No, as great as they are, you can't. Disregard the Beatles' music and recording innovations for a moment and just look at the pedestrian topic of album covers. Before Revolver, they were essentially all the same: a picture of the group or artist. Revolver changed the way people thought of album covers and directly led to the artsy and abstract album covers since. Then there was Sgt. Pepper, which blew everyone away and is rightly considered the most imitated album cover ever. And of course, after that came "The White Album." (See "Spinal Tap" for one cultural reference.) Here was Marvin Gaye's album that came out the same year as Revolver... Here's Marvin's album issued the year after Sgt. Pepper... And finally, it's not until 1976 that Marvin has an album cover that is not a stock photo of himself... Now, nothing against Marvin. He was great and his music is too. I just do this to point out how ahead of everyone the Beatles were in this one easily demonstrable area. The music and production values were similarly cutting edge.
half the bbs is wondering what the heck you mean by "album covers." (hint they're NOT the avatars you see on your parents CD's). many are probably a little hazy on the concept of album? (sorta like a group of songs you download together? why cant you just pick and choose?). and if you really want to stump 'em -- ask 'em about liner notes.
so...i guess this is for people who don't any of their music/CD's? I mean, wouldn't you already have the songs you love from the Beatles in your ipod/phone already?
There were rumors that he was trying to sell the Beatles catalogue to pay off debts and finance the upkeep of Neverland Ranch. Stones were great, but they could never capture the imagination and did not have the personalities to engage the world like the Beatles did. As musicians and their music itself, The Rolling Stones back down from no one. But Beatles encompassed more than just the music they created, their personalities caught the cynical adult world offguard and had the kids laughing with them, their creativity pushed others to keep up with them (including the Stones; Their Satanic Majesties Request), and their legacy left behind have musicians past, present, and future pay homage to them. Actually The Stones owed a lot to the Beatles, they capitalized on the Beatles good boys image to promote their antithesis bad boys image (The Beatles want to hold your hand; the Stone want to burn your town), in reality the Stones were suburban boys while the Beatles came from rougher backgrounds.
The Beatles have their songs in the MP3 that I can put on my Personal Computer? Can I download them from the World Wide Web?
yay another win for steve jobs. Now you can play your beatle songs on his innovative products Spoiler
i listen to the stones way more than the beatles these days, but the beatles are the greatest band in the history of music and nobody else will ever come close. imo, as highly rated as they are, they are still underrated - they changed everything - the concept of what a band was, recording techniques, songwriting, the role of the bass player, the role of the drummer...youth culture, fashion, politics, attitudes, sex, hippies, drugs...their influence goes so far beyond the confines of music...i was born in 75 and the beatles have been a part of my life from day one - they are omnipresent. and to think that they did everything they did in under 10 years. in todays terms, it would be like if the beatles came out in 2002 and were just now breaking up - that is an insane level of high-quality productivity in such a short period of time...there will never be another musical act that comes close.
First off, great post Mr. Rimrocker. I respect what you wrote. Music aside, you have to remember that black artists were limited on what they could have as an album cover. I do agree about the Beatles' covers were great. Marvin was very underrated when it comes to music history. The impact the guy had during Vietnam and other issues that America was going through. Not to mention the impact he had on other artists. I'm not saying the Beatles didn't have some of the same effects on artists because they did. And Maurice White was overall great. His style changed a lot of RnB music. I can promise you that not many folks know who he is. Probably the band he played in. As for the Stones... Both bands benefited off of each other.
So did the MJ Estate sell the beatles catalog? I still can't believe how MJ got it (shady man..shady). Marvin Gaye is my fav artist. RIP
Marvin Gaye, my butt... that's off of GOOD TIMES!!! JK... that album artwork and the Good Times credits are by the same artist - Ernie Barnes. The work is called "Sugar Shack". And to stay somewhat on topic. Many of said how great the Beatles are and to each their own. I don't mind listening to a lot of their stuff, but there's a lot of stuff I'd rather listen to. As for the debate here, give me Marvin over the Beatles.
For those wondering about the MJ/Beatles/Apple connection and who owns what, it's a lot goofier and complex than I originally though (hell, it's the music industry - nothing's simple) : http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10273698-93.html
You can absolutely hate the Beatles music but in no way can you say they're overrated. Most important pop/rock group in history and no one will come close. I just finished keith richards's book and I'll jam some stones any day but as a comparison in musical importance to the beatles? That's just ridiculous.
Hipsters... Don't forget...they are cooler than you, they are smarter than you, and they listen to better music than you.
i'd agree with this. I'm not crazy for the beatles but i do enjoy a lot of their songs. But i still respect what they did. They should thank elvis for paving the way
