DrFrankCoco
Well-Known Member
Sgt peppers is the only record I can stomach. No offense to beetle folks.
![[DFO] Drum Forum](https://www.drumforum.org/styles/drumforum/xenforo/logo.png){kind=logo}
The Beatles Created 185 Original Songs. How Many Are Good?
- Thread starter Vistalite Black
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Big Ditto
Its funny when I saw Sir Paul in 1990 at Gillette stadium Foxboro Ma, the show was great, was working in hi end audio at the time and everybody was buzzing about it, asked like 40 customers, all were great but did one stand out and "the Long and Winding Road" was chosen like 8/10 times myself included.
Huge Beatles fan here, love most in the bottom 25 or so.
Favorite song, all of them......... ok "Things We Said Today" played that June night 1990, I just froze.
Favorite album, all of them........ok....to me it is the White Album, just great.
Interesting list though.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
old_K_ride
DFO Master
is jweber14 14?
m_anderson
DFO Veteran
It's the one I was going to mention. Earlier someone said something about not liking their early, simple stuff. I think some of it was brilliant. I want to hold Your Hand sucked. I think it was the first American high chart hit, but it really sucked. I can't say that about many old Beatles songs. Eight Days A Week was brilliant. I don't know if it was this locale, but when I was growing up and running around bars in the 80's, there was almost no place you didn't hear I'll Cry Instead, another brilliant tune from 1964. I could go on, but you should all know by now I love The Beatles.
Last edited:
p83
DFO Master
i think there is growing up with the beatles, and then there's getting into the music down the road as a younger person. it might be harder for a younger person to get the impact the music had when it was new, and how it affected all of rock and pop music. they showed the world how it was done. if you count the songs they gave away, it's like 200 in 7 years and most are good or great. try to even write and record 200 bad songs in 7 years.
DrumKeys
Very well Known Member
One of the things that always impressed me about the Beatles, besides the extensive library, was the incredible variety in their catalog. Certainly a lot of the early stuff had a similar sound, but later on, around 65/66 (my favorite era) they just took off, pure genius. I'd argue that no other band has come close to matching them.
WLVN
Well-Known Member
I bought a mono copy of the White Album in Brazil when it first came out. I was thrilled that it had Revolution on it and was greatly disappointed that it wasn't the same version as the up tempo hard rocking single which was all over AM radio. Man, I loved that song! I took the album back to the store for an exchange two or three times thinking I got a defective copy with all the crap time fluctuations and extraneous stuff on the album version of Revolution 1. I asked my sister who had a numbered copy of it back home in the States if it was some kind of mistake and if her copy was the same. She couldn't remember.
The only reason I listened to Revolution 9 was to drive my parents nuts!
It's been interesting to learn over the years how important George Martin was to their recordings and how they capitalized on mistakes made during sessions and sometimes deliberately included them for effect. i.e. The empty Blue Nun wine bottle rattling on the Leslie speaker at the end of Long, Long, Long. https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/long-long-long-story-behind-song-beatles/
"The unexpected cacophony that brings the song to a conclusion owes much to the random, an element The Beatles had long enjoyed bringing to their recordings. As George Martin’s assistant, Chris Thomas, recalled, “There’s a sound near the end of the song which is a bottle of Blue Nun wine rattling away on top of a Leslie speaker cabinet. It just happened. Paul hit a certain note and the bottle started vibrating. We thought it was so good that we set the mikes up and did it again. The Beatles always took advantage of accidents.”
I've been reading the Beatles Bible recently. https://www.beatlesbible.com/ Lots of good history.
They were quite the phenomenon and it was quite an era to grow up during the release of their stuff. There's lots of nostalgia attached to their songs for me; however I get burned out on hearing them from time to time.
I never really like Rubber Soul.
The only reason I listened to Revolution 9 was to drive my parents nuts!
It's been interesting to learn over the years how important George Martin was to their recordings and how they capitalized on mistakes made during sessions and sometimes deliberately included them for effect. i.e. The empty Blue Nun wine bottle rattling on the Leslie speaker at the end of Long, Long, Long. https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/long-long-long-story-behind-song-beatles/
"The unexpected cacophony that brings the song to a conclusion owes much to the random, an element The Beatles had long enjoyed bringing to their recordings. As George Martin’s assistant, Chris Thomas, recalled, “There’s a sound near the end of the song which is a bottle of Blue Nun wine rattling away on top of a Leslie speaker cabinet. It just happened. Paul hit a certain note and the bottle started vibrating. We thought it was so good that we set the mikes up and did it again. The Beatles always took advantage of accidents.”
I've been reading the Beatles Bible recently. https://www.beatlesbible.com/ Lots of good history.
They were quite the phenomenon and it was quite an era to grow up during the release of their stuff. There's lots of nostalgia attached to their songs for me; however I get burned out on hearing them from time to time.
I never really like Rubber Soul.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 5,610
- Reaction score
- 11,642
This.^^^
It's almost impossible to over-emphasize just how much The Beatles changed everything about music at the time. There's a huge difference between learning about a change that happened a half-century ago and actually living through that change.
"poppies"
DFO Veteran
Good point, and I wonder how much of their currently perceived greatness is related to how so much that came after them carries their DNA. I think they're pretty objectively amazing, but I also think they benefit from their shifting culture to a context favorable to their style.
DSDrummer
DFO Master
"A Taste of Honey" is a cover. I adore their entire catalog, but the covers are right at the bottom of the list.
Of the originals that I think are weak:
I'll follow the Sun
Revolution #9
Baby you're a Rich Man
Blue Jay Way (Harrison)
It's All Too Much (Harrison)
Don't Pass me By (Starkey)
Little Child
One After 909
You Know My Name
Baby's in Black
Don't Bother Me (Harrison)
Run for Your Life
Can you Dig it?
