Right place right time, that's all there is to it.
The vast majority of there stuff could have been written by anyone it's that basic.
In short, right place right time.I can't agree with that. I think that they probably owed a lot to George Martin, but they'd have been the first to acknowledge it. Some of their writing was so-so, but a lot of it was very good and still stands the test of time. It was the style that caught on as much as the music.
They were probably the first British act that made it in the States and, by doing so, they opened the doors for the British invasion that followed. (Not all of them deserved the leg up. The Dave Clark Five? Peter Noone and Herman's Hermits? Really?)
If it had not been for The Beatles we might still be pushing out skiffle and trad jazz. Rock & Roll had nearly all come from the States. If nothing else, they opened things up. Even The Shadows were a British imitation of American acts like The Ventures and Duane Eddy.
We had never been taken seriously by the Yanks up until The Beatles. Until you cracked that market you were nobody, really.
You could but then most acts don't get the same kind of fawning over that The Beatles do and that shouldn't be a prerequisite for liking them, back in the 60's people were either Beatles or Stones, why should I be told I have to like The Beatles just because someone else thinks they are the insects leg joints?You could say the same for any successful act.
Try Desire and Domingo from their Stella album.I can only think of two, err, songs of theirs
The Race and Oh Yeah. I'd have to google for any others
I'm not grouchy because people dig them more than me, I'm grouchy because people keep telling me I have to like them.I'm not a particular fan of The Beatles (I'm sure I was swept along with the whole Beatlemania thing as a kid - I certainly remember buying the bubble gum cards) but I think that they can be given credit where it's due.
I've never particularly gone mad for the Stones, either. Posturing art school student types for the most part (I think Brian Jones was the only one with any real talent).
A few really great songs and much that was derivative and there are several British R&B groups of the same era that I'd rate as highly if not higher. But The Stones floated the boat of millions of people. They can't all be wrong, however I may feel about them. I don't get all grouchy if somebody digs them more than I do.
See.. this is another aspect of getting old...who the feck are these jumped up areseholes that think they are important?Straight up: they make me itch! I KNOW they were innovative, interestin' (sitars!) and all that..but nah! dribblyshite! Paperback writer had a good chord shift or something..HelterSkelter was good coz other people did it, Tomorrow never knows was good . coz it was the other 1/2's shagging song.
Oasis are shite an' all
FlexidiscA mate of mine bought a magazine in the v.early 1990’s, can’t remember if it was a Skateboard Magazine or something about Rap Music as we were into Public Enemy and Skateboarding.
Attached to the cover was a floppy record, opaque and almost as bendy as paper.
You do know the faffing about around that comes with playing a vinyl true...? Next they will be having battery powered model T Fords.The average punter wants convenience over hifi, hence CDs surpassed vinyl in the 80s and have been surpassed by downloads now. Add in the fact that very few people own an acoustically-controlled environment, and don’t want to invest the ‘effort’ in hifi listening, and vinyl will always be either a niche market (as it has been for the last 30 years) or a fad (as it appears to be now).
As to the relative listening quality, I think it’s well established that vinyl is superior to CD, given a set of optimal conditions; which few can be bothered to establish. Also remember when CDs first came out, most folk were adding a £150 CD player to a compact audio system which cost about £150 in itself, and of which the deck and speakers probably cost about £20 each. No wonder the CD sounded so much better to them.