[AdamCalifornia]

Do you find some of the Beatles' music dated (old-fashioned; out-of-date)?

This is a very sad thread for me, because The Beatles are one of my beloved and favourite bands of all time.
Millions people worldwide - including myself - consider them, arguably, the greatest Rock band of all time!

Am I the only one on this site (who loves and admires The Beatles)
and at the same time feels that some of their music is dated?

[size=xx-large]forgive me Brothers ... [/size]

for launching this despicable, disgusting and .... (chose your adjective) thread.

Again, I am launching this thread with tears in my eyes.

 

[miloxo]

Imo, music is NEVER dated

If it was good music in the past, its still good music today!

 

[seanwookie]

Some songs on their earlier albums don't stand up well. (Namely "Boys") But their later stuff seems quite undated to me.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miloxo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Imo, music is NEVER dated If it was good music in the past, its still good music today!

I think it is a mistake to equate "dated" with "not good."

It might be useful to attempt a definition of what we mean when we say music is dated. IMO, it means that the music sounds like a period of time in music history. The style of the music is reminiscent of an era where that style was the predominant style.

Given that, I think that a lot of the Beatles' music sounds dated. But it is still great music!

 

[miloxo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme I think it is a mistake to equate "dated" with "not good." It might be useful to attempt a definition of what we mean when we say music is dated. IMO, it means that the music sounds like a period of time in music history. The style of the music is reminiscent of an era where that style was the predominant style. Given that, I think that a lot of the Beatles' music sounds dated. But it is still great music!

Ok, true. But most people aroudn my age (16) listen to modern pop music, and only music thats 'hot' & new is good, and old=bad.

Then I agree its 'dated' but still good!

 

[scompton]

Some of the early stuff sounds dated. But much less than other good bands from the 60s.

 

[DavidMahler]

OK Adam......few things..........

Yes a lot of The Beatles music sounds dated............but that doesn't mean it didn't stand the test of time which was the point I was trying to make in your other thread.........EVERYTHING which is old becomes dated in some way........ Dark Side Of The Moon (as good as it is) sounds like it was written / recorded in the 1970s AND IT WAS!

Standing the test of time to me means "Is it STILL RELEVANT?" And 90% of the Beatles music is still relevant.....musicians still refer to the Beatles (more than Iron Maiden or GnR which were some of your examples) for inspiration and use the Beatles as a reference point. But does it sound like A Hard Day's Night was recorded in 2009? No.....therefore I would consider it dated............there will come a time when everything recorded in 2009 sounds dated and as time moves forward it will sound more and more dated..................the entire canon of Rock & Roll / Metal may one day be a thing of the past and be a dated category altogether.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Some of their early music.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HipHopScribe /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some of their early music.

Completely agree. Just about everything they wrote before they started taking drugs has aged terribly.

 

[Csericks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman_Spiff /img/forum/go_quote.gif Completely agree. Just about everything they wrote before they started taking drugs has aged terribly.

"Aged terribly"? Early Beatles recordings are nearly 50 and, in my opinion, stand up better than most other pop/rock of the same era. Granted, this music does not necessarily sound as fresh as it once did but I'm not convinced that it is entirely a bad thing that the early Beatles recordings do not sound fresh as today's music.

 

[AdamCalifornia]

... they influenced countless number of rock and pop artists.
For instance, crazy Ozzy knew all their songs by heart.
The same with Freddie Mercury, Led Zeppelin and thousands of others worldwide.
Everyone wanted to be 'The Beatles', but very few came close.
They changed the pop music forever!

Of course The King Elvis was before them!

In particular they conquered and 'changed' America.
Their plane touched down at the JFK airport on February 7, 1964.
[size=xx-large]And the rest is history.[/size]

With all those fully justified praises, 40 years after they disbanded
some of their music does not age well. - [size=small]This is normal and natural! [/size]

As [size=small]Walter Cronkite[/size] would say:
Quote:

[size=xx-large]And that's the way it is![/size]

It does not diminish them at all! They're rock pillars forever!.

 

[scytheavatar]

Maybe their weakest albums, Please Please Me, With The Beatles and Beatles for Sale hasn't aged well, but I would argue that the rest of their discography has aged remarkably well compared to the albums from the Beach Boys or The Kinks. Their albums are some of the best recorded in their era and their ample amount of experimentation has enabled most of their albums to be not-so-60's sounding.

