It was 50 years ago today....

Like any of the great artists the Beatles were entirely of their own time. 

If they had formed in the 1980s things would have been completely different. 

Right place, right time.

Well, I think that’s true. It was by and large a 60s thing.

I have to agree with this statement mentioned above.  

The thing about The Beatles is that they were greater than the sum of their parts, at least to me. Each to his or her own! Just an alternate point of view.


I never felt that they were my inspiration to play the guitar or piano.  I was not a fan back in the day of Ed Sullivan but grew into appreciating their talents as song writers and the backing instruments and vocals.

To me the greatest strength was have they evolved.  There are tons of great songs by many artists but very few progressed from I want to hold your hand to helter skelter in such a short time.

Although George Harrison did not influence me on guitar, the solo he did for Something was just beautiful and one I had to learn to play back in the day.

Happy Listening.

Like any of the great artists the Beatles were entirely of their own time.

Sure, great artists are a product of their times...societies and cultures.  The great ones, however, owe a debt to what preceded them and their work speaks to others beyond their specific time.  Their work communicates something enduring and (universal?) - something meaningful to those that come after.  They might have been working in popular music alone and the entirety of their output certainly doesn't qualify them as such (i.e., "great artists), but there are excellent examples that do.      

Perhaps too many words about the Beatles have been written.  They deserved them all.  Truly great song writing.  My buds and I donned wigs and lip synced to I  want to hold your hand in 5th grade. Lol. I am surprised no one has mentioned the Rolling Stones.  Used to be the question was “Who do you like? Beatles or Stones? Loved and love them both and all the great musicians mentioned here.  Start me up!

Well, obviously it was really only three quarters of the Beatles the second half of their existence since Paul was replaced by a look-alike around 1966 following his untimely death. Fortunately, the look-alike had a very good singing voice and fit right in.

Well, obviously it was really only three quarters of the Beatles the second half of their existence since Paul was replaced by a look-alike around 1966 following his untimely death. Fortunately, the look-alike had a very good singing voice and fit right in.

???...but, the Walrus was Paul.

goofyfootI concur about "All Things Must Pass" and "Ram" both are brilliant albums.
Happy Listening!

Been meaning to add this to the Beatles "discussion"
(unrelated to the Ram & ATMP posts).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UXnulANF8g

(It is interesting how opinions about Ram have changed over time.)

I always have preferred the first McCartney LP to Ram.  Except for Teddy Boy--what a loser that is!

If a group with the talent and originality of the Beatles formed today they'd be an instant huge success.

I still love those first two McCartneys. Paul played and sang all the parts on the first (as did Emitt Rhodes on his even better s/t 1970 debut), but had hired Studio/Jazz drummer Denny Seiwell by the time of Ram, paying him $150 a week to be on retainer. Not cool.

Every time I see/hear John singing Dizzy Miss Lizzy at the start of Live at Shea, I'm convinced he was the greatest Rock n Roller ever...Then I see/hear Jimi at Monterey doin Like a Rolling Stone and I'm convinced Jimi was the greatest Rock N Roller ever....One guy's opinion...rating "the best' at anything is pointless...Beatles bashing and saying they are/were "overrated" is a 50+ year trend that is as stupid as calling Jay-Z a genius.... Art Tatum was a genius, Roland Kirk was a genius, Charlie Parker was a genius, Jay -Z?....no....  

I really love the fact that they decided to give Ringo a song on every outing. Which other band has 4 different lead singers per album?

Then there’s the fact that even an album comprised of their worst songs would be pretty good by most standards.

The standards they’re judged by are so high that even so called failures, ie the Magical Mystery Tour or Let It Be, would be seen as successes for anyone else.

For me the sheer variety and creativity of the Beatles was missing from their solo efforts. As a last resort I decided to follow Lennon’s advice for those who wanted another Beatles album by combing favourite tracks from their solo albums.

Apart from the difficulty of finding suitable Ringo tracks from his solo efforts, It Don’t Come Easy being the standout, it works quite well.

Ringo's second album is really good. It's no secret he loves Country music (look at the songs he sang on the early Beatles albums), so for Beaucoups Of Blues he went to Nashville and recorded with all the guys Dylan had used for years on his albums---Pete Drake (pedal steel guitar, and producer of the album), the great Buddy Harman on drums (one of my all-time favorites---he played on a lot of the classic 1950/60/70's Nashville recordings---Patsy Cline, Tammy Wynette, Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman", etc.), Charlie Daniels, The Jordanaires (Elvis' backup singers), D.J. Fontana (Elvis' original drummer), Jerry Reed, Charlie McCoy, Ben Keith (steel player on Neil Young's Harvest), and Roy Huskey Jr. (great upright bassist). Real good album, Ringos singing being its only weakness ;-) .