A Hard Day's Night

Embarassing.

kys

You Can't Do That is definitely underrated.

Attached: johnbedhead.png (328x390, 83K)

No Beatles albums had singles (until like 1969); they felt that having to buy a song twice - single AND the album - was a rip-off. Everything on Past Masters is not available on their albums until 1 came out in 2000(?).

>No Beatles albums had singles (until like 1969); they felt that having to buy a song twice - single AND the album
I understand this sentiment, it's understandable but Sgt. Pepper's would be the greatest album ever written if it had SFF and Penny Lane.

>Everything on Past Masters is not available on their albums
Except for 'Love Me Do', but I get your point

Obviously they were not going to tell EMI what to do on their first record. After PPM is when they started to get control.

>blocks your path

Attached: gladmusic.jpg (740x740, 99K)

That’s not quite true, they had album singles up through Help!, and they loosened up about it in later years (releasing Get Back as a single when they already had plans to put it on their next album). However, from Rubber Soul-White Album, they had a near perfect stretch of no singles on albums (Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby were exceptions)

Attached: 454E90FA-4C6E-4C0D-A279-5553A5BCE82C.jpg (1074x846, 884K)

The version of Love Me Do on Past Masters has Ringo drumming, the version on the album has a session drummer named Andy White

It's legitimately my favourite song on AHDN, but I don't know why it never gets any attention from "jahn beet wif" people when Run For Your Life and Getting Better are talked about ad nauseum.

Please Please Me, A Hard Day's Night, Help, Revolver, Abbey Road, and Let It Be all had singles released in the UK

Make that a 4-song streak
I'm Happy Just To Dance With You is the shit

It's gay pop rock, 6/10 at best.
this

To be fair, with Let It Be the Get Back and Let It Be singles were different from the album versions, and The Long and Winding Road single was released a month after they officially broke up

It's just teen-pop that is just dumbed-down r&b. It's the 60s equivalent of Imagine Dragons.

>>lazily make random gibberish songs so people jerk off over the supposedly intentional complexity
>random gibberish songs
>supposedly intentional complexity
I thought the main gripe against the Beatles songwriting was that it was way too formulaic and simple in concept so as to aim for the widest appeal possible? In fact, that very feeling is referenced in this image with
>>dabs in 4/4
and
>OH MY FUCKING GOD HE SAID LOVE AGAIN WHAT A FUCKING MASTERPIECE

doesn't really save it from being a very mediocre album

no one's dressing like Imagine Dragons
no one's getting their hair cut like Imagine Dragons
Imagine Dragons haven't inspired tens of thousands of musicians to start bands while they Imagine Dragons never held down the top 5(five) slots on the Billboard charts in the same week

somebody stop me

*while they were together

Because they're not an image-conscious band
Because they're not an image-conscious band
Because rock music is dead and does not have the same relevance compared to 1964. But functionally, they and The Beatles are similar.

The Beatles sold their brand. They used their image and the Beatles franchise to promote both their music and "Beatle-ness". This is much like KISS did - they were promoting more than just their music. Imagine Dragons only sell their music, and have no franchise or image to sell. But again, their and The Beatles' music works on the same functional level. They both rehash and regurgitate pre-existing standards of popular music, dumb it down, and target dumb teens as their primary audience.

>The Beatles sold their brand. They used their image and the Beatles franchise to promote both their music and "Beatle-ness". This is much like KISS did - they were promoting more than just their music. Imagine Dragons only sell their music, and have no franchise or image to sell. But again, their and The Beatles' music works on the same functional level. They both rehash and regurgitate pre-existing standards of popular music, dumb it down, and target dumb teens as their primary audience.
It's almost like you're ignoring half their career. Post '65 Beatles have noting to do with the moptop era.

Are you seriously posting about One Direction from the 60s?

Because Sgt Peppers and MMT had nothing to do with their image as a band, right...