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Csericks /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Aged terribly"? Early Beatles recordings are nearly 50 and, in my opinion, stand up better than most other pop/rock of the same era. Granted, this music does not necessarily sound as fresh as it once did but I'm not convinced that it is entirely a bad thing that the early Beatles recordings do not sound fresh as today's music.

*sigh* This is the problem with criticizing things that people have a large emotional attachment to. You love the Beatles. I love the Beatles. No one is saying that the Beatles are bad; or that their music is not enjoyable to listen to. No one is saying that modern musicians owe nothing to the Beatles.

Their early music has not aged well.

What does this statement mean? It means that their early songs are not relevant today. The Beatles' main strength is their downfall in this case. They effortlessly crafted simple beautiful pop songs. In large part, they defined the sound of "pop" music. Unfortunately, in the early work, their simple melodies are paired with lyrics that play to the prevailing attitudes of the period. Some of those attitudes have changed, and the result is irrelevant songs.

Are the songs bad? No. Should this fact hamper your enjoyment of the Beatles? No. Does the fact that other music from the period aged worse change anything? No. Does the fact that other music from the period aged better change anything? No.

Hopefully that clears the matter up somewhat.


If you would like a sonic illustration of my point (any excuse to pull out the albums

) compare:

1. "I Saw Her Standing There" off of their 1963 album "Please Please Me"
2. "Drive My Car" off their 1965 album "Rubber Soul"

Both songs are the fist cut on their respective albums. Which one has aged better?

For a further illustration, sticking with 1963, listen to the entire album "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan" by the inimitable Bob Dylan. Dylan's complex songwriting and insight into the human condition ensure that his songs are as relevant today as they were in 1963.

 

[DavidMahler]

In defense of the early Beatles recordings............

I think songs like I Saw Her Standing There, There's A place, It Won't Be Long, Any Time At All, I'm A Loser.....

These songs are still fresh. The recordings are dated yes, but it was only a week ago that I heard a new version of Any Time at All in a television commercial for some bank.....and to be honest the version of Any Time at All was clearly newish, but sounded nearly identical to the Beatles performance............

You can take a song like She Loves You and say "yeah songs like that aren't really written anymore, and now saying I want to Hold Your Hand in a song would make you appeal to 7 year olds rather than the 12-16 age group which it once appealed to"..........society has changed, HUGE events have occurred in the world which has made certain objects and artistic ventures appear dated..........lest not forget that the Beatles did NOT land in JFK airport at all, they landed in Idlewild Airport which is now JFK, but at the time the airport was not named after the recently deceased president. When I Want To Hold Your Hand was recorded, it was an extremely different world........JFK was still alive, the Vietnam War rebellion was almost entirely underground and the age group the Beatles were appealing to were just starting up in high school.......you can say "hey the Stones came out with Satisfaction a year later, Dylan - Blowin' In the Wind that same year as The Beatles starting out, or The Who with My Generation in 65" but then you are missing the point.......

The Beatles started out largely as a singles band, just like every other act who was profitable. Albums did not sell nearly as well as singles. It was through the Beatles growth that albums became the defining seller. It wasn't until 1968 that LPs outsold 45s....so yes there is a datedness to their early material, but mostly because of the industry asking for something different than it eventually did.....if you look past their most famous songs......... Love Me Do, I Want To Hold Your Hand, She Loves You, All My Loving........and you look at their less commercially-obliged statements...........you'll find that the Beatles' stuff is not so much dated even in the early years.........thats my opinion

 

[Csericks]

There is a great deal of space between "aged terribly" and "relevant today". I can think of numerous examples of jazz form the '60s and earlier, blues from the '60s and earlier that are, in my opinion, better than anything recorded today. Blues and jazz are my favorite genres. It is my understanding that Dylan was a (the) key figure who prompted Lennon to craft socially relevant lyrics. There are countless examples of music recorded throughout the 20th century that have aged as well, or better than that of The Beatles in my opinion. I enjoy The Beatles. I grew up listening to new Beatles recordings as they were issued. For me The Beatles are NOT sacred. However I still contend that albums such as Please Please Me still sound fresh and alive. I think that because you might feel a selected LP by Dylan seems more relevant or I might select a particular recording by Ornette Coleman or an early work by T-Bone Walker, these choices do not necessitate driving early Beatles work into the realm of "aged terribly".

I fully appreciate and respect the thoughtful opinions of all the contributors to this post.