Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
http://www.pmouse.nl/nicol/beatles_vara64.jpg (broken link) OR
The years I've listed don't represent a clean break regarding their earlier and later recording styles, but for the sake of conversation, let's say that these were the approximate time periods that made them seem like two distinct entities. Lately I've been listening to The Beatles a bit - almost exclusively from the early period and I'm not sure why. Is it possible that some of their later material hasn't held up as well over time or could it be that I just haven't heard the early songs as much in recent years and they simply sound fresher? It seems that I've always rated their later material more highly...until recently. Right now to my ears, Rubber Soul and Revolver are two of the best albums ever. Granted there were precursors of what was to come on these records, but still. Opinions...?
And who is that guy playing drums in the circa '65 photo?
Last edited by square peg; 10-10-2007 at 01:04 AM..
There are probably other Beatles fans more knowledgeable than I am, but I thought the Beatles' first drummer was Pete Best. But the pic you posted seems a bit odd to me, because I thought the Beatles dumped Best fairly early on, and they look very "established" (they have their suits, etc) in the photo.
So I am mystified.
As to their sound, to me, "She Loves You" is just as rockin' and profound in its own way as anything the Beatles came up with later.
"I Want To Hold Your Hand" has just as much power as the reprise in Sgt Pepper.
But I certainly understand the transition in between.
Many people in today's younger generation are really into Rubber Soul, also Revolver.
Those albums are much more introspective and angsty than the early ones.
Also, there is more experimentation with sound.
When you look at some of those songs, you see how things we take for granted now were such a big deal back then.
A sitar? What the heck is that?
The drummer in question is Jimmy Nicol. Ringo went down with toncillitis and he subed for a few gigs and enjoyed his 15 minutes.
As for early vs late, they are almost like two different bands. A great thing about the Beatles is that they never stayed in the same stylistic space for very long. Lately, I have rediscovered their early stuff. Let's face it. Compared to a lot of drech that is out today, its pretty exciting stuff. Gives us an idea of just how radical it really was in 1964 as the industry was dominated by teen idols.
OK I was in kindergarten when they first became the rage -- but I remember in like 4th grade hearing "Come Together" and I thought "what are they smoking?" (not that I had any idea about any of that stuff...
I agree on the idea of two different groups. Remembering back to the summer of 1964 all of the teen rockers(Anka,Chubby Checker, Vee, Rydell, etc. were shown the door and never got back on the charts. My vote is Revolver as the LP of change Tomorrow never knows. I could not comprehend the instruments! I was only 15 then. Taxman and its biting commentary on the system. My mom listened to talk radio a lot back then and she told me people all across the board in the media was raving about this new release.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
