The most important one to me, which I wish you'd mentioned, is that they refused to play to segregated audiences, and had it written into their contracts. Racial segregation at music venues quickly declined after that.
I was 6 years old when my mother told me that. She was a Salvation Army officer and her respect for the Beatles never dwindled after that, today it doesn't seem to have any impact, but then it was a real wake up call to the racism in the USA that the Beatles thought just wasn't right. God bless em!
I have to reply to this by drawing on history, and a biography I'm reading on Norman Granz. His role in jazz promotion and performance began in the '40s and he became famous for his JATP (Jazz at the Philharmonic) concerts. Early on he had written into his contracts that the audiences could not be segregated - just as the groups on stage were not. Think Lester Young, Ella Fitzgerald, Oscar Peterson, Billy Holiday ...name a name, and Granz is there, making sure they were treated and paid fairly, and played in front of unsegregated audiences. The book, by Tad Hershorn, is "Norman Granz: the Man who Used Jazz For Justice". If you love jazz or are interested in racial justice in the USA, this is a must read.
"The Beatles are overrated." This reminds me of the joke about the person who went to a performance of Hamlet and complained that the dialogue was just a bunch of old clichés.
@@carinasanper, it's a tough one to explain what "true" originality is. Since everyone has been creatively influenced by someone or something, are we all guilty of plagiarism? Inspiration has many facets of ideas that have come from somewhere that sparks wonderful imagination. Or am I just a normal idiot that tries to connect those gosh darn dots?! Peace and thank you L.S.P. ll !
It’s pretty amazing to think they were only together for 7 years. Even just listening to their evolution of music it’s hard to believe that wasn’t over a 20 year period.
Well, you must count the years before they became worldfamous and were working their asses of in Hamburg and in various venues all over England, for many years
Please don't forget that Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick was the first to use compression on drums, slamming a Fairchild 660 to get more energy on to tape. There's also another first by the Beatles: FLANGING: similar to ADT, but not the same, where a signal from one tape machine is duplicated on another and the second tape machine's reels are manually slowed down by putting a finger on the spool causing a whooshing of the audio, now emulated by countless machines and pedals. Thing is, JOHN LENNON coined the term FLANGING. Another first. And there ya go.
@@ciaranward3559 For the flanging part: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanging#Origin Note that the article does mention that Les Paul discovered the effect first; however, as OP said, it was Lennon who gave it the iconic name it now has.
Massive Beatles fan here - just wanted to say that in 1959, the song "The Big Hurt" was released, and it used arguably the first phasing sounds on record. Wikipedia: "The Big Hurt" is a pop song that was a hit for Toni Fisher (billed as "Miss Toni Fisher") in 1959. The song was written by Wayne Shanklin. "The Big Hurt" is notable because it featured phasing effects which at that time were rare in popular music; ...
Weren't they the first to use a synthesizer on a pop record as well? I know there was those silly records that maybe came out before like "Bach on the Moog" or whatever... not aware of a pop/rock record though.
You're right, most of these things are kinda taken for granted without thinking where they originated from. Awesome video as always, thank you for the incredible information.
Lies taken for granted they are not true and ignored because we know they did not innovate anything *They capitalized on things black people do but no whites knew about* #QuotesByKanD
What I remember most about the Beatles was the "Surprise" element for every album. For other bands, every album repeated a formula, but the Beatles kept innovating and expanding their sound with every album in the sixties. It was always exciting.
They were innovators. That’s why they were not as popular as solo artists. They stopped innovating and were just singer songwriters like everyone else.
One of their first “firsts” was literally the first few seconds of the first song on their first album. Paul counting in “One, two, three FOUR!” On “I Saw Her Standing There” was the first studio recording released with the count in included.
Good point. When we first heard it way back then (I was 14), we thought he substituted a naughty word for "four." Either that or "fire." Damn I'm glad those guys made a band.
Remember the standard punk intro of 1, 2, 3, 4 used by the Ramones and others? A friend of mine, a Beatle hater, used to start every song that his punk band did like that, not even knowing where it originated. He didn't know that the Ramones took their name from a McCartney alias, either. Beatles innovations were so profound that a lot of people don't know where they came from.
Beatles innovations were not strictly musical or sonic, either. They were without doubt the first modern rock outfit, the pioneers of the 'band as gang' concept - and let's face it, everyone wanted to be in the Beatles' gang.
@@tonybates7870 The meaning of the word band changed when they played Sullivan. From that point on whenever anyone has said "let's start a band" they invariably mean "let's start a Beatles".
They were also the first band that could sell records without touring to promote it. This also gave them the freedom to produce songs that could not be reproduced live which opened many creative possibilities.
@@Lifeinthe808 which lost them a fortune and was partially responsible for their split. You never give me your money you only give me your funny paper.....
WRONG. They had already established their popularity. WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong. 1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen ERRORS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller than suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
15:05 that interviewer was expressing his own biased thoughts in form of a question, looking down on the public. And that boy gave an excellent answer. Amazing video! Thank you
I’m now 71 and I would like to say that I feel very lucky to have been a teenager when the the Beatles inspired the world. I can clearly remember rushing home from school to play “Rubber Soul” on my red mono Dansette record player. I would especially play “Girl” over and over. Happy days. 🤔🇮🇪
I'm 20 years younger than you and jealous that I didn't live through this period. They broke up a couple of weeks before I was born so I never knew them when they were together but they have always been a part of my life. One of my first memories of them was in the summer of 1976, they had rereleased "Got to Get You Into My Life" and I would hear that song on the radio all summer long while I was at the pool and absolutely loved it and whatever other Beatles song that I heard. Then when I was in my late teens, they released all the CDs in order, spread out by a few months. I was grateful they did this because I would get them as they came out and was able to really digest every album before the next one came out. I listen to a large range of music all the way from 20s jazz to 90s punk rock but the Beatles are the one band that I always come back to. There music is timeless.
@@danmoll7069 To reinforce your point … my son would be about 20 years younger than you and he is just as much in awe as you and me. It’s funny that I said to my wife just this morning that in a few hundred years time no one will talk about Covid-19 or Brexit but I feel that people will still be listening to Sgt Pepper, Revolver, etc.
The Beatles were more than just a band; they were a cultural phenomenon of lasting influence. It didn't hurt either, that their music was and is very durable over time.
Album “Revolver” when is released,sounded like it’s coming from the future. Even today it sounds very new and fantastically fresh. Nobody matched that achievement and is already past fifty five years ago. Incredible.
David Bowie said the key is not to be the first to do something but being the second. Applies to Beatles, though they were still best. Example of Bowie's axiom would be Velvet Underground and Pink Floyd with Syd Barrett but many others since
They weren't the first, but I think the Beatles also deserve a lot of credit for turning multi-track recording into another industry standard. They turned the studio into an instrument, exploited its possibilities, and transformed the idea of a pop band from "performing artists" to "recording artists."
Brilliant as always, Mr. Bennett! Also, in jazz bands, the drummer was elevated behind the musicians. This was adopted by the Beatles to show off Ringo. A stage choreography the group did always impressed me, too. Paul,being a leftie, could position himself with George on the same mike. Plus the fact, everybody was singing!
Love that clip at the end. The interviewer being so condescending and the "kids" responding with such thoughtfulness. When I first got into the Beatles as a preteen, I figured I'd outgrow them eventually - like other things you're into as a kid (uhm unicorns & Tweety come to mind), but I've only gotten to like them more and more. There's comfort in hearing songs that are so ingrained in my head but also there's always new things to learn and experience with them that can't see me ever getting sick of them.
Having lived thru those heady days... the adults WERE condescending! They HATED these four mop-haired guys from England!! Too different! Not straight-laced or buttoned- up at all !! And the music made the kids go crazy and dance around, shouting and clapping! It all made them grind their teeth!!! But we kids new.... THIS was really something new and exciting!! It launched the Real 60's... the generation gap... women's liberation... anti-war activity. Some called us the "Peace" Generation, because, as they sang... and we sang along with them.... "All you Need is Love!!" Of course, as always happens... things soured after awhile... but those early Beatle Days were simply joyous!!!
@@scottski51 The adults came around though. My parents heard me in my room trying to learn their first album on guitar, and when I came out they said "You don't REALLY like them, do you?" And I remember saying "Mom, this is different "(they had been used to me playing Beach Boy records, etc). I said "This group is really really special" and they shook their heads. A few months later my Mom was asking me to play "And I Love Her" ...."Now that's a nice song!" she would say. In 1980, I saw a tear in her eye while the news spoke of John's killing.
I was born in 1960. My first memories: I had 3 older sisters (all teenage by 65) who played Beatles records in the house constantly, both in their rooms and on our giant Telefunken stereo in the living room. My parents, Greatest generation, fought in WWII people, tolerated it because...they liked the Beatles. Anytime we went anywhere in the car, the Beatles were playing on the radio. I remember watching the Ed Sullivan appearance and the live broadcast. I saw A Hard Days Night in the movie theater. On top of that, at some point, when I got up on Saturday morning to watch cartoons - there were The Beatles in cartoon format. There has never been any cultural phenomena close to absolute ubiquity as the Beatles were in the 60's and early 70's. Even Elvis did not come close. It you would have asked me in 1967 to describe music, I would have just replied: The Beatles.
Some other firsts could be: 1. Two Side A singles 2. Using orchestral music in Pop/Rock songs 3. The concept of 'Concept' album 4. Double album 5. Earliest known version of a heavy metal song 6. Medley in an album 7. Equal share in the business for all the band members.
1. I'll give them that one 2. Beach Boys notably did that beforehand and I'm sure there's others 3. Nirvana (the UK band) had a proper rock opera before Sgt. Pepper's (which is barely a concept album to begin with) 4. Dylan and Zappa have the Beats beat by at least two years 5. if we are to consider Helter Skelter heavy metal (which I disagree with) then there's other earlier songs that fit the criteria 6. the earliest medley in pop that I know of was by Louis Prima 7. this I'm not sure of, might give them this one
@@ajsvideodump 2. Both were contemporaries and experimenting with sounds. The Beatles, esp Paul (along with Martin's influence) was using more of classical music instrumentations. Brian Wilson considered reaching the level of Rubber Soul as his greatest ambition. 3. An opera is not equal to a concept album. There was a nascent pattern of concept in SPLHCB with a hypothetical band playing songs. 4. Will concede that Dylan was ahead in this regard. 5. The singing in Helter Skelter is the prototype HM singing. 6. OK, I'm not aware of that, so thanks. But Abbey Road Medley is created for the album rather than some old songs put together.
@@TraverseRaps how come? I've been humbled, to an extent, at least. I would still like to object to the concept album part, because if we are to talk about a concept album within the broader range of "a collection of songs with a specific idea or theme in mind", Dust Bowl Ballads and In the Wee Small Hours are both arguably concept albums that proceed Pepper. But I'm not really here to argue or discredit The Beatles or whatever, I love The Beatles and do believe their work in music is innovative and highly influential, I'm just trying to further inform others.
I've heard people say that The Beatles didn't really play or sing all that well live but they are comparing them with the bands of today that have all sorts of technology that didn't exist in the early 1960s. Autotune, in-ear monitors, much better and more powerful amps and mixing technology, all sorts of effects, etc, etc. I played in rock bands in the 60s, and, man, it wasn't easy to sound good back then, especially outdoors or in a large venue. I can't even imagine playing at Shea Stadium with 60s technology. All they had were a few 100-watt amps and a crappy PA system. It's a miracle they sounded as good as they did.
Even tho they couldn't hear what they were playing at Shea stadium, the audio recording captured during that performance was amazing. They really were good at performing that they could do it without hearing themselves. 😁
During Beatlemania, they didn't sound all that good live, for the most part. But it was because of what David was saying: They were playing large venues with inadequate equipment and they couldn't hear themselves because of all the screaming. Nobody would sound good under those circumstances. The average bar band has better equipment than what the Beatles had at Shea Stadium.
@@lynnturman8157 I've watched video of nearly every performance the Beatles did back in the 60's, and they all sound okay. Probably didn't sound great in the audience (especially from way in the back), but the Beatles still performed well, and it sounds good on the videos.
The printing of lyrics on “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” (the first album to do so) could have been expanded further as a ninth innovation. This actually angered the sheet music industry, which people who would buy the sheet music to see what the lyrics were to the songs, even if they weren’t instrumentalists. As you can see most people usually don’t have sheet music, but it is now standard to have lyrics included in albums.
@@markuse3472 I didn’t say it was the best thing since sliced bread. I mentioned this fact as a cultural event that the Beatles pioneered and is still done today.
Even when you put all these innovations aside, The Beatles were the most important band of all time. The were extremely popular AND extremely good. They have made so many songs that are absolute classics. Not only songs by Lennon and McCartney, but also by George Harrison. Excellent video, by the way!
People talk a lot about the "growth" of their music, how it got more sophisticated and complex and indeed it did. However I'm 78 and I am still stunned by the absolute magic of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You". They were fantastic on day one. Then they got better.
I'm not a drummer so can't really appreciate it, but I've seen many clips of famous drummer state that Ringo was a genius who transformed rock drumming.
And somehow throughout the years, the Beatles still have songs such as Don't Let Me Down and Oh! Darling which don't really feel like they've aged at all. Listening to their albums as a 23 year old for the first time, I honestly find myself feeling like these songs came out a few years ago not in the 60s
Ringo is not that cool. He was named in the Panama papers for being involved in tax evasion. He moved his money to an offshore bank account to defraud his fellow citizens. He also admitted to being abusive to his wife and family in the 90s. Nobody seems to give John a pass for it, so I don't think we should for Ringo, either. Not very peace and love.
I was always anxiously waiting for the next record they released to see what they were going to do this time. They went from 'I Wanna Hold your Hand' to 'A Day in the Life' in three and a half years - no-one since Mozart had hauled the popular music world along in their wake at such a speed.
Bob Dylan also did release 3 FREAKING GOOD albums that forever changed music history in only 13 months. The 3 albums are Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde.
The Beatles was also the first band to introduce the concept of "breaking up". That's why the Beatles' break-up was so heart-wrenching because it was probably the first time anyone have heard of a band announcing to their fans that the band will no longer be making music together. It's also very sad because the Beatles broke when they were still on the peak of their creativity.
Unfortunately, according to "Star Trek Beyond," they're listening to the Beastie Boys. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. But you're right, Captain Kirk will have his complete Beatles collection in his cabin.
they got lucky, being near first anything they tried was new revolutionary, ground breaking !!! what geniuses !!!. their only skill was the same as children with natural skill in language, other children have the same aptitude but for music, get 5 in a band and they wont need music theory. they were simply all naturally talented in music, so they could easily pull off the hits. other bands are lucky to have one suck individual, and blessed if they have two, but the unskilled will get in their way
I was nine when the Beatles first appeared and was always in a state of awe at the innovations they developed for us. I remember the live video of All You Need is Love like it just happened. Four lads made the entire world stop, for just a moment, and listen to a message of love, shared with all, simultaenously.
The Beatles are actually underrated - other amazing pioneering aspects missed in your great presentation: 1- They cemented the concept of the self-contained group (other artists, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Bob Dylan wrote their own music, but The Beatles, by their 3rd album, totally wrote and performed their own recordings which became the benchmark approach from then on for practically every other reputable artist/musician). 2 - Pop stars/singers starring in movies was usually to cash in on their popularity, with quickly dated and forgettable celluloid produced - The Beatles first movie "A Hard Day's Night" is universally regarded as a 4-star effort (and what a soundtrack!!) 3 - Prior to The Beatles, no pop group could be introduced by their 4 christian names (John, Paul, George and Ringo) without recognising who the group was - still doesn't happen to this day. 4 - The Beatles TV Cartoon series was the first television cartoon series produced featuring contemporary living people. 5 - The Beatles singlehandedly, by their appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in Feb. '64, started the "British Invasion" of America which opened the doors for the introduction of The Rolling Stones, The Animals, The Who, The Kinks (and many more) to US audiences, and greatly influenced every important and major musical act that for the next 30+ years (The Byrds, The Beach Boys, Bruce Springsteen, Queen, ABBA, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Billy Joel, KISS, Nirvana and on and on and....). The Beatles overrated? There is not one musician on this planet who would not have loved to been in that band.
The White Album not only featured no art, it was a double album. Fun fact, the Beatles didn't even want their name on the White Album sheath, but the record company wouldn't allow it.
You are hilarious! 1. The Everly Brothers wrote and sang their own songs and had a string of hits from 1957 to about 1961. 2. Elvis. 3. Elvis and indeed Don and Phil, or Buddy. 4. Yes there were endless ways found to exploit their name. If this is considered a good thing by you then great. 5. Their act was tame and sexless (unlike the stones) and so conservative US families did not object to them, so they were allowed onto prime time TV. You seem to then think that pop music started with the Beatles. Of course they did have influence and their sheer popularity brought firsts, but really they were only amongst all the other groups of the time as far as influencing future groups. Also they tended to construct songs in a very old fashioned way (take Yesterday it is just AABA just three very repeated verses and a break) that went out of style in favour of a verse and chorus setup. So really their style died. You could find more ground-breaking advances with say Phil Spectre, Buddy Holly, The Beachboys or dozens of others. All sounds a bit desperate. Go and put on Crying by Roy Orbirson and then see if you can find a Beatles track with a vocal half as good as that. You will not.
@@grolfe3210 The video correctly left that out as a "breaking ground" to solely attribute The Beatles with. As another example - Brian Wilson wrote most of the songs on the Beach Boys first album. So, it's just too arguable to give the Beatles that pedestal as well.
@@grolfe3210 well, all I can tell you is, I didn’t care much for rock and roll until the Beatles came along. And I’m sure I’m not alone. I knew a lot of kids who felt the same way. There are a lot of musicians who are underrated.
@@MsNickie1001 But the most of the others grew up and our taste got more sophisticated. If you use the "first group I liked" measure then David Cassidy and The Osmonds are the greatest! Rock and Roll? Surely you mean pop. Stones did rock, Beatles mostly did Saccharine ballads, and silly novelty pop songs after the poor cover songs phase.
My favorite Beatles innovation is what we now know as the "music video". The story as I remember from Anthology was that they could not perform on Ed Sullivan, but still needed to promote the new song single - so they recorded a video of them performing and sent it to Ed to broadcast live on his show. Thus, the music video for promotion was born. Long live the Beatles.
@@RobertStambaugh-l5rThe big difference is that her performance was only captured based on being present in a tv studio and… it just happened. It was to promote that moment, live. The Boys and George Martin… they consciously made a decision with knowing they could not be in 2 places at once. So, they decided to pre record a performance and use it as marketing to tide over the need for another appearance in NY. This idea of recording a performance to promote a band’s newest single ahead of time and distribute it… that was all The Beatles concept. So, I stand by what I said.
I would even add some more things, the Beatles pioneered: 1) Guitar Modulation effects - David already said it with loops and ADT, but I think it is important to pin out, that most of what we know today as guitar pedal effects was firstly done by the Beatles on the tape in the studio. 2) Introducing classic Instruments in Pop/Rock music - i.e. Abbey Road. The Beatles were one of the first people to do this. 3) The early Liverpool sound - To our modern ears the early work of the Beatles can sound kind of corny, but for the time they started it, they were actually the first ones to do it. And after their first records, everyone wanted that sound. 4) Pioneering psychedelic rock - This one also goes to Jimi Hendrix and other artists in the late 60s, but I think it is fair to say, that the Beatles also drove this movement. Good Examples are Sgt. peppers and The white Album.
About the classical instruments, i was thinking more about "Sergent Pepper....". I think you're right, they were one of the first Rock band to introduce full orchestra in their songs (Along with The Beach Boys and very few others). They were one of the earliest influences for the Progressive Rock foundations.
Guitar modulation -- A little love for Link Wray's 1959 classic Rumble, please. And whatever the hell was going on in the Tornados' 1962 Telstar sessions.
@@mattjames5694 What about The 13th Floor Elevators (1966), The Doors or the first Pink Floyd album with Syd Barrett for example !? I agree that The Beatles are probably the best or one of the best band ever, they're probably the most influencial Rock band of all time but give me a break !! There was other legendary Psychedelic Rock bands who changed the face of music. Listen to Pet Sounds (1966) by The Beach Boys and tell me that album did not pave the way for innovations in Pop and Rock music !! Pet Sounds was the main inspiration for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and is Paul McCartney's favorite album of all time. I agree, The Beatles are probably the best band of all time, but the world doesn't turn around them, there's other great artists who innovated in music.
complimented by happening upon a manager who saw their potential, a producer and studio technicians who were able to take what they were saying and find ways to make those happen, not to mention their own native abilities.... and a record company that knew a good thing when they saw it. Recall that they were turned down by Decca.
@@underground5220 no, their older songs are dated. But many songs on Rubber Soul, Help and Hard Days Night are just as good as stuff that came later. Ticket to ride and I Feel Fine are still probably my favourites.
Excellent video! As someone who bought 'Hard Day's Night' the day it was released in 1964, it's really encouraging to see that nearly 60 years later their music is recognised and appreciated by yet another generation. Well done and cheers from DownUnder.
Very perceptive young man there in the end being interviewed. Even then people knew that this was something special and not just another group with guitars. In 2000 ABC ran a wonderful 2 hour documentary called The Beatles Revolution. I distinctly remember Lenny Kravitz saying "it's the music, if the music wasn't so good we wouldn't be here talking about it". The fact that we're still talking about them, dissecting every song, publishing new books and releasing new documentaries almost 60 years after their debut pretty much tells you all you need to know.
I've taken psychedelics with my friends enough times to notice a trend. After we've "peaked" and are settling in, we always end up sitting and listening to The Beatles. We never plan to, it's just what happens.
I feel very fortunate to have lived through the entire Beatles saga from the beginning. I was 10 when Beatlemania hit. I played George in a neighborhood Beatles mime band! But then they went so far beyond the top-40 pop band of those days. Our parents would never have imagined it, but we knew. We knew.
I always wondered what it was like. What were your first responses to new Beatles records? How did it fit into the zeitgeist? For example, I always thought that Got to Get You into My Life brass and singing felt epic, like it was coming from the blue skies of God or something, like the soundtrack to life itself.
@@worldwidehappiness Great question, but it's not easy to answer -- I'm sure it depended a lot on who you were (and how old), what music you liked "BB" (before beatles), where you were in the world, and so on. I remember some of my early "wow" moments were their first Ed Sullivan Show appearance, songs like "She Loves You" and "Please Please Me", and then the movie themes: "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!" Later on, "Strawberry Fields Forever" was definitely a Mind. Blown. moment! There was so much other music going on then too -- Byrds, Mamas and Papas, the whole British Invasion... I clearly remember how my friends went nuts when the Stones' "Satisfaction" came out. Amazing times.
My top 5 reasons why I love the Beatles' music: 1. It's emotional, brave and honest (even those early songs that weren't really written from a personal perspective and experience somehow manage to sound honest and let you feel the beautiful minds of the band members). 2. It's optimistic. 3. It's humourous. 4. Interesting melodies and harmonies. 5. Clean and vibrant sound.
"I like to think that those early songs were exactly personal perspective "She Loves You", "Iwanna Hols Your Hand" and more. Those are exactly teenage experiences and struck the teenage audience right in the heart.
If you didn't grow up in the mid 60's, it's hard to imagine the seismic shift in music from before to after the Beatles. They went from 0-100 instantaneously.
I think my favorite of these innovations is the creative album covers. Today, for the most part, music is consumed while doing other things like driving, doing chores, etc. Long gone are the days when you'd go to the store and buy an album, put it on the home stereo and lay on the couch and look at the cover and read the liner notes. It was a wonderful way to relax and really take in the music.
Excellent comment. Yes, listening to music used to be an activity in itself, never a background sound. I remember getting mad at my parents when they came to talk to me in my room while I was listening to music, because they interrupted the part of a song that I liked! lol
There's a little more to ADT than just delaying the sound. They also used the speed regulator on the tape recorder to slightly slow down and speed up the tape for the delayed track, making it sound like the second vocal was slightly out of tune in places (like a second singer would naturally be). Nowadays we call this a "chorus" effect.
There are a few bands in the upper echelon of pop/rock music that have released songs and albums just as good as those of the Beatles. But when you consider the sheer quantity of great, innovative music the Beatles recorded over the course of the 60s, it's hard to argue that they're not the greatest band of all time. Thanks David for another great video. 🙂
It almost makes me emotional when I see a younger person understand the importance of the Beatles. And passing on that wisdom to others on top of it makes it all the more impactful. I think it's moving to me because it lets me know that the Beatles will never really die. John's violent death and George's early passing will always hurt deeply. But there's great comfort in knowing that their lives and the lives of the Beatles still with us will actually mean something for generations to come. Thank you so much for this David. You do incredible work. Something that came to mind while watching this video; which I know sounds like a strange request but actually might be an interesting addition to your channel, is if you started doing real-time reaction vids to music and musical films every now and then. Here are some first suggestions if you haven't seen these already and want to explore this: 1) Yellow Submarine (1968) - Animated film of a fantastical adventure of the Beatles facing off with the Blue Meanies in a fight to restore Pepperland and return it to its people. Tons of classic Beatles music with great animation throughout. 2) Imagine (1972) - A journey with John Lennon as he creates his classic album 'Imagine' with tons of rare footage - including some of John's home videos. 3) Pink Floyd (1982) - A psychedelic journey with a drugged addicted musician with many mind-bending visuals including animated and live-action imagery accompanied by classic music of Pink Floyd. Even if you don't do reactions vids to these (or anything else) I strongly recommend them to you as a fellow music lover. Thanks again for all David.
WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong. 1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen EORROS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller that suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
@@TT-jm7xy No capital to begin your sentence, and then no period to finish it. English class? Invest in a better brain than the one you bought at Doller Tree. Reason and wisdom will always defeat your stupidity in a court room, court room where evidence and reason come first. Thanks.
the best documentary i've seen by the Beatles is "How the Beatles changed the world". It is historically contextualized and goes in a timeline showing the changes and how they influenced culture and societey. As you put quite well: to know the Beatles, you have to do more than listeing to their music. You must understand "when", "how" and "why" they did it.
I would even say, they might actually be overrated. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the greatest and most influential band ever. As there is no band that is even close to them, there is plenty of room to be overrated and still be the best :)
@@AblemanSy the only band that comes close is Bill Monroe and his Bluegrass Boys, who created a whole new genre, that lasts until this day and is growing every decade. Check out Billy Strings. You won’t regret it.
@@AblemanSy Take a deep dive into some of the folks deconstructing the Beatles' individuals song here on You Tube. You'll find it increasingly hard to hold on to your claim that those boys are now over rated.
Thank you David: another very deep analysis, as usual. I think that underrating The Beatles means not knowing them. The rooftop concert is another unprecedented performance, I guess.
WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong. 1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen EORROS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller that suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
I love The Beatles a butt-ton. They feel like a band that's been together for decades until you learn just how short and bright they burned. Truly an all-star team.
Late to the party on this video, but I think it might be your best. Thank you! The Beatles were, in my opinion, miraculous. All of the elements coming together (pardon the pun) at the right time to produce superior art that will last forever - and all achieved in such a short time too. That's extraordinary.
"The Album cover." This is the thing I miss most when the industry moved away from LPs. For me much of the pleasure with a LP is the album cover. CD covers never made the same impact, now with downloads the way of the world, where once our records were music and art molded together to form a package, today people instead just select a track, ignoring the album. I use to sit and wonder what the music industry would have headed if not for the Beatles, then a shiver goes down my spine and I push such unthinkable ideas away.
Your assessment here definitely has some merit, but I would like to offer and alternate perspective. I think we can all agree that the consumption of music is faster and more convenient than it's ever been, yes? That means that first impressions are more important now than ever. When listening to a playlist on a streaming service, you don't get to see the all the individual covers. So at that point, it's up to song titles and artist names to pull the listener in. Then, of course, the song itself. And if people like the song, the very next thing they (or at least I) do is check out the artist's page, and often the album the initial song came from. This is hardly any different than hearing a song on the radio then going to a record shop and finding the artist's discography there. The only major difference is that it's faster and more convenient now. But still, no matter what, the album cover is a big factor for whether the listener decides to listen to more of the artist's music. If the song was good, but the album cover is boring, too "weird" (weird is subjective), etc, people are less likely to listen. But an interesting album cover is just as, if not more likely to invite the listener to listen more. I say "if not more likely" because, as stated previously, listening to music is more convenient now than it's ever been. It's a lot easier to just hit play on an album that looks interesting than it is to spend $25+ on an entire LP that you've only heard one song off of. So while we may be seeing album covers less and less over the years, I say their importance has only moved laterally, rather than being less necessary than before. The album cover has merely taken a new form; adapted to the current state of music.
@@pizzzaeater1425 That is very subjective, though. I was born in 1990, so I never lived the LP era when I was a kid, and I honestly don't understand the need to have an LP to enjoy the cover art. If I wanted to enjoy the cover art specifically I would just buy a nice print or poster of it. I understand the nostalgia part of it, but why go through the hassle of buying a giant disc that takes up so much space just for the cover art, when there are other, more convenient, ways to listen to a record? And what you said about the cover being a big factor in helping the listener to listen more of the album, I don't think you could generalize it. At least not in the current era, having so many streaming services and digital download options to choose from.
@@Alfonso162008 You're right, it is very subjective. That was just my take on it, as someone who regularly uses Spotify, but who also collects records. And while we're at it, I was born in 2001, so I didn't really even grow up with CD's. I definitely had them growing up, but none of them were ever "mine". So almost all of my musical exploration has been with streaming services. But I still think physical media is very important. Digital is fantastic for convenience, of course. And like I said, I use Spotify all the time, so I absolutely don't think streaming services are inherently bad by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a certain connection you feel to the music when there's a more physical aspect to it. I'd compare it to going to a concert, but in a much lesser sense. It's like saying that you love this artist/album so much, that even when there's a more convenient option, you still pick the one that costs more and requires more work. It means something to you, so you're willing to put more effort in to be able to hear it. I'd also compare it to actually playing and/or composing music, with the same ideas. There's a special connection that makes it feel more worth the extra effort. But at the end of the day, it is all still subjective. I'm a GIANT music nerd, and I love every single thing that has to do with music. Even the behind-the-scenes dirty work that the listener never sees. Theory, production, instruments, effects pedals, trends, performance, concert setup and teardown, gear, physical media, laws, stories, history. Everything. So of course I'm going to see the good in a very subjective piece of the music industry. But I also think that being able to see both sides is better than everyone agreeing on one side. Because variation is the spice of life. I'd get bored of just vinyl records all the time. It's very limiting, and is a lot of effort to go through to listen to music. But I'd also get bored of streaming all the time. It's convenient, and there's so much music to be found that I don't think I could ever give up streaming services now that I have them. But I feel like I'd lose my connection to the music I love the most if I never experienced it in other ways than streaming. Maybe that's just my neurodivergency talking, but I really do believe that variation is the spice of life. I suppose that is subjective too though, as variation can be found wherever the viewer wants to see it. I guess the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" also rings true. Art is subjective, after all.
Another thing that the Beatles more or less pioneered, that we take for granted now (although less so recently than in the ‘70s-‘00s), is writing most of their own songs. Before the Beatles, pop songs were written much like how hallmark birthday cards are written: by a people sitting at desks (the lyrics at least) in an office - semi-anonymously. Ironically, that’s not way far from how many modern pop songs are written too. Their output was essentially a lead sheet sold (or rented out, in essence) by their company.
It was 3 years and 7 months between recording Love Me Do and Tomorrow Never Knows. One is a simple, early 60s pop song, the other is definitely not. If your tastes run that way, substitute Eleanor Rigby for Tomorrow Never Knows. And they spent most of that time working their guts out in the road.
@@singledatapoint This is what always gets me. The "early bubblegum pop" Beatles were literally a matter of a few years separated from the "mature artistic genius" Beatles.
Thank you for making this fantastic video, I understand if someone doesn’t like their music (can’t please everyone), but The Beatles did so much more than what people realize because, like you said, what they pioneered has become the norm today.
You know what is amazing? Sans all of your points about their “firsts”, I gotta say, the message in the music of The Beatles made them #1 in my heart. When I hear all of these points you’re making, it only solidifies that notion and makes me smile. Great video, thank you so much!
16:01 Fascinating that the interviewer thought being a Beatles fan was only for girls! Good on that guy for not getting flustered, and giving a calm and insightful answer to a rather rude question.
This is such an excellent video. Thanks for your thorough research and professionalism. I've been a Beatles fan for 55 years and still learned so much!
They also were the first band to reinvent themselves, first as a trend setting touring/ recording band and then with Sgt Pepper, a trend setting studio band, turning out unmatched levels of variety
Exactly. It would be like the Backstreet Boys turning into Pink Floyd within 10 years and completely dominating the charts throughout the process. To further consider how astonishing their career was, George Harrison was 27 when the Beatles broke up. That massive impact in such a short span will never be matched. They're the benchmark.
And that's not counting the transformation they made after Epstein, going from leather-clad hooligans in Hamburg to the suited up Fab 4 back in Liverpool. Side note, I used to work with a girl named Penny White who used to frequent The Cavern and hung out with McCartney, Lennon, Jagger and the like.
8:05 interesting that Paul talked about "we" wanting to use the feedback. The story everyone else told was of John wanting to use it. George was quick to set the story straight there!
Credit where credit's due, the influence of the Beatles on popular music has been nothing short of phenomenal, and continues to be so. Of that there can surely be no dispute, regardless of whether you like them or not. Luckily, I just happen to be a fan. Top video, David.
I grew up in the 60s and listened to the Beatles. My Dad would come into the room and scream "Crap, Crap, Crap, this music is crap". Funny thing is about 10 years later Yellow Submarine was on TV as a movie. We watched it together, and he said he enjoyed the music.
Heh heh, cute story about how your Dad came around. Thanks for sharing that. My dad was the same, but my mom thought they were cute and funny. I was 6 when the Beatles hit the scene in America. My two older sisters were totally Beatles-crazy, and saw them in concert. Their Fab Four worship rubbed off on me, for which I'm thankful. In a single day, in 1964, they both switched from loving horses and Elvis, to going full tilt for the Beatles and the subsequent British Invasion acts. The day in question was the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. Even now, almost six decades later, I can recall those few minutes watching them in glorious black and white on our modest "portable" Zenith TV, with a horribly tinny speaker. Why that heavy TV had a hand-hold strap on top, I still can't figure out.
@@frizzell4321 The absolutely DID remain fans. They even bought way-out-there stuff I've never owned, like the John & Yoko LPs "The Wedding Album" and "Life with the Lions", and think I saw a Zapple records LP in their collection, if I remember correctly.
My father was disgusted by their 'long' hair and the way teen-age girls screamed over them. Of course, a few years later he came around and actually began to enjoy a lot of their music. It was amusing to see how my parents' generation went from non-approval of the Beatles to acceptance. I was a child of the 60s and lived thru Beatlemania. There will just never be another phenomenon like them. They had talent and chemistry. I was heartbroken when they broke up in 1970. The 70s started out crappy because of it.
@@jjhpor I have a 4 year old daughter and we love listening to Beatles tunes together. Her favorites are: Here Comes the Sun, Blackbird and Yellow Submarine.
If you really listen to how well all of their parts work together and how musical they are I think they are still deserving of their reputation purely based on the music let alone the innovation.
Tomorrow Never Knows has 5 pioneering feature alone. They wrote just over 300 songs in 7 yrs whilst living a ridiculously busy schedule. Their songs are so inventive with not much to copy before them and their wonderful ability to take old forms of music and make completely anew has never really been achieved by any other artiste. They stand for the most part alone, and with few rivals. The only band I share a similar love for is The Beach Boys as I believe they were very special also. It really thrills me when I see yet another teenager listening to the Beatles and becoming a lifelong fan. It's crazy to me that 60 yrs later the young are still discovering this genius band The Beatles.
Back in '64 I was one of those millions of kids who saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan and it was an amazing experience that changed my life and I immediately started my own band in which I played for years afterward. More than anyone else, The Beatles defined the modern concept of what we now think of as a "self-contained" rock group. There were plenty of other artists that had bands but they were not thought of as a group but rather a single artist with backup. And, there were vocal groups but they mostly didn't play instruments or write music as a team with other members. And, there were cover bands that played other people's music. But, The Beatles were a group that seemingly did it all themselves and that was a big deal back in the 60s and created the Rock Band concept as we know it today. At least that is how it seemed to me here in the USA. It may have been different in the UK or elsewhere. PS: I have not forgotten The Beach Boys. They were a self-contained rock band too from the same time period but, to me anyway, they were more of a specialty act that concentrated on a certain type of music with a narrower audience. They also started a little later than The Beatles: 1961 vs 1960.
Thanks, very interesting compilation of innovations in popular music introduced by the Beatles. This is far more than just stating that they are the best band of all times. What really moves me everytime I hear music by the Beatles is how fresh it sounds. Yes, it certainly has this 60s appeal, but the music somehow is timeless. And, of course, great!
The intro to this video reminds me of 12tone’s discussions of the classical canon. I’d argue that we have a rock canon too, established not by scholars but instead by institutions like Rolling Stone, Melody Maker, and later the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame here in the US. A really good supplement to this video would be How Music Works by David Byrne. Byrne was a pioneer in his own right as the frontman of Talking Heads (credit to Brian Eno as well!) and his genius really shines in this book. In my opinion he very expertly analyzes nearly everything that changes how music is produced, performed, and experienced. If you’re interested in learning how music evolves over time, it’s a fascinating read that takes into account a ton of things that I had never even thought about.
tbh i agree with mostly everything, but the rock and roll hall of fame should absolutely not control the rock and roll canon, it was way too little early blues included that formed into rock and roll
@@richardb9874 I love Trash Theory. His New British Canon videos are a great insight into British pop, rock, alternative, hip-hop, and R&B. He set out to prove that there's more to British music than just "A Day in the Life", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Stairway to Heaven", or "Paranoid Android".
I think you're right about the rock canon. But I suspect the biggest factor in establishing the canon is rock radio., or rather radio programmers. Stations used to be a lot more independent, but the consistency of playlists around the country is the reason that everyone knows the same Zeppelin songs, Eagles songs, Rush songs, etc. And that might also go back to record label marketing, pushing stations to play certain songs.
@@richarddoan9172 That makes a lot of sense, and it’s something I honestly hadn’t even considered! I grew up in the age of MP3 players and later music streaming, so I haven’t paid attention to the radio in years. Surely that changes my perception of things as well at a very core level.
Outstanding video! So many, many great songs. They were the perfect band for the perfect time in history. So much talent contained in one band with a vast contrast of personalities combined with the willingness to experiment musically. The result was timeless.
I came of age in the 60's, so I carefully anticipated and listened to all the Beatles' singles and albums (memorizing most). I remember when I first heard what I think was their first single to hit the US in 1964, I Want to Hold Your Hand, I was stunned . . . it's energy and freshness and innocence won me over immediately (my sister and I wore out our record player playing it over and over). And then from '64 - '69, with one brilliant hit coming out after another, and each one staying at the top of the charts for months - no one had ever done anything close to that. I looked forward to each new album with eagerness, because I knew that I could expect the same high standard of musicianship, and because I knew that they would introduce something new in each one (nicely explained in this video). The one album that took some getting used to for me (just because it was so ground-breaking, I think), Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I ended up loving as much as all their other albums. I still listen to their music regularly . . . sometimes covers of their work and sometimes in original form. In the music world, some songs get old, dated and tired over time; but the Beatles' music - never.
The co-operation between the Beatles and the Stones concerning when either band released a new single has been mentioned many times by Keith Richards. Basically, in the singles driven pop market of the 1960's, to remain fresh in the public's mind, a pop act had to release a single about every 6 weeks / two months. Most telling was Richards' usual response to hearing a new Beatles single, which was along the lines of, "Shit! Another good one!" lol
The Monkees released their album, "Headquarters," which was a very good album, on May 22, 1967. Unfortunately for them, "Sgt. Pepper's" was released 10 days later.
@@normanwhite6677 It still did pretty good in sales. Fact: Only three groups occupy the top ten selling albums list of the 1960s: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and The Monkees. I think people forget just how popular they were.
After the Beatles first hit the US charts, I was a big...Dave Clark Five fan. I liked the Beatles, but it wasn't until high school that I had money to buy all the Beatles albums. What amazed me was that the Beatles were so much more than their hits. The other songs on the albums were great too. Most groups/entertainers had albums where the hits were the only songs worth playing. Even lesser songs like "Blue Jay Way" were produced in a way to sound interesting. And the distinctive song introductions, where you could tell what song it was before any words were sung.
This is a nice video, thank you. The Beatles remain the greatest band for many reasons, not least among them is their ability to innovate seemingly every six months.
I think they're *underrated.* They really were on a level with the greatest musicians and groups of *all time,* including the likes of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Their music will be appreciated as long as the human race exists.
I'm not entirely sure how pioneering this was but right from the start of their recording career, the Beatles were writing almost all of their own songs. By the time they released Rubber Soul, there were only Beatles compositions on the album and this continued until they broke up. I remember seeing an interview with Brian Wilson in which he said how impressed and inspired he was by Rubber Soul - an album consisting entirely of Beatles songs with plenty of innovative music and no fillers. Six months later, the Beach Boys released the brilliant Pet Sounds (brilliant except for the album cover!) I think the success of the Beatles as songwriters led to many of their contemporaries trying their hands. Without them, we might not have had all of the excellent tracks produced by the Stones, the Who, the Kinks etc., and all that followed them.
It's a famous story, and I'm sure you know it, but for the benefit of future comment readers ; The Beatles literally showed a fledgling Rolling Stones how to write a song (when the Stones' manager invited The Beatles to watch them rehearse), and gave it to them when they were finished.
I agree with your point about original songwriting but for every generalisation there is an exception. "Maggie Mae" from the "Let It Be" album is a traditional folk song that had its genesis in the docks around Liverpool many many years ago.
Don't be silly. The Kinks came out in1964 with you really got me and they were far in advance compared to the beatles. Strangely they were banned from getting into usa. Sounds like not being buddy buddy with Jimmy Savile was not a good career booster
The Beatles changed western civilization (as they say) and then most of the rest of the planet. As my older son asked me when he was about three, "Bebopalula, dad? What's that...mean?" Thanks to Dylan, of course, the Beatles also brought poetry and meaning to lyrics. And sophisticated musical progressions cheerfully delivered as 'pop' songs. Penny Lane. I rest my case.
I totally agree. I'll admit, though, that I was hesitant to click on the video, having watched bazillions of Beatles-related vids on youtube before. I was thinking to myself, do I really need to watch this? Won't it be another rehash of Beatles lore? I kept passing it over, but finally gave in. I'm very glad I did. David did an amazingly good job.
The Beatles were extraordinary recording artists, and their music will live on forever. Thanks for this excellent historical video! Just a note: “ubiquous” (@ 1:02) is not a word. I believe you meant ‘ubiquitous’.
When I think of pioneering album art I think of the jazz records from the 50's - Charles Mingus "Ah Um" and Dave Brubeck "Time Out", but I agree that The Beatles brought it to the masses.
The most important one to me, which I wish you'd mentioned, is that they refused to play to segregated audiences, and had it written into their contracts. Racial segregation at music venues quickly declined after that.
"Blackbird"
I was 6 years old when my mother told me that. She was a Salvation Army officer and her respect for the Beatles never dwindled after that, today it doesn't seem to have any impact, but then it was a real wake up call to the racism in the USA that the Beatles thought just wasn't right. God bless em!
There was no segregation in the UK or Europe so they were naturally horrified to come across it in the USA.
I have to reply to this by drawing on history, and a biography I'm reading on Norman Granz. His role in jazz promotion and performance began in the '40s and he became famous for his JATP (Jazz at the Philharmonic) concerts. Early on he had written into his contracts that the audiences could not be segregated - just as the groups on stage were not.
Think Lester Young, Ella Fitzgerald, Oscar Peterson, Billy Holiday ...name a name, and Granz is there, making sure they were treated and paid fairly, and played in front of unsegregated audiences.
The book, by Tad Hershorn, is "Norman Granz: the Man who Used Jazz For Justice".
If you love jazz or are interested in racial justice in the USA, this is a must read.
They weren't the first to do that.
"The Beatles are overrated." This reminds me of the joke about the person who went to a performance of Hamlet and complained that the dialogue was just a bunch of old clichés.
I saw Hamlet for the first time a couple of weeks ago never having read it/ studied it. So many phrases had their source revealed.
Speaking of cliches...Ignorance is bliss! To Morrow and to Morrow...
To that point, despite everything, the Beatles are, ironically, the most underrated band of all time.
excellent comparison, everything that is common now comes from somewhere.
@@carinasanper, it's a tough one to explain what "true" originality is. Since everyone has been creatively influenced by someone or something, are we all guilty of plagiarism? Inspiration has many facets of ideas that have come from somewhere that sparks wonderful imagination. Or am I just a normal idiot that tries to connect those gosh darn dots?! Peace and thank you L.S.P. ll !
It’s pretty amazing to think they were only together for 7 years. Even just listening to their evolution of music it’s hard to believe that wasn’t over a 20 year period.
I have yet to see any music group last more than 7 years! After that, the "magic" they had disappears.
And they achieved prolificacy with their debut single.
Well, you must count the years before they became worldfamous and were working their asses of in Hamburg and in various venues all over England, for many years
@@bpark10001 The Stones?
@@bpark10001 Radiohead is one band that comes to mind.
Please don't forget that Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick was the first to use compression on drums, slamming a Fairchild 660 to get more energy on to tape. There's also another first by the Beatles: FLANGING: similar to ADT, but not the same, where a signal from one tape machine is duplicated on another and the second tape machine's reels are manually slowed down by putting a finger on the spool causing a whooshing of the audio, now emulated by countless machines and pedals. Thing is, JOHN LENNON coined the term FLANGING. Another first. And there ya go.
Could you source either of those claims sounds like an interesting read
@@ciaranward3559 For the flanging part: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanging#Origin
Note that the article does mention that Les Paul discovered the effect first; however, as OP said, it was Lennon who gave it the iconic name it now has.
Massive Beatles fan here - just wanted to say that in 1959, the song "The Big Hurt" was released, and it used arguably the first phasing sounds on record. Wikipedia:
"The Big Hurt" is a pop song that was a hit for Toni Fisher (billed as "Miss Toni Fisher") in 1959. The song was written by Wayne Shanklin. "The Big Hurt" is notable because it featured phasing effects which at that time were rare in popular music; ...
Weren't they the first to use a synthesizer on a pop record as well? I know there was those silly records that maybe came out before like "Bach on the Moog" or whatever... not aware of a pop/rock record though.
@@urwholefamilydied my understanding is there werent the first first the byrds used it on the notorious byrds brothers but they were one of the first
You're right, most of these things are kinda taken for granted without thinking where they originated from. Awesome video as always, thank you for the incredible information.
Thanks! 😃😃
But The Beatles didn't originate all these things.
Yeah right
Lies taken for granted they are not true and ignored because we know they did not innovate anything
*They capitalized on things black people do but no whites knew about*
#QuotesByKanD
@@business1417 well, that in itself would be pioneering, surely
What I remember most about the Beatles was the "Surprise" element for every album. For other bands, every album repeated a formula, but the Beatles kept innovating and expanding their sound with every album in the sixties. It was always exciting.
They were innovators. That’s why they were not as popular as solo artists. They stopped innovating and were just singer songwriters like everyone else.
There were no “filler tracks” ( with one or two exceptions) on their albums!
Its also what I believe is the best thing about pink floyd
@@thedvguy they all had huge hits as solo artists
every album after rubber soul sounds very distinct and different from each other
One of their first “firsts” was literally the first few seconds of the first song on their first album. Paul counting in “One, two, three FOUR!” On “I Saw Her Standing There” was the first studio recording released with the count in included.
Good point. When we first heard it way back then (I was 14), we thought he substituted a naughty word for "four." Either that or "fire."
Damn I'm glad those guys made a band.
Remember the standard punk intro of 1, 2, 3, 4 used by the Ramones and others? A friend of mine, a Beatle hater, used to start every song that his punk band did like that, not even knowing where it originated.
He didn't know that the Ramones took their name from a McCartney alias, either. Beatles innovations were so profound that a lot of people don't know where they came from.
Beatles innovations were not strictly musical or sonic, either. They were without doubt the first modern rock outfit, the pioneers of the 'band as gang' concept - and let's face it, everyone wanted to be in the Beatles' gang.
@@tonybates7870 and as a result of wanting to be like The Beatles, long hair for men became fashionable in Western society again!
@@tonybates7870 The meaning of the word band changed when they played Sullivan. From that point on whenever anyone has said "let's start a band" they invariably mean "let's start a Beatles".
So happy to see you are finally giving the beatles some attention, they should be in more videos
Lmaoooo
Lol
Bruh
😄😄
David needs to cover more Radiohead too, super under represented on this channel
"Tomorrow Never Knows" is 3 minutes of pop music's past, present and future all in one song.
It’s the strangest song I ever heard but I love it!
They were also the first band that could sell records without touring to promote it. This also gave them the freedom to produce songs that could not be reproduced live which opened many creative possibilities.
They also started Apple Records. They were their own bosses.
One reason to stop touring was fear of attack after lennon made his Jesus statement and the last American dates were to half empty venues.
@@Lifeinthe808 which lost them a fortune and was partially responsible for their split. You never give me your money you only give me your funny paper.....
WRONG. They had already established their popularity.
WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong.
1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen ERRORS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller than suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
@@markuse3472 … chill
15:05 that interviewer was expressing his own biased thoughts in form of a question, looking down on the public. And that boy gave an excellent answer.
Amazing video! Thank you
Yeah, his answer was right on the money. It's still true to this day.
But the young gentleman played it like a pro.
I’m now 71 and I would like to say that I feel very lucky to have been a teenager when the the Beatles inspired the world. I can clearly remember rushing home from school to play “Rubber Soul” on my red mono Dansette record player. I would especially play “Girl” over and over. Happy days. 🤔🇮🇪
My mother was the first Beatles fan at her school. She brought the first record, Meat the Beatles 👍
I'm 20 years younger than you and jealous that I didn't live through this period. They broke up a couple of weeks before I was born so I never knew them when they were together but they have always been a part of my life. One of my first memories of them was in the summer of 1976, they had rereleased "Got to Get You Into My Life" and I would hear that song on the radio all summer long while I was at the pool and absolutely loved it and whatever other Beatles song that I heard. Then when I was in my late teens, they released all the CDs in order, spread out by a few months. I was grateful they did this because I would get them as they came out and was able to really digest every album before the next one came out.
I listen to a large range of music all the way from 20s jazz to 90s punk rock but the Beatles are the one band that I always come back to. There music is timeless.
@@danmoll7069
To reinforce your point … my son would be about 20 years younger than you and he is just as much in awe as you and me.
It’s funny that I said to my wife just this morning that in a few hundred years time no one will talk about Covid-19 or Brexit but I feel that people will still be listening to Sgt Pepper, Revolver, etc.
@@anthonyhill6943Yes and my 15 year old daughter also loves them. And she tells me that many of her friends love them too
Wow what a cool experience, thanks for sharing. I agree, I could listen to "Girl" over and over as well. Beautiful song.
Imagine being the guy that said "as long as they keep making music, they'll last". That's gotta feel good.
Well he did underestimate by a few dozen centuries.
Their music will outlast all of us.
Well, he was right. Ringo and Paul are not dead yet. 😉
That guy was so right and time has proved his amazing insight
The Wolfgang Mozarts of our time.
"The Beatles started it, they did it the best, and everyone who came afterwards was a kind of Beatles tribute band"
-Kurt Cobain
Love this from Kurt … and I loved Nirvana
Yes, he was bloody right with that.
spoken like a true drug addict......he is right but still a drug addict...
@@willieboy8798 De mortui nihil sine bene.
@@Wuei108 you felt the need to respond in Latin? not dead yet....
sounds more like a snooty disagreement!
The Beatles were more than just a band; they were a cultural phenomenon of lasting influence. It didn't hurt either, that their music was and is very durable over time.
Finally, David is talking about the Beatles, he's never spoken about them before!
He'll be doing a video about Radiohead next.
🤣
Album “Revolver” when is released,sounded like it’s coming from the future. Even today it sounds very new and fantastically fresh. Nobody matched that achievement and is already past fifty five years ago. Incredible.
Brian Wilson compositions compare favorably.
One of my all time favourite LP's
David Bowie said the key is not to be the first to do something but being the second. Applies to Beatles, though they were still best. Example of Bowie's axiom would be Velvet Underground and Pink Floyd with Syd Barrett but many others since
"Tomorrow never knows" is so timeless. I can't imagine how mindblowing it must have been back then.
Revolver is my favourite beatles record
They weren't the first, but I think the Beatles also deserve a lot of credit for turning multi-track recording into another industry standard. They turned the studio into an instrument, exploited its possibilities, and transformed the idea of a pop band from "performing artists" to "recording artists."
Brilliant as always, Mr. Bennett! Also, in jazz bands, the drummer was elevated behind the musicians. This was adopted by the Beatles to show off Ringo. A stage choreography the group did always impressed me, too. Paul,being a leftie, could position himself with George on the same mike. Plus the fact, everybody was singing!
Singing, not so much Ringo.
@@schaferatsprynet He still sung more than any other drummer did in those days. Many of their albums had Ringo doing a song.
Love that clip at the end. The interviewer being so condescending and the "kids" responding with such thoughtfulness. When I first got into the Beatles as a preteen, I figured I'd outgrow them eventually - like other things you're into as a kid (uhm unicorns & Tweety come to mind), but I've only gotten to like them more and more. There's comfort in hearing songs that are so ingrained in my head but also there's always new things to learn and experience with them that can't see me ever getting sick of them.
You don't "outgrow" greatness....in paintings, in music, in literature.
you sums it up perfectly
Username checks out lol
Having lived thru those heady days... the adults WERE condescending! They HATED these four mop-haired guys from England!! Too different! Not straight-laced or buttoned- up at all !! And the music made the kids go crazy and dance around, shouting and clapping! It all made them grind their teeth!!! But we kids new.... THIS was really something new and exciting!! It launched the Real 60's... the generation gap... women's liberation... anti-war activity. Some called us the "Peace" Generation, because, as they sang... and we sang along with them.... "All you Need is Love!!" Of course, as always happens... things soured after awhile... but those early Beatle Days were simply joyous!!!
@@scottski51 The adults came around though. My parents heard me in my room trying to learn their first album on guitar, and when I came out they said "You don't REALLY like them, do you?" And I remember saying "Mom, this is different "(they had been used to me playing Beach Boy records, etc). I said "This group is really really special" and they shook their heads. A few months later my Mom was asking me to play "And I Love Her" ...."Now that's a nice song!" she would say. In 1980, I saw a tear in her eye while the news spoke of John's killing.
I was born in 1960.
My first memories: I had 3 older sisters (all teenage by 65) who played Beatles records in the house constantly, both in their rooms and on our giant Telefunken stereo in the living room. My parents, Greatest generation, fought in WWII people, tolerated it because...they liked the Beatles.
Anytime we went anywhere in the car, the Beatles were playing on the radio. I remember watching the Ed Sullivan appearance and the live broadcast. I saw A Hard Days Night in the movie theater.
On top of that, at some point, when I got up on Saturday morning to watch cartoons - there were The Beatles in cartoon format.
There has never been any cultural phenomena close to absolute ubiquity as the Beatles were in the 60's and early 70's. Even Elvis did not come close.
It you would have asked me in 1967 to describe music, I would have just replied: The Beatles.
Some other firsts could be:
1. Two Side A singles
2. Using orchestral music in Pop/Rock songs
3. The concept of 'Concept' album
4. Double album
5. Earliest known version of a heavy metal song
6. Medley in an album
7. Equal share in the business for all the band members.
1. I'll give them that one
2. Beach Boys notably did that beforehand and I'm sure there's others
3. Nirvana (the UK band) had a proper rock opera before Sgt. Pepper's (which is barely a concept album to begin with)
4. Dylan and Zappa have the Beats beat by at least two years
5. if we are to consider Helter Skelter heavy metal (which I disagree with) then there's other earlier songs that fit the criteria
6. the earliest medley in pop that I know of was by Louis Prima
7. this I'm not sure of, might give them this one
@@ajsvideodump 2. Both were contemporaries and experimenting with sounds. The Beatles, esp Paul (along with Martin's influence) was using more of classical music instrumentations. Brian Wilson considered reaching the level of Rubber Soul as his greatest ambition.
3. An opera is not equal to a concept album. There was a nascent pattern of concept in SPLHCB with a hypothetical band playing songs.
4. Will concede that Dylan was ahead in this regard.
5. The singing in Helter Skelter is the prototype HM singing.
6. OK, I'm not aware of that, so thanks. But Abbey Road Medley is created for the album rather than some old songs put together.
@@diffbreak2366 golden slumbers is an old traditional lullaby, of course with a new Paul arrangement/music
@@ajsvideodump you gotta fix that shit bro 😂😂
@@TraverseRaps how come? I've been humbled, to an extent, at least. I would still like to object to the concept album part, because if we are to talk about a concept album within the broader range of "a collection of songs with a specific idea or theme in mind", Dust Bowl Ballads and In the Wee Small Hours are both arguably concept albums that proceed Pepper. But I'm not really here to argue or discredit The Beatles or whatever, I love The Beatles and do believe their work in music is innovative and highly influential, I'm just trying to further inform others.
I've heard people say that The Beatles didn't really play or sing all that well live but they are comparing them with the bands of today that have all sorts of technology that didn't exist in the early 1960s. Autotune, in-ear monitors, much better and more powerful amps and mixing technology, all sorts of effects, etc, etc.
I played in rock bands in the 60s, and, man, it wasn't easy to sound good back then, especially outdoors or in a large venue. I can't even imagine playing at Shea Stadium with 60s technology. All they had were a few 100-watt amps and a crappy PA system. It's a miracle they sounded as good as they did.
Plus lets face it, its a band recorded material that matters. And boy doesnt their recorded material!
They literally could not hear themselves play, it’s insane to think that they managed to stay on time, and in key for almost all of the performances
Even tho they couldn't hear what they were playing at Shea stadium, the audio recording captured during that performance was amazing. They really were good at performing that they could do it without hearing themselves. 😁
During Beatlemania, they didn't sound all that good live, for the most part. But it was because of what David was saying: They were playing large venues with inadequate equipment and they couldn't hear themselves because of all the screaming. Nobody would sound good under those circumstances. The average bar band has better equipment than what the Beatles had at Shea Stadium.
@@lynnturman8157 I've watched video of nearly every performance the Beatles did back in the 60's, and they all sound okay. Probably didn't sound great in the audience (especially from way in the back), but the Beatles still performed well, and it sounds good on the videos.
The printing of lyrics on “Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” (the first album to do so) could have been expanded further as a ninth innovation. This actually angered the sheet music industry, which people who would buy the sheet music to see what the lyrics were to the songs, even if they weren’t instrumentalists. As you can see most people usually don’t have sheet music, but it is now standard to have lyrics included in albums.
Basic idea made great by the pop culture senseless masses. It's nothing. Basic.
@@markuse3472
I didn’t say it was the best thing since sliced bread. I mentioned this fact as a cultural event that the Beatles pioneered and is still done today.
It’s literally in the video as the 8th
At one time sheet music sales made as much as records!
@@markuse3472 You're basic!
Even when you put all these innovations aside, The Beatles were the most important band of all time. The were extremely popular AND extremely good. They have made so many songs that are absolute classics. Not only songs by Lennon and McCartney, but also by George Harrison.
Excellent video, by the way!
People talk a lot about the "growth" of their music, how it got more sophisticated and complex and indeed it did. However I'm 78 and I am still stunned by the absolute magic of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You". They were fantastic on day one. Then they got better.
Fact!
and who could forget Octopus’s Garden?
I'm not a drummer so can't really appreciate it, but I've seen many clips of famous drummer state that Ringo was a genius who transformed rock drumming.
And somehow throughout the years, the Beatles still have songs such as Don't Let Me Down and Oh! Darling which don't really feel like they've aged at all. Listening to their albums as a 23 year old for the first time, I honestly find myself feeling like these songs came out a few years ago not in the 60s
"For Love, For Love and Bloody Peace!" So well put. How could you not love Ringo (Peace & love).
The coolest guy around, and never mind that he's--what--81?
Peace and love, Francis!
Ringo is not that cool. He was named in the Panama papers for being involved in tax evasion. He moved his money to an offshore bank account to defraud his fellow citizens. He also admitted to being abusive to his wife and family in the 90s. Nobody seems to give John a pass for it, so I don't think we should for Ringo, either. Not very peace and love.
I was always anxiously waiting for the next record they released to see what they were going to do this time.
They went from 'I Wanna Hold your Hand' to 'A Day in the Life' in three and a half years - no-one since Mozart had hauled the popular music world along in their wake at such a speed.
buddy holly changed music as we knew it in 18 months
Bob Dylan also did release 3 FREAKING GOOD albums that forever changed music history in only 13 months. The 3 albums are Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde.
@@hansonzhang8431But, none had the impact that the Beatles had, until today!
The Beatles was also the first band to introduce the concept of "breaking up". That's why the Beatles' break-up was so heart-wrenching because it was probably the first time anyone have heard of a band announcing to their fans that the band will no longer be making music together. It's also very sad because the Beatles broke when they were still on the peak of their creativity.
People, including Jimi Hendrix, were pretty upset when Cream 'broke up'
500 years from now...society...will still be listening to, the greatest band of all time... The Beatles.
And QUEEN
Led Zepplin
Unfortunately, according to "Star Trek Beyond," they're listening to the Beastie Boys. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. But you're right, Captain Kirk will have his complete Beatles collection in his cabin.
I think you mean Wyld Stallyns
they got lucky, being near first anything they tried was new revolutionary, ground breaking !!! what geniuses !!!.
their only skill was the same as children with natural skill in language, other children have the same aptitude but for music, get 5 in a band and they wont need music theory.
they were simply all naturally talented in music, so they could easily pull off the hits.
other bands are lucky to have one suck individual, and blessed if they have two, but the unskilled will get in their way
I was nine when the Beatles first appeared and was always in a state of awe at the innovations they developed for us. I remember the live video of All You Need is Love like it just happened. Four lads made the entire world stop, for just a moment, and listen to a message of love, shared with all, simultaenously.
The first live worldwide satellite broadcast. I remember that too. And another first for the Beatles.
“As long as they keep playing, they’ll last.”
Oh boy, they’re still lasting to this day…
The Beatles are actually underrated - other amazing pioneering aspects missed in your great presentation: 1- They cemented the concept of the self-contained group (other artists, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and Bob Dylan wrote their own music, but The Beatles, by their 3rd album, totally wrote and performed their own recordings which became the benchmark approach from then on for practically every other reputable artist/musician). 2 - Pop stars/singers starring in movies was usually to cash in on their popularity, with quickly dated and forgettable celluloid produced - The Beatles first movie "A Hard Day's Night" is universally regarded as a 4-star effort (and what a soundtrack!!) 3 - Prior to The Beatles, no pop group could be introduced by their 4 christian names (John, Paul, George and Ringo) without recognising who the group was - still doesn't happen to this day. 4 - The Beatles TV Cartoon series was the first television cartoon series produced featuring contemporary living people. 5 - The Beatles singlehandedly, by their appearance on the Ed Sullivan show in Feb. '64, started the "British Invasion" of America which opened the doors for the introduction of The Rolling Stones, The Animals, The Who, The Kinks (and many more) to US audiences, and greatly influenced every important and major musical act that for the next 30+ years (The Byrds, The Beach Boys, Bruce Springsteen, Queen, ABBA, David Bowie, Black Sabbath, Billy Joel, KISS, Nirvana and on and on and....). The Beatles overrated? There is not one musician on this planet who would not have loved to been in that band.
The White Album not only featured no art, it was a double album. Fun fact, the Beatles didn't even want their name on the White Album sheath, but the record company wouldn't allow it.
You are hilarious! 1. The Everly Brothers wrote and sang their own songs and had a string of hits from 1957 to about 1961. 2. Elvis. 3. Elvis and indeed Don and Phil, or Buddy. 4. Yes there were endless ways found to exploit their name. If this is considered a good thing by you then great.
5. Their act was tame and sexless (unlike the stones) and so conservative US families did not object to them, so they were allowed onto prime time TV.
You seem to then think that pop music started with the Beatles. Of course they did have influence and their sheer popularity brought firsts, but really they were only amongst all the other groups of the time as far as influencing future groups.
Also they tended to construct songs in a very old fashioned way (take Yesterday it is just AABA just three very repeated verses and a break) that went out of style in favour of a verse and chorus setup. So really their style died.
You could find more ground-breaking advances with say Phil Spectre, Buddy Holly, The Beachboys or dozens of others.
All sounds a bit desperate. Go and put on Crying by Roy Orbirson and then see if you can find a Beatles track with a vocal half as good as that. You will not.
@@grolfe3210 The video correctly left that out as a "breaking ground" to solely attribute The Beatles with. As another example - Brian Wilson wrote most of the songs on the Beach Boys first album. So, it's just too arguable to give the Beatles that pedestal as well.
@@grolfe3210 well, all I can tell you is, I didn’t care much for rock and roll until the Beatles came along. And I’m sure I’m not alone. I knew a lot of kids who felt the same way.
There are a lot of musicians who are underrated.
@@MsNickie1001 But the most of the others grew up and our taste got more sophisticated. If you use the "first group I liked" measure then David Cassidy and The Osmonds are the greatest!
Rock and Roll? Surely you mean pop. Stones did rock, Beatles mostly did Saccharine ballads, and silly novelty pop songs after the poor cover songs phase.
My favorite Beatles innovation is what we now know as the "music video". The story as I remember from Anthology was that they could not perform on Ed Sullivan, but still needed to promote the new song single - so they recorded a video of them performing and sent it to Ed to broadcast live on his show. Thus, the music video for promotion was born. Long live the Beatles.
Connie Francis made videos of Stupid Cupid in 1958 and Lipstick on Your Collar in 1959 .
, pre - dating the boys .
@@RobertStambaugh-l5rThe big difference is that her performance was only captured based on being present in a tv studio and… it just happened. It was to promote that moment, live.
The Boys and George Martin… they consciously made a decision with knowing they could not be in 2 places at once. So, they decided to pre record a performance and use it as marketing to tide over the need for another appearance in NY. This idea of recording a performance to promote a band’s newest single ahead of time and distribute it… that was all The Beatles concept. So, I stand by what I said.
@@dbg_r6543 think Connie's cover of ' And i Love Him ' is the best cover ever of a Beatle's song .
I stand by that belief .
When David posts a video on The Beatles: I can't click fast enough... thank you!
You're talking about me?
😃😃😃
Same here, my favorite RUclips subject. 😎🎸
@@DavidBennettPiano opinions on me? I feel like you hate me because you never mention me...
It’s incredible how much the industry change just because of the Beatles but the world as well
Double tracking is literally what define John Lennon's vocal sound on record ! Incredible !
I would even add some more things, the Beatles pioneered:
1) Guitar Modulation effects - David already said it with loops and ADT, but I think it is important to pin out, that most of what we know today as guitar pedal effects was firstly done by the Beatles on the tape in the studio.
2) Introducing classic Instruments in Pop/Rock music - i.e. Abbey Road. The Beatles were one of the first people to do this.
3) The early Liverpool sound - To our modern ears the early work of the Beatles can sound kind of corny, but for the time they started it, they were actually the first ones to do it. And after their first records, everyone wanted that sound.
4) Pioneering psychedelic rock - This one also goes to Jimi Hendrix and other artists in the late 60s, but I think it is fair to say, that the Beatles also drove this movement. Good Examples are Sgt. peppers and The white Album.
Yeah. What’s more psychedelic than a mother fussin’ sitar, man.
About the classical instruments, i was thinking more about "Sergent Pepper....". I think you're right, they were one of the first Rock band to introduce full orchestra in their songs (Along with The Beach Boys and very few others). They were one of the earliest influences for the Progressive Rock foundations.
Guitar modulation -- A little love for Link Wray's 1959 classic Rumble, please. And whatever the hell was going on in the Tornados' 1962 Telstar sessions.
I can't think of any bands that could play better psychedelia than The Beatles without sounding like a parody of The Beatles.
@@mattjames5694 What about The 13th Floor Elevators (1966), The Doors or the first Pink Floyd album with Syd Barrett for example !? I agree that The Beatles are probably the best or one of the best band ever, they're probably the most influencial Rock band of all time but give me a break !! There was other legendary Psychedelic Rock bands who changed the face of music. Listen to Pet Sounds (1966) by The Beach Boys and tell me that album did not pave the way for innovations in Pop and Rock music !! Pet Sounds was the main inspiration for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and is Paul McCartney's favorite album of all time. I agree, The Beatles are probably the best band of all time, but the world doesn't turn around them, there's other great artists who innovated in music.
The beatles arrived just at the right time in history when technology was improving in such a way to compliment their groundbreaking songwriting.
complimented by happening upon a manager who saw their potential, a producer and studio technicians who were able to take what they were saying and find ways to make those happen, not to mention their own native abilities....
and a record company that knew a good thing when they saw it.
Recall that they were turned down by Decca.
@@underground5220 no, their older songs are dated. But many songs on Rubber Soul, Help and Hard Days Night are just as good as stuff that came later.
Ticket to ride and I Feel Fine are still probably my favourites.
All amazing pioneers seem to have arrived just at the right time.
The perfect storm.
Success = talent + hard work + luck
Excellent video! As someone who bought 'Hard Day's Night' the day it was released in 1964, it's really encouraging to see that nearly 60 years later their music is recognised and appreciated by yet another generation. Well done and cheers from DownUnder.
Very perceptive young man there in the end being interviewed. Even then people knew that this was something special and not just another group with guitars. In 2000 ABC ran a wonderful 2 hour documentary called The Beatles Revolution. I distinctly remember Lenny Kravitz saying "it's the music, if the music wasn't so good we wouldn't be here talking about it". The fact that we're still talking about them, dissecting every song, publishing new books and releasing new documentaries almost 60 years after their debut pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Well said.
I'll never be tired of watching new videos about the Beatles !
George - "...so in a way, [John] invented Jimi Hendrix", followed by his wry smile and cheeky laugh. Gold!
I've taken psychedelics with my friends enough times to notice a trend. After we've "peaked" and are settling in, we always end up sitting and listening to The Beatles. We never plan to, it's just what happens.
Thank you!
Yeah The Beatles are great on psychedelics, Gorillaz too.
I feel very fortunate to have lived through the entire Beatles saga from the beginning. I was 10 when Beatlemania hit. I played George in a neighborhood Beatles mime band! But then they went so far beyond the top-40 pop band of those days. Our parents would never have imagined it, but we knew. We knew.
Right on, Donald! I was 13 in '63 and got my first guitar the Christmas the Beatles album came out. Became a musician for forty years.
sir you are a VERY lucky person.
I always wondered what it was like. What were your first responses to new Beatles records? How did it fit into the zeitgeist? For example, I always thought that Got to Get You into My Life brass and singing felt epic, like it was coming from the blue skies of God or something, like the soundtrack to life itself.
1964 the year I was born, you were already enjoying the greatest band in the world.... Luck you Donald
@@worldwidehappiness Great question, but it's not easy to answer -- I'm sure it depended a lot on who you were (and how old), what music you liked "BB" (before beatles), where you were in the world, and so on. I remember some of my early "wow" moments were their first Ed Sullivan Show appearance, songs like "She Loves You" and "Please Please Me", and then the movie themes: "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help!" Later on, "Strawberry Fields Forever" was definitely a Mind. Blown. moment!
There was so much other music going on then too -- Byrds, Mamas and Papas, the whole British Invasion... I clearly remember how my friends went nuts when the Stones' "Satisfaction" came out. Amazing times.
My top 5 reasons why I love the Beatles' music: 1. It's emotional, brave and honest (even those early songs that weren't really written from a personal perspective and experience somehow manage to sound honest and let you feel the beautiful minds of the band members). 2. It's optimistic. 3. It's humourous. 4. Interesting melodies and harmonies. 5. Clean and vibrant sound.
"I like to think that those early songs were exactly personal perspective "She Loves You", "Iwanna Hols Your Hand" and more. Those are exactly teenage experiences and struck the teenage audience right in the heart.
The song Yer Blues is NOT optimistic lol
If you didn't grow up in the mid 60's, it's hard to imagine the seismic shift in music from before to after the Beatles. They went from 0-100 instantaneously.
I think my favorite of these innovations is the creative album covers. Today, for the most part, music is consumed while doing other things like driving, doing chores, etc. Long gone are the days when you'd go to the store and buy an album, put it on the home stereo and lay on the couch and look at the cover and read the liner notes. It was a wonderful way to relax and really take in the music.
i used to lean on the speaker reading the lyrics or only appreciating the art of the cover
That's because people are soulless today. They're like walking smart phones, not people. Almost no emotion at all. And certainly no joy.
and you had something interesting to look at while you cleaned your weed.
Excellent comment. Yes, listening to music used to be an activity in itself, never a background sound. I remember getting mad at my parents when they came to talk to me in my room while I was listening to music, because they interrupted the part of a song that I liked! lol
@@guillervz exactly!
There's a little more to ADT than just delaying the sound. They also used the speed regulator on the tape recorder to slightly slow down and speed up the tape for the delayed track, making it sound like the second vocal was slightly out of tune in places (like a second singer would naturally be). Nowadays we call this a "chorus" effect.
It's also called a "flange" effect, and that term came from pressing your finger on the flange of the tape reel to slow it down.
There are a few bands in the upper echelon of pop/rock music that have released songs and albums just as good as those of the Beatles. But when you consider the sheer quantity of great, innovative music the Beatles recorded over the course of the 60s, it's hard to argue that they're not the greatest band of all time. Thanks David for another great video. 🙂
It almost makes me emotional when I see a younger person understand the importance of the Beatles. And passing on that wisdom to others on top of it makes it all the more impactful.
I think it's moving to me because it lets me know that the Beatles will never really die. John's violent death and George's early passing will always hurt deeply. But there's great comfort in knowing that their lives and the lives of the Beatles still with us will actually mean something for generations to come.
Thank you so much for this David. You do incredible work.
Something that came to mind while watching this video; which I know sounds like a strange request but actually might be an interesting addition to your channel, is if you started doing real-time reaction vids to music and musical films every now and then.
Here are some first suggestions if you haven't seen these already and want to explore this:
1) Yellow Submarine (1968) - Animated film of a fantastical adventure of the Beatles facing off with the Blue Meanies in a fight to restore Pepperland and return it to its people. Tons of classic Beatles music with great animation throughout.
2) Imagine (1972) - A journey with John Lennon as he creates his classic album 'Imagine' with tons of rare footage - including some of John's home videos.
3) Pink Floyd (1982) - A psychedelic journey with a drugged addicted musician with many mind-bending visuals including animated and live-action imagery accompanied by classic music of Pink Floyd.
Even if you don't do reactions vids to these (or anything else) I strongly recommend them to you as a fellow music lover.
Thanks again for all David.
WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong.
1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen EORROS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller that suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
@@TT-jm7xy No capital to begin your sentence, and then no period to finish it. English class? Invest in a better brain than the one you bought at Doller Tree. Reason and wisdom will always defeat your stupidity in a court room, court room where evidence and reason come first. Thanks.
the best documentary i've seen by the Beatles is "How the Beatles changed the world". It is historically contextualized and goes in a timeline showing the changes and how they influenced culture and societey. As you put quite well: to know the Beatles, you have to do more than listeing to their music. You must understand "when", "how" and "why" they did it.
I always think the Beatles are overrated, until I start listening to them.
Exactly
I would even say, they might actually be overrated. But that doesn't change the fact that they are the greatest and most influential band ever. As there is no band that is even close to them, there is plenty of room to be overrated and still be the best :)
@@AblemanSy the only band that comes close is Bill Monroe and his Bluegrass Boys, who created a whole new genre, that lasts until this day and is growing every decade. Check out Billy Strings. You won’t regret it.
@@AblemanSy Take a deep dive into some of the folks deconstructing the Beatles' individuals song here on You Tube. You'll find it increasingly hard to hold on to your claim that those boys are now over rated.
I’ve NEVER thought they were overrated!! Never crossed my mind. 👍
Thank you David: another very deep analysis, as usual.
I think that underrating The Beatles means not knowing them.
The rooftop concert is another unprecedented performance, I guess.
There is two ways of categorize music: before Beatles and from the Beatles until now. Beatles won't live forever but their music will never ends.
Before the Beatles, imho, there was music Before Mozart and music After Mozart. The Beatles' effect on music was analogous, in my mind, to Mozart's.
WRONG and Beatles fans will always be wrong.
1. Fandom was not a Beatles creation: those stadium venues were GIVEN to them by the brainless teen girls--mostly. This is a fact throughout all generations. Taylor Swift, Michael Jackson, Justin Bieber, etc., etc., etc., were HANDED to them: singers/artists have nothing to do with it. Fame and fortune is GIVEN to whomever the bias masses choose to give to. 2. Broadcast TV, etc. Again, they didn't do it: Network TV are the ones needing the credit for Any And ALL singers/artists who were televised, Beatles were just there. 3. Looping. They may have popularized it, but they were not the first and their own in their music outright is Horrible. It's not organic, either, so they can keep that autotune-like "pioneering" part. There is nothing great from it. 4. Guitar feedback or, unstable frequency, is nothing more than having found or seen EORROS in stability. It was heard in the 1950s, but again, these 1960s One Directioners simply popularized it. I kind of like it in some music, but it's nothing more than a tiny fraction of the talent of actually playing the instruments. 5. Reverse tracking. The video says "countless" have used it afterwards, yet, that number is MUCH smaller that suggested and, it never, never became popular. Why? Because it was a stupid and horrible sound. 6. Artificial Double Tracking. LMFAO!!! Moving on. 7. Um, NO. This truly shows how mindless pop culture has made most people. This video dude needs a real lesson in American or Western foreign-used sounds that was there much earlier than your Beatles. As for specifics, and it IS REGUARDLESS of the instrument, the Indian sound was WELL made known to the masses by SLIM GAILLARD. He didn't popularize it but the masses heard it. More so, it did NOT become popular after G. Harrison. 8. Album covers. This dude and all Beatle fans are in serious need of honesty and case history. Pathetic. Beatles had had to use 1930-1950s influence. 9. Sales/charts success. Going back to point number one, the masses of stupid girls (and boys) ARE WHO GAVE The Beatles that privilege, or opportunity. These fangirls could have chosen, they very well could have, another singer or band to make very popular. These things never come from talent but from the biases and prejudices of the pop culture masses. Lastly, I WOULD HAVE P2P DEBATE ON THIS MATTER WITH ANY ONE, EVEN PAUL himself, because the last thing I fear is pop culture stupidity. He would not win because the truth prevails and I would send him home with a tail between his legs. Peace everyone.
Popular music.
I love The Beatles a butt-ton. They feel like a band that's been together for decades until you learn just how short and bright they burned. Truly an all-star team.
Never knew what the weird high sound on Tomorrow never knows was. Paul laughing sped up, of course. I have had that record since 69.
69
XD
my favourite album of theirs, followed by rubber soul..
Late to the party on this video, but I think it might be your best. Thank you! The Beatles were, in my opinion, miraculous. All of the elements coming together (pardon the pun) at the right time to produce superior art that will last forever - and all achieved in such a short time too. That's extraordinary.
"The Album cover." This is the thing I miss most when the industry moved away from LPs.
For me much of the pleasure with a LP is the album cover. CD covers never made the same impact, now with downloads the way of the world, where once our records were music and art molded together to form a package, today people instead just select a track, ignoring the album.
I use to sit and wonder what the music industry would have headed if not for the Beatles, then a shiver goes down my spine and I push such unthinkable ideas away.
Your assessment here definitely has some merit, but I would like to offer and alternate perspective. I think we can all agree that the consumption of music is faster and more convenient than it's ever been, yes? That means that first impressions are more important now than ever. When listening to a playlist on a streaming service, you don't get to see the all the individual covers. So at that point, it's up to song titles and artist names to pull the listener in. Then, of course, the song itself. And if people like the song, the very next thing they (or at least I) do is check out the artist's page, and often the album the initial song came from. This is hardly any different than hearing a song on the radio then going to a record shop and finding the artist's discography there. The only major difference is that it's faster and more convenient now. But still, no matter what, the album cover is a big factor for whether the listener decides to listen to more of the artist's music. If the song was good, but the album cover is boring, too "weird" (weird is subjective), etc, people are less likely to listen. But an interesting album cover is just as, if not more likely to invite the listener to listen more. I say "if not more likely" because, as stated previously, listening to music is more convenient now than it's ever been. It's a lot easier to just hit play on an album that looks interesting than it is to spend $25+ on an entire LP that you've only heard one song off of. So while we may be seeing album covers less and less over the years, I say their importance has only moved laterally, rather than being less necessary than before. The album cover has merely taken a new form; adapted to the current state of music.
@@pizzzaeater1425
Thanks for keeping it short.
@@pizzzaeater1425 That is very subjective, though. I was born in 1990, so I never lived the LP era when I was a kid, and I honestly don't understand the need to have an LP to enjoy the cover art. If I wanted to enjoy the cover art specifically I would just buy a nice print or poster of it. I understand the nostalgia part of it, but why go through the hassle of buying a giant disc that takes up so much space just for the cover art, when there are other, more convenient, ways to listen to a record? And what you said about the cover being a big factor in helping the listener to listen more of the album, I don't think you could generalize it. At least not in the current era, having so many streaming services and digital download options to choose from.
The thing I miss most along with the covers are the liner notes in the back. You could read along while the music played. It was an experience.
@@Alfonso162008 You're right, it is very subjective. That was just my take on it, as someone who regularly uses Spotify, but who also collects records. And while we're at it, I was born in 2001, so I didn't really even grow up with CD's. I definitely had them growing up, but none of them were ever "mine". So almost all of my musical exploration has been with streaming services. But I still think physical media is very important. Digital is fantastic for convenience, of course. And like I said, I use Spotify all the time, so I absolutely don't think streaming services are inherently bad by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a certain connection you feel to the music when there's a more physical aspect to it. I'd compare it to going to a concert, but in a much lesser sense. It's like saying that you love this artist/album so much, that even when there's a more convenient option, you still pick the one that costs more and requires more work. It means something to you, so you're willing to put more effort in to be able to hear it.
I'd also compare it to actually playing and/or composing music, with the same ideas. There's a special connection that makes it feel more worth the extra effort. But at the end of the day, it is all still subjective. I'm a GIANT music nerd, and I love every single thing that has to do with music. Even the behind-the-scenes dirty work that the listener never sees. Theory, production, instruments, effects pedals, trends, performance, concert setup and teardown, gear, physical media, laws, stories, history. Everything. So of course I'm going to see the good in a very subjective piece of the music industry. But I also think that being able to see both sides is better than everyone agreeing on one side. Because variation is the spice of life. I'd get bored of just vinyl records all the time. It's very limiting, and is a lot of effort to go through to listen to music. But I'd also get bored of streaming all the time. It's convenient, and there's so much music to be found that I don't think I could ever give up streaming services now that I have them. But I feel like I'd lose my connection to the music I love the most if I never experienced it in other ways than streaming. Maybe that's just my neurodivergency talking, but I really do believe that variation is the spice of life. I suppose that is subjective too though, as variation can be found wherever the viewer wants to see it. I guess the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" also rings true. Art is subjective, after all.
I’m so happy that you’ve maintained such great quality in your videos.
Another thing that the Beatles more or less pioneered, that we take for granted now (although less so recently than in the ‘70s-‘00s), is writing most of their own songs. Before the Beatles, pop songs were written much like how hallmark birthday cards are written: by a people sitting at desks (the lyrics at least) in an office - semi-anonymously. Ironically, that’s not way far from how many modern pop songs are written too. Their output was essentially a lead sheet sold (or rented out, in essence) by their company.
I seriously cannot grasp the fact that the Beatles were together for less than 10 years. Tool doesn't even release an album every 10 years
They were together about 13 years. Their commercial career was 8 years.
@@stitchgrimly6167 Yeah that's an important distinction to make. Also Ringo didn't join the band until after they signed a recording contract
It was 3 years and 7 months between recording Love Me Do and Tomorrow Never Knows. One is a simple, early 60s pop song, the other is definitely not. If your tastes run that way, substitute Eleanor Rigby for Tomorrow Never Knows.
And they spent most of that time working their guts out in the road.
@@singledatapoint This is what always gets me. The "early bubblegum pop" Beatles were literally a matter of a few years separated from the "mature artistic genius" Beatles.
@@markowalski1 Ringo became their Best drummer.
Thank you for making this fantastic video, I understand if someone doesn’t like their music (can’t please everyone), but The Beatles did so much more than what people realize because, like you said, what they pioneered has become the norm today.
You know what is amazing? Sans all of your points about their “firsts”, I gotta say, the message in the music of The Beatles made them #1 in my heart. When I hear all of these points you’re making, it only solidifies that notion and makes me smile. Great video, thank you so much!
Excellent video! This was a good reminder! Most people have no clue how influential the Beatles truly are!
16:01 Fascinating that the interviewer thought being a Beatles fan was only for girls! Good on that guy for not getting flustered, and giving a calm and insightful answer to a rather rude question.
Rude question? It was the 60's sweetie.
@@thomaspeters5889 what does the year have to do with rudeness. He was implying that young man was a pussy.
Sexist comments and questions like that were acceptable back then.
@@thomaspeters5889 Not acceptable, sweetie -- tolerated.
Great video!💛
Thank you! 😃
Please keep up the Beatles content, David! Amazing stuff
Thanks Julian 😃
As if there were any chance of him stopping.
This is such an excellent video. Thanks for your thorough research and professionalism. I've been a Beatles fan for 55 years and still learned so much!
They also were the first band to reinvent themselves, first as a trend setting touring/ recording band and then with Sgt Pepper, a trend setting studio band, turning out unmatched levels of variety
Exactly. It would be like the Backstreet Boys turning into Pink Floyd within 10 years and completely dominating the charts throughout the process. To further consider how astonishing their career was, George Harrison was 27 when the Beatles broke up. That massive impact in such a short span will never be matched. They're the benchmark.
And that's not counting the transformation they made after Epstein, going from leather-clad hooligans in Hamburg to the suited up Fab 4 back in Liverpool. Side note, I used to work with a girl named Penny White who used to frequent The Cavern and hung out with McCartney, Lennon, Jagger and the like.
And the first major band to stop touring to concentrate on studio work and avoid getting attacked by American Christians.
@@gavinreid2741 or you know cause no one could actually hear them. Odd how they stopped touring in other countries or for non-Christian fanbases.
@@gavinreid2741 - Mainly just the Klan.
it’s really interesting how one can keep looking deeper and deeper into the beatles, or just enjoy them on a surface level if you want to
8:05 interesting that Paul talked about "we" wanting to use the feedback. The story everyone else told was of John wanting to use it. George was quick to set the story straight there!
Credit where credit's due, the influence of the Beatles on popular music has been nothing short of phenomenal, and continues to be so. Of that there can surely be no dispute, regardless of whether you like them or not. Luckily, I just happen to be a fan. Top video, David.
I grew up in the 60s and listened to the Beatles. My Dad would come into the room and scream "Crap, Crap, Crap, this music is crap".
Funny thing is about 10 years later Yellow Submarine was on TV as a movie. We watched it together, and he said he enjoyed the music.
Heh heh, cute story about how your Dad came around. Thanks for sharing that. My dad was the same, but my mom thought they were cute and funny. I was 6 when the Beatles hit the scene in America. My two older sisters were totally Beatles-crazy, and saw them in concert. Their Fab Four worship rubbed off on me, for which I'm thankful. In a single day, in 1964, they both switched from loving horses and Elvis, to going full tilt for the Beatles and the subsequent British Invasion acts. The day in question was the Beatles first appearance on the Ed Sullivan show. Even now, almost six decades later, I can recall those few minutes watching them in glorious black and white on our modest "portable" Zenith TV, with a horribly tinny speaker. Why that heavy TV had a hand-hold strap on top, I still can't figure out.
Not sure mine ever did, after the initial: "it’s just, yeah, yeah, yeah, throughout the song!"
@@CraigCholar did your sisters continue to be fans, throughout the fab four’s musical changes?
@@frizzell4321 The absolutely DID remain fans. They even bought way-out-there stuff I've never owned, like the John & Yoko LPs "The Wedding Album" and "Life with the Lions", and think I saw a Zapple records LP in their collection, if I remember correctly.
My father was disgusted by their 'long' hair and the way teen-age girls screamed over them. Of course, a few years later he came around and actually began to enjoy a lot of their music. It was amusing to see how my parents' generation went from non-approval of the Beatles to acceptance. I was a child of the 60s and lived thru Beatlemania. There will just never be another phenomenon like them. They had talent and chemistry. I was heartbroken when they broke up in 1970. The 70s started out crappy because of it.
Those interviews at the end. They knew what they’re talking about, those answers are ahead of their time and… of course… timeless.
My parents were huge Beatles fans. I grew up listening to their Beatles albums - what a treasure of my youth!
My daughters, twins born in 1982, have always been and still are Beatles fans like their parents.
@@jjhpor I have a 4 year old daughter and we love listening to Beatles tunes together. Her favorites are: Here Comes the Sun, Blackbird and Yellow Submarine.
If you really listen to how well all of their parts work together and how musical they are I think they are still deserving of their reputation purely based on the music let alone the innovation.
Tomorrow Never Knows has 5 pioneering feature alone. They wrote just over 300 songs in 7 yrs whilst living a ridiculously busy schedule. Their songs are so inventive with not much to copy before them and their wonderful ability to take old forms of music and make completely anew has never really been achieved by any other artiste.
They stand for the most part alone, and with few rivals. The only band I share a similar love for is The Beach Boys as I believe they were very special also. It really thrills me when I see yet another teenager listening to the Beatles and becoming a lifelong fan. It's crazy to me that 60 yrs later the young are still discovering this genius band The Beatles.
Back in '64 I was one of those millions of kids who saw The Beatles on Ed Sullivan and it was an amazing experience that changed my life and I immediately started my own band in which I played for years afterward.
More than anyone else, The Beatles defined the modern concept of what we now think of as a "self-contained" rock group. There were plenty of other artists that had bands but they were not thought of as a group but rather a single artist with backup. And, there were vocal groups but they mostly didn't play instruments or write music as a team with other members. And, there were cover bands that played other people's music. But, The Beatles were a group that seemingly did it all themselves and that was a big deal back in the 60s and created the Rock Band concept as we know it today. At least that is how it seemed to me here in the USA. It may have been different in the UK or elsewhere.
PS: I have not forgotten The Beach Boys. They were a self-contained rock band too from the same time period but, to me anyway, they were more of a specialty act that concentrated on a certain type of music with a narrower audience. They also started a little later than The Beatles: 1961 vs 1960.
Thanks, very interesting compilation of innovations in popular music introduced by the Beatles. This is far more than just stating that they are the best band of all times. What really moves me everytime I hear music by the Beatles is how fresh it sounds. Yes, it certainly has this 60s appeal, but the music somehow is timeless. And, of course, great!
Even after all these years,
The Fab Four still have the WOW factor.
The Beatles deserve all the fame they've got.
@Dyslexic Batnam yeah I was tired lol
The intro to this video reminds me of 12tone’s discussions of the classical canon. I’d argue that we have a rock canon too, established not by scholars but instead by institutions like Rolling Stone, Melody Maker, and later the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame here in the US. A really good supplement to this video would be How Music Works by David Byrne. Byrne was a pioneer in his own right as the frontman of Talking Heads (credit to Brian Eno as well!) and his genius really shines in this book. In my opinion he very expertly analyzes nearly everything that changes how music is produced, performed, and experienced. If you’re interested in learning how music evolves over time, it’s a fascinating read that takes into account a ton of things that I had never even thought about.
tbh i agree with mostly everything, but the rock and roll hall of fame should absolutely not control the rock and roll canon, it was way too little early blues included that formed into rock and roll
Check out the “New British Canon” on RUclips, which looks at exactly that, at least from a British alternative music worldview
@@richardb9874 I love Trash Theory. His New British Canon videos are a great insight into British pop, rock, alternative, hip-hop, and R&B. He set out to prove that there's more to British music than just "A Day in the Life", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Stairway to Heaven", or "Paranoid Android".
I think you're right about the rock canon. But I suspect the biggest factor in establishing the canon is rock radio., or rather radio programmers. Stations used to be a lot more independent, but the consistency of playlists around the country is the reason that everyone knows the same Zeppelin songs, Eagles songs, Rush songs, etc. And that might also go back to record label marketing, pushing stations to play certain songs.
@@richarddoan9172 That makes a lot of sense, and it’s something I honestly hadn’t even considered! I grew up in the age of MP3 players and later music streaming, so I haven’t paid attention to the radio in years. Surely that changes my perception of things as well at a very core level.
My appreciation for the Beatles only continues to grow. Anyone who knows anything about music agrees that they were geniuses.
Outstanding video! So many, many great songs. They were the perfect band for the perfect time in history. So much talent contained in one band with a vast contrast of personalities combined with the willingness to experiment musically. The result was timeless.
..and most importantly, The Beatles so inspired me that today I have a job as an audio producer. 😍
Well done.
I came of age in the 60's, so I carefully anticipated and listened to all the Beatles' singles and albums (memorizing most). I remember when I first heard what I think was their first single to hit the US in 1964, I Want to Hold Your Hand, I was stunned . . . it's energy and freshness and innocence won me over immediately (my sister and I wore out our record player playing it over and over). And then from '64 - '69, with one brilliant hit coming out after another, and each one staying at the top of the charts for months - no one had ever done anything close to that. I looked forward to each new album with eagerness, because I knew that I could expect the same high standard of musicianship, and because I knew that they would introduce something new in each one (nicely explained in this video). The one album that took some getting used to for me (just because it was so ground-breaking, I think), Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I ended up loving as much as all their other albums. I still listen to their music regularly . . . sometimes covers of their work and sometimes in original form. In the music world, some songs get old, dated and tired over time; but the Beatles' music - never.
As an italian, i adore your lovely british accent while saying Solocontutti at the very beginning
The co-operation between the Beatles and the Stones concerning when either band released a new single has been mentioned many times by Keith Richards. Basically, in the singles driven pop market of the 1960's, to remain fresh in the public's mind, a pop act had to release a single about every 6 weeks / two months. Most telling was Richards' usual response to hearing a new Beatles single, which was along the lines of, "Shit! Another good one!" lol
The Monkees released their album, "Headquarters," which was a very good album, on May 22, 1967. Unfortunately for them, "Sgt. Pepper's" was released 10 days later.
@@normanwhite6677 It still did pretty good in sales. Fact: Only three groups occupy the top ten selling albums list of the 1960s: The Beatles, Led Zeppelin and The Monkees. I think people forget just how popular they were.
@@geraldobrien7323 Yeah, I know. This was my favorite Monkees album. I'm not a huge fan of the show, but I enjoyed their music.
I don't think The Beatles ever thought of it as a "rivalry" or "co-operation" with the Stones, however.
@@jonathanlgill However McCartney still can't let it go . He should just go back to " Silly love songs " . Stones just a blue's cover band 🙄 😎
After the Beatles first hit the US charts, I was a big...Dave Clark Five fan. I liked the Beatles, but it wasn't until high school that I had money to buy all the Beatles albums. What amazed me was that the Beatles were so much more than their hits. The other songs on the albums were great too. Most groups/entertainers had albums where the hits were the only songs worth playing. Even lesser songs like "Blue Jay Way" were produced in a way to sound interesting. And the distinctive song introductions, where you could tell what song it was before any words were sung.
It's because of their strong harmonies and background vocals that I learned to do both by the tender age of 7.
True. I first learned to sing harmony by imitating them.
Very well done! Really enjoyed the walk back in time with the greatest band in history.
This is a nice video, thank you. The Beatles remain the greatest band for many reasons, not least among them is their ability to innovate seemingly every six months.
I think they're *underrated.* They really were on a level with the greatest musicians and groups of *all time,* including the likes of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Their music will be appreciated as long as the human race exists.
I'm not entirely sure how pioneering this was but right from the start of their recording career, the Beatles were writing almost all of their own songs. By the time they released Rubber Soul, there were only Beatles compositions on the album and this continued until they broke up. I remember seeing an interview with Brian Wilson in which he said how impressed and inspired he was by Rubber Soul - an album consisting entirely of Beatles songs with plenty of innovative music and no fillers. Six months later, the Beach Boys released the brilliant Pet Sounds (brilliant except for the album cover!) I think the success of the Beatles as songwriters led to many of their contemporaries trying their hands. Without them, we might not have had all of the excellent tracks produced by the Stones, the Who, the Kinks etc., and all that followed them.
It's a famous story, and I'm sure you know it, but for the benefit of future comment readers ; The Beatles literally showed a fledgling Rolling Stones how to write a song (when the Stones' manager invited The Beatles to watch them rehearse), and gave it to them when they were finished.
I agree with your point about original songwriting but for every generalisation there is an exception. "Maggie Mae" from the "Let It Be" album is a traditional folk song that had its genesis in the docks around Liverpool many many years ago.
Don't be silly. The Kinks came out in1964 with you really got me and they were far in advance compared to the beatles. Strangely they were banned from getting into usa. Sounds like not being buddy buddy with Jimmy Savile was not a good career booster
The Beatles changed western civilization (as they say) and then most of the rest of the planet. As my older son asked me when he was about three, "Bebopalula, dad? What's that...mean?" Thanks to Dylan, of course, the Beatles also brought poetry and meaning to lyrics. And sophisticated musical progressions cheerfully delivered as 'pop' songs. Penny Lane. I rest my case.
Absolutely loved all 18 minutes, thank you for putting this together and sharing it with us😊👍.
Thank you!!
I totally agree. I'll admit, though, that I was hesitant to click on the video, having watched bazillions of Beatles-related vids on youtube before. I was thinking to myself, do I really need to watch this? Won't it be another rehash of Beatles lore? I kept passing it over, but finally gave in. I'm very glad I did. David did an amazingly good job.
I'll never get tired of listening to their work. They've inspired me in many ways and really their ideas were just mind boggling.
The Beatles were extraordinary recording artists, and their music will live on forever.
Thanks for this excellent historical video!
Just a note: “ubiquous” (@ 1:02) is not a word. I believe you meant ‘ubiquitous’.
The Beatles could really be a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon
So far this seems to be the case.
When I think of pioneering album art I think of the jazz records from the 50's - Charles Mingus "Ah Um" and Dave Brubeck "Time Out", but I agree that The Beatles brought it to the masses.