Anyone here obsessed with writing Beatles-quality songs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ricklh
  • Start date Start date
I'm not obsessed - but I certainly strive to write songs that compare in some small way to the melody and harmony of the Beatles. I never considered them to be lyrically superior - but many of their melodies and chord structures were exceptional - and while they still hold up today - compared to other pop in the 60's & 70"s some of their stuff was awe inspiring.

When you look at the body of work - in particular given the relative short period of time (about 7 years) - there is no one in pop history that can match that level of quality and quantity.

None of the Beatles seemed to have consistant quality on their own - it would appear they needed each other (and Martin) to provide the proper editing to assure the quality of the group.
 
NewAgeMuttLange said:
no offense to anyone.. but NOTHING is a "good" representation of the Who...
Click to expand...

to clarify this statement.. I really don't like the Who... like REALLY... i don't know why but besides like 4 songs.. I can't stand listening to pete townshend's guitar work... just something about it.. but I digress..

-Paul
 
NewAgeMuttLange said:
to clarify this statement.. I really don't like the Who... like REALLY... i don't know why but besides like 4 songs.. I can't stand listening to pete townshend's guitar work... just something about it.. but I digress..

-Paul
Click to expand...

100% fail.
 
I don't know about trying to emulate, I'd rather be myself. However, any good composer is someone you can learn a lot from.
 
Xdrummer said:
When you look at the body of work - in particular given the relative short period of time (about 7 years) - there is no one in pop history that can match that level of quality and quantity.
Click to expand...

RAMI said:
I think nobody has ever come close to the writing, production and performance of the Beatles
Click to expand...

Originally posted by Tc4b ~I don't know about trying to emulate, I'd rather be myself. However, any good composer is someone you can learn a lot from.
Click to expand...

That's really where the Beatles are and were head and shoulders above other artists - the sheer quantity of high quality songs packed into such a short recording lifespan. I still maintain that the Stones, the Kinks, the Pretty things, the Who, the Byrds and so many others were equals in terms of writing. There were lots of good writers and tons of superlative songs. But no one matched the prodigious quantity of the Beatles. And when many of us think of good composers, it's hard to leave out Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. Even their so called fillers were often great. Because the single was the dominant medium when they started, when British artists made albums, they really did seem to just bung on a hit single and a load of fillers that seemed almost instantly disposable. But the Beatles worked on every track as though it were a potential single. It's impressive how hard they worked. Their "2nd division" songs remind me of something a football commentator once said about the great Brazilian side of 1970 ~ "They even found a stylish way to miss.......".
 
Ricklh said:
Anyone here obsessed with writing Beatles-quality songs?
Click to expand...

With the Beatles, you have to narrow it down to which phase you are talking about...they wrote very different stuff in the early days than later on.

I grew up on them...learned/played every song they wrote at one time or another...but other than that, I don't try to really write in any of their styles, though I am sure there's some Beatles influence in my own music.
And I do believe that if they hadn't run into George Martin...things would have been different AFA their songwriting and production style!
 
miroslav said:
And I do believe that if they hadn't run into George Martin...things would have been different AFA their songwriting and production style!
Click to expand...

That's also a really good point - long before he worked with the Beatles, in fact, possibly before there even was a Beatles, George Martin was involved in creating sound worlds steeped in artifice. He turned them onto the idea of thinking symphonically and seriously broadened their scope in terms of orchestral instruments and arrangements. And when they began altering their soundscape in a big way through found sound effects and backwards stuff, he really was the ideal feller to bounce off. He tended to be be able to find ways to do 'impossible' things (which really just meant unusual, or more to the point, unacceptable ).
 
The OP raises a great question: Can one aspire to be songwriters as great as the Beatles? ( I guess he means Lennon, McCartney and Harrison)

I am sure at the time the Beatles were writing their songs, they had idols that they aspired to, and borrowed heavily from. (Everly Brothers, Elvis, Buddy Holly, multiple blues artists, as well as Motown, Dylan and Brian Wilson etc etc etc)

The answer, imo, is there has to be inante musical talent, but more important, a tireless passion to the mission, a willingness to synthesize your influences while adding your own and an ability to reach and touch a large audience. Simple as that!
 
