You forgot this one

 

Or Ruby Tuesday, Honky Tonk Woman or Satisfaction either. That said, Rolling Stones never wrote a Hey Jude, Let it be or Penny Lane.
And Love me do (Beatles debut single) is very different to I wanna be your man too.
And neither of them wrote a Good Vibrations, Louie Louie or In my Room either(Beach Boys of course).
Which means they all offered something unique and great of their own

P.S. - And none of those bands had a guitarist like Jimi Hendrix though they all probably wanted to be.

 

Sarcasm firing on all four I see
Maybe the song was so good - Ringo stole it (back ).
Or maybe they were still arguing over Money - that's what they wanted.

 

Pink Floyd made a tongue-in-cheek comment about that in 7/4 on Dark Side of the Moon

 

Imagine that, without what @Djord Emer said you would've grown up with something different.
The Beatles ended up hitting the exact spot in time where music industry started getting really BIG, and basically grabbed the infospace all for themselves. On top of that, their music was highly unique and authentic to itself, very relatable and overall really decent. I don't like and don't understand their music, but the pros who do say it's really decent, so I'll go with their opinion.
Because of that they stayed there instead of fading into irrelevance.

Or maybe it's just the name. I mean, that's no coincidence Beatles and BTS share almost half of it

 

Last edited: Oct 13, 2021

Is this thread about the Beatles' songs or about the Beatles' character or about the industry and the history of music?

 

Hello @justwannadownload, you are forgetting the people (sociology *) and the real social conditions of that time. You can take a look at what things were back then and how little people owned. You cannot compare the conditions then to today's conditions, it was a completely different time. To look through this, you have to look at old films or documentaries from the time, maybe you can understand better why the Beatles got so big.

* Sociology moves between the observation, description, interpretation and analysis of human coexistence.

 

I don't get you. The social and informational environment of early information era is exactly what I take into account here.

 

You don't have to understand me, I just noticed that you completely lacked the social aspect of society at that time. Your analysis is too short. Please do not take in person.

If the Beatles were founded today, they would not be so successful because we have a different society today.

 

Last edited: Oct 13, 2021

I believe that Beatles' glory is based on their talent to carefully select the best available VST plugins, those Abbey Road things are beasts.

 

Last edited: Oct 13, 2021

The subject matter being scrutinised here is too large for this forum. Countless books have been written tracing the period from 1957 to 1970 just to tell the story of what happened during those years. There is nothing in our current historical paradigm that can give anybody a sense of what it was like to live through those years. How quickly the world was changing and how one band seemed to be guiding it has no parallel these days. It was a moment in time where so many things collided and just when it seemed rock n roll was dead, four British boys came to America and upstaged everybody at their own game. The US had Chuck Berry and Little Richard but when John and Paul performed their idols music and shook their heads and screamed, girls (and boys) went to pieces in a way never seen before. By the time the Beatles were playing the first ever stadium shows, Elvis was making lame movies. Beatlemania was the first mass fan explosion. It was a wildfire out of control. It had never happened before and it has never been truly replicated.
So why is their music timeless? Perhaps because time itself is timeless and the songs of The Beatles are forever attached to that time. From the innocence of I Want To Hold Your Hand through to Revolution, you cannot untie the knot that holds them forever with the era in which they were made.

 

OMG that was funny. Everyone said they were ahead of their time when they released certain LP's but they didn't invent time-travel.

 

Thanks @Lenny Belardo II for your description. Very well written and it shows a great understanding of music.

 

"but for some reason some beatles songs are stuck to memory more than them and don't seem to dissolve as much at least...

what made them so intangible in time?"

I am not so sure about that. They were popular and sold a lots of records. Let's say that generations of people knew that they were good. So, as long as people continue to spread their fame, they will be famous.
Paul and Ringo are still alive and continue releasing music, but don't seem to have the same success.

Vivaldi was forgotten for centuries and is now probably in top 5 most popular classical composers...

 

No, I don't get why you say that I lack "the social aspect".
I mean, I do generally lack it, being HFA and all, but I just described in general terms why The Beatles got popular when they did and you say that I, what, didn't?
I can then philosophize about the sixties' push towards introspection and departure from post-WWII grandiose economic optimism, people slowly realizing how many issues their sosieties have and how The Beatles embody the spirit of the era, giving the people what they wanted at the time, but that would be only the clarification on what I and @Djord Emer said earlier. They got popular because they were in the right place and time with the right ideas. They remained popular because their music carefully balances accessibility and musicality so that it remains understandable for the masses without being too dumb. If not for music industry booming at that exact time and place, you would've grown up with somebody else. Because the ideas were there, brewing in people's minds, and they demanded to be heard. Sooner or later it would've happened one way or another.

It has been, actually. But not for your tastes. Ever heard of this little korean boys band called BTS? They delivered a speech in UN not so long ago.

 

Besides of the usual Harrison's videos calling him Faul,
here they're calling him William/Bill.. strange, isn't it?

But maybe he didn't die, but he just retired/moved from the spotlight, or was forced to..
This is the official guide to McCartney's home.. and his striking resemblance to the guy that used to live there?

What do you real Beatles fans think of this video?
His physical size, skull shape, his Eyes.. the tone and sense of humor..
doesn't this guy look, speak and move in a remarkably similar way to the Early Paul?

It's all very coincident to say the least..

There's a billion vids and pictures on the subject, reverse lyrics and shit, and I'm not an expert on the matter,
but I always found the topic interesting, more so when things don't seem to fully add up.


-And no, I'm not a Beatles fan,
it would be long to describe why I don't like their music, and maybe unpolite to their actual fans..

I can Respect it for what it is tho,
they were the first band that toured like that, and they belong to their time.

It was sort of a sociocultural experiment which helped define the entire Industry of Pop-Rock music,
and refine some of the Technical aspects too.. they were Pioneers of both Live and in the Studio.
(Post Blues, post Elvis, and Jazz tho..)

But I just don't like their music at all, nor the Rolling Stones.. while I can really like some Pink Floyd, or Love me some Zeppelin.
(I find it Disgusting actually, but not because it's old or naive,
I can really enjoy the Beach Boys for instance..)

But yeah each one has his own tastes in music/tings.

For instance I also really don't like AC/DC, I think it's Horrible..
but I find Black Sabbath interesting musically/psychologically, and I can really like/respect Iron Maiden..
But yeah, all of this came Later.

The Beatles, came First
(and Zappa!)

 

Last edited: Oct 13, 2021

Do you seriously believe that BTS have ever created a piece of music the equivalent of Strawberry Fields Forever or Yesterday?

 

Well it works - well observed.

I want to add that from my point of view, it has a lot to do with the narrow-minded and unfree societies. By means of music and concerts one could identify oneself and one formed a crowd against the unfree society and changed it a little towards more freedom. The old ones stuck to their folk music and despised and cursed the Beatles.

 

No, music is only a medium for them and their composition techniques are quite conservative, but that's irrelevant. They are blowing up for the past 5 years and only keep getting bigger. For all the same social, cultural and historical reasons The Beatles got big.

 

Lennon, Harrison or Richards were very far from the level of Hendrix guitar wise.