Goodson said:

---

helloimustbegoing said:

---

Little known fact, Prince wrote most of their songs.

---

Whhhhaaaaatttt?

---

I always thought it was Clarence.

The only creative bands from that era are the Beatles and The Who. All the rest are followers.

dcAg said:

---

The only creative bands from that era are the Beatles and The Who. All the rest are followers.

---

Huh? How is Hendrix a follower?

The Doors were copying the Beatles

Man the Beatles were horrible singers and musicians

TXAG 05 said:

---

PipelineMoeNorman said:

---

The Doors were copying the Beatles

Man the Beatles were horrible singers and musicians

---

No offense, but you are a moron.

---

You forgot to say "With all due respect".

I recall watching them on the Ed Sullivan show. Friends sister had the album. I liked the Dave Clark 5 more as I recall.

So fun fact of the day, Paul McCartney wrote or co-wrote the most number one singles ever.
Number 2? Barry Gibb. He was responsible for 16 number one hits, which is crazy.

And yes, incoming number 2 jokes anticipated.

That was before Hendrix broke out. A quick search says that was June 4th, 1967. Two weeks later on June 18th, 1967 Jimi played a break out set at the Monterey Pop festival and pulled out all of the stops including lighting his guitar on fire. I think McCartney recommended Hendrix to the festival organizers. This may have been Jimi's way of saying thank you. Jimi knew paul would be in attendance when he played sergeant pepper. He rarely played it again.

Jimi was the GOAT

LawHall88 said:

---

The Get Back documentary trailer is out. Guess I'll need to get a Disney subscription now.

Experience #TheBeatlesGetBack, a three-part Original Docuseries from director Peter Jackson streaming November 25 on #DisneyPlus.

Watch the new trailer now! pic.twitter.com/KoA9heA2dp

— Disney+ (@disneyplus) October 13, 2021

---

Watch the first clip from #TheBeatlesGetBack and experience Peter Jackson’s three-part event beginning November 25 on @DisneyPlus. #letitbe @johnlennon @paulmccartney @georgeharrison @ringostarrmusic pic.twitter.com/GczRbz9Eay

— The Beatles (@thebeatles) November 12, 2021

That would be much better if they edited Yoko's moron ass out in post

Excited to watch Get Back.

Polarizing =/= overrated

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

Rocagnante said:

---

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

There is a story in one of the documentaries, I think (I guess it could be an interview), where they were playing the music for different songs because they could not hear each other

Rocagnante said:

---

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I wouldn't say they invented heavy metal, but definitely were an influence with that song.

Context matters on the live performance. How many people were playing 60k plus stadiums in the early 60's?

They said many times that they would just sing or say whatever they felt like because no one (including themselves) could hear anything over the crowd noise.

long going thread, so might as well throw out my opinion. They're not overrated just based on the influence and impact they've had and continue to have on music and pop culture.

I do think George Harrison is underrated. By Abbey Road he was every bit as good of a song writer as John and Paul. "Something" is by far my favorite song from their catalog, and i like his post Beatles material more than the others.

I just want to add that, 30 years ago in 1991, as an 11 year old, I first started to discover music on my own, independent of what my parents were listening to.

30 years before that time, the beatles or stones weren't even around yet. It's amazing how much happened from '61 to '91, as compared to '92 to '22. Pretty every subgenre of rock/hard rock/metal that exists today was created in the first 30 years.

62strat said:

---

I just want to add that, 30 years ago in 1991, as an 11 year old, I first started to discover music on my own, independent of what my parents were listening to.

30 years before that time, the beatles or stones weren't even around yet. It's amazing how much happened from '61 to '91, as compared to '92 to '22. Pretty every subgenre of rock/hard rock/metal that exists today was created in the first 30 years.

---

Now 30 years from 1991 rock as a whole is almost a niche compared to other popular music these days.

course as soon as I hit submit, I realize Elvis kinda needs to be included in the history of rock...

So 1956-1991 = 35 years, and you pretty much have every subgenre that exists today, since grunge just snuck in the 35th year there.

Lololololol

Not overrated at all. Two of the greatest song writers ever born in the same band.

Had they stayed together another decade, no one would have matched their work.