NewAgeMuttLange said:
to clarify this statement.. I really don't like the Who... like REALLY... i don't know why but besides like 4 songs.. I can't stand listening to pete townshend's guitar work... just something about it.. but I digress..

-Paul
Click to expand...
I despise The Who as well. I will never understand why they were popular.

Gerg_L said:
100% fail.
Click to expand...
Aha, as i suspected...you're younger than 25! How do I know this? You said "fail". :D :D

It's worthy to note that the the Beatles started off as a cover band, then started writing their own stuff as they became popular...the Stones waited even longer, admitting that their early writing was complete rubbish. But, they kept at it, and look what both bands accomplished.

But, back to the Who...they never rose above rubbish in songwriting or execution. <= That is just an opinion, calm down
 
Strat1958 said:
I despise The Who as well. I will never understand why they were popular.

Aha, as i suspected...you're younger than 25! How do I know this? You said "fail". :D :D

It's worthy to note that the the Beatles started off as a cover band, then started writing their own stuff as they became popular...the Stones waited even longer, admitting that their early writing was complete rubbish. But, they kept at it, and look what both bands accomplished.

But, back to the Who...they never rose above rubbish in songwriting or execution. <= That is just an opinion, calm down
Click to expand...

Strat,

I am calm, dont worry:) I just cant believe that you don't see the excellence in Townsend's writing? I could understand that you disliked how the songs were performed, but , wow he wrote some incredible rock songs that have stood the test of time with Stones, Beatles and others.
 
Yeah I know I'm in the minority here...the Doors and the Grateful Dead are other bands I don't get. They have FANATIC followings, but to me......ho-hum :)

No accounting for taste, I suppose, LOL
 
Strat1958 said:
Yeah I know I'm in the minority here...the Doors and the Grateful Dead are other bands I don't get. They have FANATIC followings, but to me......ho-hum :)

No accounting for taste, I suppose, LOL
Click to expand...

I am with you on the Dead and Doors. Always felt they were overrated
 
Talent + right path to a time when all were open to collaborate (incl Martin) + evolving technology + mass media + the continuing development of the teenager a a market demographic. Plus other elements that all added synergy.

There is no denying talent lies at the heart of their pre-eminence - but talking about that alone is like 'wine tasting' based on the rainfall in the vineyard when the grapes were grown.

I am wary of the 'cult' of the Beatles and believe in a 'parallel universe' kind of way; that if it wasn't them then it would have been someone else roughly around the same time.

For that reason I do think they were amazing, but not in a song-writing-compare-to-other-song-writer way. But in a Da Vinci-Gallelao-Chomski-Chaplin-Picaso-Mozart-Einstein-genius kind of way.

Comparing to them to other song-writes will offer insight, but comparing them to other genius made of their time will perhaps be a richer seem to mine.
 
Whatmysay said:
I am wary of the 'cult' of the Beatles .
Click to expand...

I agree with this, if we're thinking the same thing. People still worship the Beatles because they think they're supposed to. I can see baby boomers still holding some love for the music of their youth, but I'm always suspicious of younger people that claim to be Beatle fanatics. Sure they made some nice pop songs, but no one wants to be the guy that admits to not really giving a shit about them. I'll be that guy. Fuck the Beatles. :laughings:
 
I do like "Back in the USSR" and "I Saw Her Standing There" though.
 
I love The Beatles not because it was popular. I fell in love with them when I was 12, and I was made fun of in school for liking them. So I don't think me liking them has anything to do with me being expected to like them, though I generally agree with you, most people my age like them for that reason.

And I love The Who! Quadrophenia = pure win!
 
The Who is from my generation (no pun intended :D) ...and while I was never a huge Who fan, I grew up on that stuff, Tommy, etc, so I like it...and yeah, I always really liked the mood of Quadrophenia...especially after I saw the movie, as it really gave me some insight into Townsend's songwriting inspiration.
I'm sure the Brits of my generation (no pun intended :D ) really got The Who even more so!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top