The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    I think we have a strong Beatles interest on these boards, so I thought this topic would be a good one.

    There is a very sharp change in the way the Beatles approached their music around the time of Rubber Soul.

    First of all, the early LP's featured some cover songs, some love songs, and a number of 'nonsense' songs( songs that don't really say anything..."Tell Me Why", "I Saw Her Standing There")as opposed to the later albums where just about every song is written entirely by the band members, has deep meaning, and we are not over-burdoned by love songs.

    There are a few documented reasons for this.

    A. The band stopped touring due to the screaming fans and the hectic pace.
    B. Bob Dylan met with Lennon and berated him about the songs, "not saying anything."
    C. They had taken the "She Loves you, YEAH ,YEAH, YEAH" as far as it would go.

    The point of my thread , mainly, is that I do not know of any band in the history of Rock'nRoll music that made such a sharp change in their music as the Beatles did about halfway through the career of the group.

    Many of the things the band accomplished during the 60's are quite outstanding, revolutionary and groundbreaking, but to change the style of their music , basically, on the fly...is just an incredible feat. The later Beatles LP's feature virtual works of genius that would be awesome songs even if made today. Examples , "Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite", "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Eleanor Rigby", "Hey, Jude", "A Day in the Life","Yesterday","Something", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Come Together", "Get Back."

    It just kind of makes you wonder what "clicked" around the mid sixties that got the creative juices flowing. I often wonder if the whole 60's experience created some special "karma" that somehow took these young men to another level of songwriting. It just seems like a light switched on somewhere around the time Rubber Soul was made.

    I don't believe it was the drugs. Possibly the competition between them selves and other major bands like the Stones and the Beach Boys, possibly the adoration they had for Bob Dylan and his style of bringing political and social issues into his music, possibly isolating themselves from the public in studio to avoid the craziness of Beatlemania. Very possibly George Martin was given more of a role in the music as far as adding strings and horns. Possibly all of the above.

    Whatever the reason, you can't deny that in 1965 there was a sharp change of direction and that it changed Rock music forever.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    Zilla, I know this is politically incorrect, but I am of the opinion that the drugs, first marijuana and then LSD, did have some impact on some of the songs and certainly had a general influence on the lifestyle that was going on at the time.  But on the other hand I think if you took away the drugs the Beatles still would have been great innovators.

    I think you can trace a pretty clear arc in the Beatles growth and creativity as songwriters over that time frame you're referencing.  It all peaked/levelled with Revolver & Sgt. Pepper.   
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    I think the "change" as it was not as sharp as it might seem.  Throughout their early albums, you can hear a certain restlessness (that comes with being young as well as successful) and a desire to stretch their arrangements.  Full credit, naturally, to George Martin, who kept them on a fully definable path without letting them careen off on their own.

    "Rubber Soul" was definitely a game-changer, but there were still nods to the more straightforward pop songwriting that was existent on "Help!" (the latter having its own brilliant tangents).  Same with "Revolver", but even less so at that point.

    As with most creatives, you can usually see a positive evolution in their work as they seek to fully define their vision.  Sometimes it's more abrupt, but I think those cases are the exceptions to the rule, and if not, they are often seen as over-ambitious failures.  Inevitably after those times, you see a return to their "roots" of what they were best known for.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from william93063. Show william93063's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    In many ways I prefer the simplicity of the earlier tunes.  The recording technology though primitive, sounded outstanding particularly in mono on vinyl.  It was warm and really big sounding as compared to Revolver which sounds like absolute shite because they overdubbed and bounced too many tracks for the integrity of half inch reel to reel tape on 3 or 4 tracks of sound.  Don't get me wrong Revolver might be their best album, I simply hate the production but George Martin was tested big time on the limits of technology.

      "Not saying anything" is also a matter of perspective.  Does every pop ditty need to make a political statement?  Heck no, early rock in general was about fun and dancing.  The early Sam Phillip's roster of stars at Sun records, Elvis, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis and Johnny Cash wrote many tunes that were simply fun and well crafted pop(Johnny Cash actually did also write some deeper tunes and IMHO did it as well or better than anyone in pop music history but that is a different debate).  Personally a good deal of the "deep" stuff penned by Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, The Clash and Sting come off as preachy and self indulgent. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    In Response to Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.:
    [QUOTE]I think the "change" as it was not as sharp as it might seem.  Throughout their early albums, you can hear a certain restlessness (that comes with being young as well as successful) and a desire to stretch their arrangements.  Full credit, naturally, to George Martin, who kept them on a fully definable path without letting them careen off on their own. "Rubber Soul" was definitely a game-changer, but there were still nods to the more straightforward pop songwriting that was existent on "Help!" (the latter having its own brilliant tangents).  Same with "Revolver", but even less so at that point. As with most creatives, you can usually see a positive evolution in their work as they seek to fully define their vision.  Sometimes it's more abrupt, but I think those cases are the exceptions to the rule, and if not, they are often seen as over-ambitious failures.  Inevitably after those times, you see a return to their "roots" of what they were best known for.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    Alright - look who is back.

