)

Interesting to see what else was popular in 1963 in the US album chart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_200_number-one_albums_of_1963

Allan Sherman
Andy Williams
West Side Story
Vaughan Meader (??)
Frank Fontaine
Peter Paul and Mary
The Singing Nun
and...
Little Stevie Wonder !

In the UK:

The Shadows
West Side Story
The Black and White Minstrels
Summer Holiday (Cliff Richard)
The Beatles

http://www.britishchartalbums.com/index.php/number-1-albums/1960s/1963-2/

The Beatles were number 1 from May '63 to April '64 (two albums) until some competition arrived, The Rolling Stones, who managed a miserable 12 weeks before The Beatles knocked them off the top.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Assuming we're comparing like with like (not Beatles with Beethoven) what else of its kind was better than The Beatles at that time (first four albums that is)?


Are you familiar with all the 1940s and 1950s vocal groups that, fundamentally, produced similar music, several years prior? 




How about an album from 1957? 




(both illustrate how minimal/unoriginal an 'advance" in music of the time that The Beatles actually were)

Furthermore...

1957: 



1959/1960: 



1960: 



1962: 



Roy Orbison: 



1963: 




The following are excellent examples why I consider their music of the period so irrelevant:
1963: 



 (also, compare to The Beatles rhythmically, drums, guitars... or even vocally)
1964: 



1964: 



1964: 



1964: 




I wanted to show some history first, to illustrate the myth of how "revolutionary" The Beatles were (they were a little different, but you might as well call them a band. So is every one else I've linked to). I've hardly even begun with music from 1963 on, and could post many more, but lets start there...


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> As OP I say we go with the first 4 UK releases as per below
> https://www.beatlesbible.com/discography/united-kingdom/
> 1. *Please Please Me
> 2. **With The Beatles
> ...


Their first four albums are variable. Please, Please Me is full of new vitality. With the Beatles has them finding their feet with that difficult second album. Hard Days Night stands with anything later as a great album, probably because of the greater dependence on their own material. Beatles for Sale is the weakest of the four with the regression to using covers and merely marks time until the new material appears in HELP. IMO of course.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It was a joke!
> 
> (*Though I suppose you don't see the humor in your Brahms/Beatles comparison).*
> 
> Anyway, I agree that Brahms doesnt sound that much like Beethoven. One might say his symphonies sound as if Beethoven were starting to become Mahler. Of course, Brahms is really just ... Brahms.


I see much more humour in the Beefheart/Stravinsky one


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see much more humour in the Beefheart/Stravinsky one


I think Beefheart saw a lot of humor in much of his music (though it could switch on a dime to something else entirely) !


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> The following are excellent examples why I consider their music of the period so irrelevant...


But not excellent examples of the irrelevance of their music.

Thanks for the link to Lonnie Mack. I hadn't heard of him so good to grow my knowledge.

However, as I was not claiming that they were revolutionary, I'm not sure why you felt the need to offer a full blown 'assassination' of their worth, especially in a thread obviously aimed at fans not critics.

In response, I would reiterate my point about comparing like with like (which you didn't) and observe that offering The Animals and The Kinks whose work came after _Please Please Me _misses my question about pop in 1963. I would also add that any analysis of the importance of The Beatles that takes no account of either the difference between the musical and social contexts of the US and the UK, as well as the development of multiple genres and sub-genres is an incomplete analysis.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> But not excellent examples of the irrelevance of their music.
> 
> Thanks for the link to Lonnie Mack. I hadn't heard of him so good to grow my knowledge.
> 
> ...


Fine that you were not claiming they were revolutionary. Regardless, it is perhaps valuable to point out for those that think so, which is the majority in my experience. Ignorance is not bliss, imo.

Re: comparisons ... Did you not listen to the links I provided?

Re: complete analysis ... I have no interest in wasting my time in doing so, especially on The Beatles first four albums ... so if that's what you're asking for, maybe someone else has the time to spend on such a thing


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2017)

@afterhours

Yes, I checked out the links. Not sure how much you think I needed to listen to draw my conclusion, but like you, I'm drawing on personal knowledge and experience that I don't feel the need to lay out here. I don't see that comparison with guitarists/bands that played the blues, or sang doo-***, or with solo artists like Buddy Holly answered my question.

No, I wasn't looking for a full analysis. I simply inferred that you'd already carried one out to be able to conclude not only that The Beatles were _not_ revolutionary, but that they were irrelevant. My own experience of the music of the period from living in a Fab Four mad family in England at the time, and my experience of music and reading about them since leads me to a different conclusion.