And also remember that their first album Please Please Me (every track of which was absolute flames) was recorded in one day. Meaning they used those songs as their live set. Meaning they sounded like that EVERY NIGHT. Insane. Most talented band of all time

Again, they weren't actively marketing anything but music. They didn't even perform anymore after '66.

>t. assblasted Rolling Stones fan

They were keeping up their appearance and reinvented their image to keep with the times. They were very image-concerned up until the White Album. They reinvented themselves from moptop pretty boys to a psychedelic band of aristocrats of sorts. "Beatlemania" was a marketing ploy that promoted more than just the music.
Upon reflection, they were a band of Lady Gagas in the 60s.

first album my parents bought me
still a favorite
opened everything for me

I always loved the Carl Perkins style guitar Harrison laid down on the earlier albums.

Attached: 7AF39EF6-9F11-4B82-9CA2-9E5320EBAC6B.jpg (800x602, 74K)

Honestly I didnt like this one, or their little TOOK THR LAST TRAIN TO BOSTON
rip-off band that it spawned. Glad they didnt go in this direction further

not the user you were arguing with, but I see your point in a way. Though I do like the band, I have to admit that a big part of their staying power is that they had a marketing team behind them like no other. I'd say the only difference between imagine dragons and the beatles is that the beatles at least tried to reinvent themselves with each release from 1965 onwards. The Imagine Dragons pretty clearly aren't trying to reinvent themselves in any meaningful way.

You're a chad.

Contrarian fag

it invented jangle pop. for what thats worth

It's in their top 3 easily

One of their most innovative albums honestly. All original songs which was unheard of in rock music. Also that 12 string Rickenbacker is killer.
John Lennon was beating his wife and McCartney was on point.

Attached: john lennon beatin.png (444x733, 257K)

yes

It's too fawkin' good.

>o be fair Beatles was already original when they released their first single, Love Me Do.

Love Me Do came out in 1962. Listen to Cathy's Clown, written and performed by the Everly Brothers in 1960. Tell me who was more original. The Beatles even lifted the harmony scheme from Cathy's Clown and used it in Please Please Me. IMO, The Beatles became truly original with She Loves You, perhaps the most revolutionary release in music since Rock Around The Clock.

>If I Fell is the bes track btw. The best Lennon and McCartney harmony.

Agreed. Excellent & lovely song. Also, easy to sing with someone else. My gf and I harmonize on this one often.

Couple of minor disagreements. Many Beatles albums IN THE UK contained no singles. This was purely a record company policy across the UK and had little to do with The Beatles. In America, an opposite business model was used. One can argue the merits of either til the cows come home.

As to original content vs. covers... On Dylan's second album, he wrote 12 of the 13 songs. On his third, released 5 months before AHDN, he wrote all of the songs. Along the same lines, The Beach Boys albums leading up to the summer of 1964, especially Little Deuce Coupe, Shut Down, Vol. 2, and All Summer Long featured predominately original material, with just 1 or 2 covers. Consider also, that with the Beach Boys, the lead writer was also *producing* the songs, unlike The Beatles who would never produce their material.

The Beatles were the dominant band of the sixties, and for very good reason. They were simply better than everyone else. But, as Sonny Bono once said, the 60s were an incredibly musical time. A time when everything on the radio was GOOD. So, while The Beatles were the greatest thing ever, they had company in terms of worthy competitors.

The Beatles are deceptively complex. Perhaps lyrically people can have gripes against them but musically there's a lot of interesting stuff going on.

>They both rehash and regurgitate pre-existing standards of popular music, dumb it down, and target dumb teens as their primary audience.
Yeah, because having odd phrase lengths on your first single is perfectly normal.

Harry Nilsson’s cover is the GOAT beatles cover imo.

Beatles For Sale and Hard Days Night are my favorite early years albums for sure

>My gf and I armonize on If I Fell often.

Wholesome

Oh fuck off.
I haven't seen a single "le greatest band of all time" comment in this thread, nor anything boomer-sounding.
Let people enjoy the music they like or else kys.