    As for early vs late Beatles, everyone brings up solid points. Another factor in this might be that their name and reputation was gold in 1965 and they were basically given the freedom to do whatever they wanted. Let's face it, if the Beatles released sh*t in the mid 60's, it still would have sold millions of copies. Thankfully they took that freedom and went ballistic with it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    Lot's of good points that I'm sure in some fashion had an impact on the change that took place. Plus Lennon & McCartney were growing into what they ultimately became, two of the best song writers in rock/music history. They were only going to be held back for so long from writing songs like "She love's you" and " I feel fine". great great songs in there own right, but that simplistic style was due to run it's course. 

    Also, not touring anymore gave them free rein to do and try what ever they wanted. The sound did not have to be re-created for a live show. A big advantage that every other group had to be cautious of "if you will' of playing what they recorded for a live audience. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    Another interesting thing is that although some will argue that the Beatles progressed musically, they also often leave out that they regressed as a band.  Lennon/McCartney became more prone to writing and recording without one another, oftentimes alone.  A nice way to put it is that as their albums became more cohesive and conceptual, the members of the Beatles did quite the opposite.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    No . . .   it probably wasn't the drugs.

    Undecided









    "It's still not finished yet. I'm hearing aboriginal percussionists. And I want an army of didgeridoos. Fifty thousand didgeridoos!"
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    In Response to Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.:
    [QUOTE]Lot's of good points that I'm sure in some fashion had an impact on the change that took place. Plus Lennon & McCartney were growing into what they ultimately became, two of the best song writers in rock/music history. They were only going to be held back for so long from writing songs like "She love's you" and " I feel fine". great great songs in there own right, but that simplistic style was due to run it's course.  Also, not touring anymore gave them free rein to do and try what ever they wanted. The sound did not have to be re-created for a live show. A big advantage that every other group had to be cautious of "if you will' of playing what they recorded for a live audience. 
    Posted by newman09[/QUOTE]

    That is a very good point. I wonder what 'Tomorrow Never Knows' would have sounded like live.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    If you think about it - Beatlemania was f'n insane.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3j6S8N8bTE&feature=related

    These guys couldn't even hear themselves on stage. No wonder they stopped touring.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    No, you sure can't blame the lads for wanting to stop touring.  At first glance it might seem like a great life, everybody screaming and cheering for you, teenage girls mobbing you.  But they couldn't even leave their hotel rooms during the day.  And they nearly got killed in the Phillipines.  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    there is quote from mccartney when he says something to the effect of their touring had gotten so insane that they couldn't even hear anything they were doing, and it was difficult for them to grow as musicians when they were just going through the motions. i'm sure it became very uncomfortable.  towards the end paul wanted to go back on tour though, he thought it would bring the spark back to the group but john and yoko weren't having it...
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    In Response to Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.:
    [QUOTE]If you think about it - Beatlemania was f'n insane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3j6S8N8bTE&feature=related These guys couldn't even hear themselves on stage. No wonder they stopped touring.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    The Beatlemania coment makes me think of a story that I find is interesting. I have good friend that was friends with Brad Delp the lead singer of Boston that sadly took his life a few years back. At the time Brad was playing and touring with his group Beatlejuice, if you never had a chance to see them their sound was spot on. They never made an attempt to look like the Beatles, but if you closed your eyes you would sware you're listening to the real thing.

    My friend a musician himself was talking to Brad one night after one of the Beatlejuice gigs. Brad mentioned that he and the rest of the boys from the group Boston were rehearsing and contemplating tour dates. Brad also was talking about how easy playing the Boston material was compared to the Beatles. He said " I practically break my fingers every night trying to play these cords, George Harrison had such long fingers it is very difficult to recreate the cords." I always found that conversation interesting, just thought I'd pass the story along.     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    Thanks Newman - good point about Harrison. So many people want to blast his guitar playing. He played within the structure of the song and made a beautiful noise out of his guitar. The thing with the Beatles is that it was always about the song - nothing else mattered.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    George has always been my favorite Beatle and, I think, their not-so-secret weapon.  It's not a coincidence that his development as a songwriter dovetailed with the creative growth of the band.

    From the 60s to All Things Must Pass to the later 70s and the 80s stuff with Jeff Lynne and the Wilburys and so on, he was really a true artistic mind and a free spirit.  His passing was untimely and tragic.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from phsmith8. Show phsmith8's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    george is the glue that kept them together. though i read even he resented paul moreso towards the end. he is the 3rd part harmony to make the chord. his lead lines ALWAYS worked. and it was he who brought the sitar to the table on "norwegian wood."  truly a genius, and would have flourished even more if given more room to grow by his counterparts.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.

    In Response to Re: The early Beatles vs. the Later Beatles.:
    [QUOTE]george is the glue that kept them together. though i read even he resented paul moreso towards the end. he is the 3rd part harmony to make the chord. his lead lines ALWAYS worked. and it was he who brought the sitar to the table on "norwegian wood."  truly a genius, and would have flourished even more if given more room to grow by his counterparts.
    Posted by phsmith8[/QUOTE]

    I think time just ran out on George, his confidence as a writer was growing.Had the group stayed together through the 70's I feel George would of had more say and input on things.  
     

Share