Got to see them at the Sam Houston Coliseum in 1965. I say "see" them because you could hear very little with all the girls screaming. At least I have that memory of being there. Saw Elvis at the rodeo a few years later. Yep....I'm old.

texags08 said:

---

Rocagnante said:

---

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I wouldn't say they invented heavy metal, but definitely were an influence with that song.

Context matters on the live performance. How many people were playing 60k plus stadiums in the early 60's?

---

Well, the Beatles weren't playing 60k stadiums. Their record was like 55 before zep.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/when-led-zeppelin-started-breaking-records-set-by-the-beatles.html/

Rocagnante said:

---

or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I've never heard that claim. Only that their later material was way too complex/too many instruments to pull off live. Plus they were pumping out a load of material, of really high quality, from 66-69. 7 freaking albums worth. Who would have time to tour being that prolific?

And their last tour is noted as having quite a reduction in audience volume, resulting from more mature music that began to appeal to men, not just young women who were the culprits of the high pitched screaming earlier in their career.

62strat said:

---

Rocagnante said:

---

or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I've never heard that claim. Only that their later material was way too complex/too many instruments to pull off live. Plus they were pumping out a load of material, of really high quality, from 66-69. 7 freaking albums worth. Who would have time to tour being that prolific?

And their last tour is noted as having quite a reduction in audience volume, resulting from more mature music that began to appeal to men, not just young women who were the culprits of the high pitched screaming earlier in their career.

---

The too loud claim is pretty well known. Part of it was that the stadium sound systems were terrible, but they couldn't hear their music. Ringo has said that he would just watch John or Paul's movements and guess where they were in the song and play what he thought.

My first thought was Zeppelin didn't have that issue, but their large shows were several years after Beatles so maybe technology had advanced a lot. Also Zep's music translates better to live shows. I might be making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

However I also find it plausible that they got mixed up with a set list one time and threw crowd noise out there as an excuse to look better and it kind of took on a life of its own over the years. And why would the Beatles try to stop it from growing? Adds to their legend.

TXAG 05 said:

---

62strat said:

---

Rocagnante said:

---

or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I've never heard that claim. Only that their later material was way too complex/too many instruments to pull off live. Plus they were pumping out a load of material, of really high quality, from 66-69. 7 freaking albums worth. Who would have time to tour being that prolific?

And their last tour is noted as having quite a reduction in audience volume, resulting from more mature music that began to appeal to men, not just young women who were the culprits of the high pitched screaming earlier in their career.

---

The too loud claim is pretty well known. Part of it was that the stadium sound systems were terrible, but they couldn't hear their music. Ringo has said that he would just watch John or Paul's movements and guess where they were in the song and play what he thought.

---

for the first tour, yes, but that's not what was being referred to. As stated the last tour was claimed to not be near as loud. Their audience was no longer 100% giddy girls, but a lot more stoners lol. A Beatles in say 1968 probably would have easily been feasible in regards to sound issues they had in 1964.

Macarthur said:

---

texags08 said:

---

Rocagnante said:

---

Been a couple of eye rolling claims on this thread, like the Beatles "invented" heavy metal with one song or they couldn't tour/play live because the audience was "too loud".

---

I wouldn't say they invented heavy metal, but definitely were an influence with that song.

Context matters on the live performance. How many people were playing 60k plus stadiums in the early 60's?

---

Well, the Beatles weren't playing 60k stadiums. Their record was like 55 before zep.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/when-led-zeppelin-started-breaking-records-set-by-the-beatles.html/

---

Oh no, I guessed 10% off. Players couldn't hear **** on Kyle field in 2001 when 86,000 were yelling just as much as they still can't hear **** when 102,000 are yelling.

I will say the Beatles were a big musical influence. Partly because of the timing of there debut and the musical climate at that time. They were four harmless white males with matching haircuts and wearing coats and ties. They appealed to teenage girls and were not considered threatening to their parents. They had catchy pop songs and were not Motown or R&B.

I think their branding and use of image along with there business model was more influential on the music industry. They established the financial benefit of branding a band. They established you could be very popular without touring a lot. They focused on their studio work and producing albums instead of focusing on singles. They produced albums that were appealing to teenagers and their parents. Albums you would sit and listen to. Many bands adopted some or all of these elements and it changed the music industry. Their way was less work for the artists and had the potential to create a stronger bond with their fans.

I don't deny their talent. It's just not the music I listen to. From that era I would take Muddy Waters or Jimi or Zeppelin.