I'll leave it to others to do the musical analysis of the albums and the extent to which they stand up to the pop of 1963 in the UK. Suffice to say that most music historians recognise their relevance and impact on the culture and the subsequent development of pop music, whether you do or not.

Oh, thread duty. I love PPM, though my bias prevents me from making objective claims for its greatness. It was integral to my growing up, and the rise and fall of the group mirrored the rise and fall of my childhood. They are part of my DNA, more so than any classical composer Ive loved since except perhaps Satie and Sibelius.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> @afterhours
> 
> Yes, I checked out the links. Not sure how much you think I needed to listen to draw my conclusion, but like you, I'm drawing on personal knowledge and experience that I don't feel the need to lay out here. I don't see that comparison with guitarists/bands that played the blues, or sang doo-***, or with solo artists like Buddy Holly answered my question.
> 
> ...


That's fine, it's not a subject I'm interested in enough to spend a ton of time going over to any great extent, at least right now (especially as I've already done so extensively in the past). So we'll just have to agree to disagree. Fwiw re: "irrelevant", I was only referring to them as music artists in relation to music history, not as a cultural phenomenon. They are undoubtedly substantial as a "cultural phenomenon". Musically, if you feel they were truly substantial, then you have a lot of company and my disagreement shouldn't make much of a dent


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> @afterhours
> 
> Yes, I checked out the links. Not sure how much you think I needed to listen to draw my conclusion, but like you, I'm drawing on personal knowledge and experience that I don't feel the need to lay out here. I don't see that comparison with guitarists/bands that played the blues, or sang doo-***, or with solo artists like Buddy Holly answered my question.
> 
> ...


No, the Beatles were not revolutionary with these first 4 albums. But with Rubber Soul onward, the Beatles were indeed revolutionary, at least in the world of popular music. Howard Goodall says their influence extended even into ALL musical genres, which I can't say I've seen any evidence of myself.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I think after the first 4 albums Brian E had less influence and George M took over more


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think after the first 4 albums Brian E had less influence and George M took over more


There is some evidence to back your statement. Brian E was a leech. He was only interested in music sales, and sold out concerts, publicity from their mop top haircuts. By the time they were making real music, Epstein had a small role. He was the Maurice Starr of the 60's.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> There is some evidence to back your statement. Brian E was a leech. He was only interested in music sales, and sold out concerts, publicity from their mop top haircuts. By the time they were making real music, Epstein had a small role. He was the Maurice Starr of the 60's.


A quite unfair and incomplete view, I'd say. It is argued that he was only interested in Lennon, for a start!

https://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/04/28/john-lennon-and-brian-epstein-holiday-in-barcelona-spain/

One of the most significant points about The Beatles is that they were a departure from the acts that were spotted by impresarios who were chiefly vehicles for others' material. Compare how much was written by Cliff Richard and Elvis Presley and how much on _Please Please Me _by Lennon and MacCartney (more than half).


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> A quite unfair and incomplete view, I'd say. It is argued that he was only interested in Lennon, for a start!
> 
> https://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/04/28/john-lennon-and-brian-epstein-holiday-in-barcelona-spain/
> 
> One of the most significant points about The Beatles is that they were a departure from the acts that were spotted by impresarios who were chiefly vehicles for others' material. Compare how much was written by Cliff Richard and Elvis Presley and how much on _Please Please Me _by Lennon and MacCartney (more than half).


Cliff and Elvis are not good comparisons- if we are discussing impact of their music compared to their contemporaries we need to look at velvet underground, the animals and the mothers for example


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> A quite unfair and incomplete view, I'd say. It is argued that he was only interested in Lennon, for a start!
> 
> https://www.beatlesbible.com/1963/04/28/john-lennon-and-brian-epstein-holiday-in-barcelona-spain/
> 
> One of the most significant points about The Beatles is that they were a departure from the acts that were spotted by impresarios who were chiefly vehicles for others' material. Compare how much was written by Cliff Richard and Elvis Presley and how much on _Please Please Me _by Lennon and MacCartney (more than half).


Unfair to Epstein? Sure he did help the Beatles by putting them on the map, I was exaggerating. But the Beatles didn't need him for artistic goals.


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> if we are discussing impact of their music


I wasn't. I was simply pointing out that The Beatles were one of the first acts of the rock 'n roll / pop era to write their own material more than they sang covers or others songs, and that their predecessors in the 'linear' development of pop didn't. (I put 'linear' in scare quotes because of course such development isn't linear at all).


----------