It was hard to come up with those; the strong tracks far out number the weak. An off-the-cuff list of my favorites would be very long.
All the hits are justifiably so.
The Albums A Hard Day's Night, Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Abbey Road are perfect and don't have a bad track on them.
Matched Gripper
DFO Star
- Joined
- May 28, 2019
- Messages
- 7,056
- Reaction score
- 8,273
Not a big Beatles fan. And, don’t know the writer’s criteria. But, my faves are scattered throughout the list, none anywhere near the top.
JDA
DFO Star
just for the a̶c̶c̶o̶r̶d̶i̶o̶n̶.. harrmonium ..and the month year month it came out
no I meant this one.
and that intense Harrison Bridge.
no I meant this one.
and that intense Harrison Bridge.
Last edited:
DrumKeys
Very well Known Member
Harmonium. Love that tune.
JDA
DFO Star
that's was the peak before they started smokin pot
(that being the (soon-to-come) next chapter; but that Harmonium song sorta closed that 1st .. 'innocent chapter
With the Beatles You have to remember. They just weren't a 4- man Group.
They had a 5th member in George Martin whom in actuality was a 102- piece orchestra.
So not can't compare Beatles with other "groups" Beatles had 130 members in it.
Moody Blues were sort of similar
Penny Lane had like 72 people (musicians) in it
Beatles had the entire strength of the London Symphony Orchestra behind them Often
wasn't the four-man two-guitars bass and drums- garage-band down the street.
Was more like a National (pride of England) band.
They had more members in it than the Ike and Tina Turner Revue
(that being the (soon-to-come) next chapter; but that Harmonium song sorta closed that 1st .. 'innocent chapter
With the Beatles You have to remember. They just weren't a 4- man Group.
They had a 5th member in George Martin whom in actuality was a 102- piece orchestra.
So not can't compare Beatles with other "groups" Beatles had 130 members in it.
Moody Blues were sort of similar
Penny Lane had like 72 people (musicians) in it
Beatles had the entire strength of the London Symphony Orchestra behind them Often
wasn't the four-man two-guitars bass and drums- garage-band down the street.
Was more like a National (pride of England) band.
They had more members in it than the Ike and Tina Turner Revue
Last edited:
Commodore
Very well Known Member
Oh what the heck... just in case there was one person left on the boards that may have some remaining respect for my opinions, let me go ahead and crush that now. I simply do not care for the Beatles!
I understand it's an age thing, I mean I was like 3 when they hit the Ed Sullivan show and 9 when they broke up. They simply had no direct influence on me. I say "direct" because I acknowledge they had a massive impact on the musicians that I was influenced by, but it was not them directly. In fact I don't even like their music... HEY, PUT THAT PITCHFORK DOWN! I mean I have HUGE respect for what they did and the fact that they changed music around the world in a short 10 years and 185 songs, but I am just not a fan of those songs from a personal taste standpoint. I admire their technical achievements but it's just not "my" music. Again, I was only a child and was more interested in playing with my Matchbox and Hot Wheels (I started playing drums around 7 or 8) than listening to the Beatles.
But to really make you scratch your head, I have been a HUGE fan of Paul McCartney and Wings from day one... I mean HUGE! So yes, I see the irony, I skipped over the ground breaking "art" of the Beatles catalog and went straight for "Silly Love Songs" and "Somebody's Knocking At The Door"!!!
Oh, and to finish off my standing with the boards... I never liked the Stones either! Admired Charlie till the day he passed and thought he was the epitome of class and cool in rock and roll, but never cared for the Stones music.
I'll let myself out now. LOL!
W
I understand it's an age thing, I mean I was like 3 when they hit the Ed Sullivan show and 9 when they broke up. They simply had no direct influence on me. I say "direct" because I acknowledge they had a massive impact on the musicians that I was influenced by, but it was not them directly. In fact I don't even like their music... HEY, PUT THAT PITCHFORK DOWN! I mean I have HUGE respect for what they did and the fact that they changed music around the world in a short 10 years and 185 songs, but I am just not a fan of those songs from a personal taste standpoint. I admire their technical achievements but it's just not "my" music. Again, I was only a child and was more interested in playing with my Matchbox and Hot Wheels (I started playing drums around 7 or 8) than listening to the Beatles.
But to really make you scratch your head, I have been a HUGE fan of Paul McCartney and Wings from day one... I mean HUGE! So yes, I see the irony, I skipped over the ground breaking "art" of the Beatles catalog and went straight for "Silly Love Songs" and "Somebody's Knocking At The Door"!!!
Oh, and to finish off my standing with the boards... I never liked the Stones either! Admired Charlie till the day he passed and thought he was the epitome of class and cool in rock and roll, but never cared for the Stones music.
I'll let myself out now. LOL!
W
Last edited:
Lt. Frank Drebin
Well-Known Member
There's gotta be more of us out there. Please tell me I'm not the only one who thinks the Beatles is the most overrated band in history. (well, them and KISS) What have they contributed? Elvis and Buddy Holly started rock music as we know it. Not like any one member of the Beatles was a virtuoso... I don't get it. But, I'm also not at all artsy-fartsy.
Lt. Frank Drebin
Well-Known Member
Most overrated band in history, IMO. Ringo sucked as drummer, what put them on the map was lame bubblegum pop (I Wanna Hold Your hand), they made drug use cool, and a lot of their hits were covers. I guess I'm not artsy-enough to appreciate the Beatles. The Stones and The Who were far better bands.
Last edited:
