They were not the first to use multi-track recording on tape, but they and George Martin, their producer took it to another level. Their recording techniques and their specific uses of effects like reverb and delay, phase shifting, and running tape backwards created inspiration for those at that time, and those who came after, to begin to use those techniques in totally new and different ways.

Unless, you simply want to debate. Your turn for facts now.

All the way back to Ugh Ugh the Cave Dweller, I suppose.
That makes sense. When you put it that way, the whole 'modern music' term the guy used before makes a lot more sense, as I can't imagine many of the artists today surviving without those types of post-production edits. I doubt it was all them, but they were popular enough to earn the credit for such things and popularize them.

I saw the Beatles make their live USA debut performance on the Ed Sullivan show on Sunday evening Feb. 9, 1964, on a black and white television that had tubes/valves in it with "rabbit ears" antennae on top to bring the signal in. By the next week, my older 14 year old sister had a copy of "Meet the Beatles" on a long playing vinyl stereo record....only one of millions sold.

Showing my age now, but I saw the Beatles live on stage in Southport (near Liverpool), when I was a kid, possibly on their last tour before going to the 'States.

All I can remember is the constant screaming of the girls in the audience, which annoyed my mother no end!

aqauan and tystreme you are lucky

I love you Nuck.

I'm not especially a Beatles fan, but I don't hate them either. That said, I do appreciate that modern music would probably be very different without them.

...and old.

Here is a cool photo set of vintage Abbey Road and EMI studio gear that was used by the Beatles in the early days:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonicreality/sets/72157619264380129/

They're alright. I don't get why people seem to worship them though. They weren't anything incredible.

yes they were

Yeah, SomeWelshGuy, get your facts straight :rolleyes:

When are you going to learn? Telling people that haters aren't allowed just draws them to the thread. Its like when you tell somebody not to look down...they practically have to do it.

I dont like the beatles.

To be honest, I'm not a great Beatles fan, even though I grew up with them.
I love some of their stuff, and they were a big influence on so many other musicians.

(and yes, I do feel quite old!)

Kinda the same here...I liked their music and still do, but as I get older I think.....[self edited for potentially bordering on a banned subject]...in short, I outgrew thinking like a hippie. I only look like one.
But love them or hate them, one cannot deny their influence and contribution to the changes in music that occurred during that era.

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that the Beatles really helped to pioneer the idea of the music album as an art form. Before the Beatles, albums were basically meaningless cash-grabs by the record company: An Elvis record, for example, was usually just Elvis singing a bunch of random songs everyone was already familiar with. The Beatles not only wrote their own songs but took a great deal of control over their recording careers in general, which was absolutely unprecedented for the time. Albums became planned "music programs" by the artist; thought was given to the quality and order of the songs on the record, and even artwork was something the band had control of. This is becoming a lot tougher to appreciate now that "albums" are once again fading away as the main way of listening to music, but anyone in the last 40 years that grew up with a "favorite album" has the Beatles at least partly to thank for creating the concept.

To the original topic, there are probably a lot of bands who have one or two songs I like more than the Beatles', but what makes the Beatles significant for me is the consistent quality of the songs they put out. Most albums have maybe one or two A songs, a couple C songs, and several F songs. The Beatles, with few notable exceptions ("Honey Pie", I'm looking in your direction), never made a song that was less than a B-. Over 250 songs, that amounts to an outstanding level of quality. So while there are probably bands that have better "hit singles" than the Beatles, for me there is no band that has better "track 11 on an album" songs. That's what makes the difference.

I think...... Oh right no haters..... I'll leave then :bolt:

...I looked down. And you didn't even actually tell me!

:sadvaultboy:

I really like the Beatles, not mu favourite, but they are up there. I especially like their later stuff.

Not a fan. Listened to them a lot as a kid, in no small part because my father loved them and if my old man liked it, it had to be awesome. Nowadays, I find most of their songs annoying and even the good ones aren't anything special. I also think that their influence on 'modern music' is seriously exaggerated.


But if that is true, I am still very grateful that they were around, doing the things they did. I love the idea of a music album as a single, coherent piece of art and wouldn't ever buy songs online separate from the album they're from.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Dynastes_hercules.lichyi_%28male%292.JPG/800px-Dynastes_hercules.lichyi_%28male%292.JPG are pretty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pib9qT-pccI most of the time.

Meh, I prefer the work they did as solo artists.

Since Beatles songs are some of the easiest and most fun to play on the guitar, Id say Im a huge fan. The White Album was arguably the best IMO. The wrote perfect pop gems.

Who?

:thumbsup:

Half of what you said was meaningless, but you wrote it just to reach me.