Quote from gezmoor :

They played generic rythm and blues based rock n roll, and played it no better than some other bands at the time and certainly no more uniquely.

Perhaps their early songs, but by late 1965 (Rubber Soul) they quickly expanded beyond the typical 3 chord songs that were so popular in those days. As time progressed, a large portion of their music was "undanceable", something unique at the time but also something they could get away with because of their popularity at the time. In terms of content and variety, they were in a league of their own. Some of this credit should be given to George Martin, who helped with the techonology aspect of the sound, and provided some direction in the music itself. The "non-danceable" music era lasted from about 1967 to about 1972, when traditional rock bands became popular again, long after the Beatles broke up.

Sgt Pepper was the most popular (longest run as #1 album). Next was Abbey Road, then the White Album. Part of this is due to the competition from other bands and change in music tastes by the time White Album and later Abbey Road was released. Sgt Pepper did get a lot of hype at the time. By the time the White Album was released, other bands were catching on, with a wider variety of music. The Paul McCartney side of Abbey Road was an interesting medley of songs.

I'm not sure I have a favorite album. Being 57 years old, what I remember most was what seemed like the very short lived era where college students thought that the world was going to make significant changes. This era peaked about the time of Woodstock, and ended with the Kent State shootings. For me I would say that Crosby Stills Nash and Young managed to musically capture that short lived era more than any other band, sort of like a time capsule of a period that only lasted a few months.

Quote from JeffR :

The "non-danceable" music era lasted from about 1967 to about 1972, when traditional rock bands became popular again.

You sure about that?

For me its easily Sgt Pepper. With the disclamier that its along time since I heard any of their records so my taste might have matured.

No.

Quote from JeffR :

Perhaps their early songs, but by late 1965 (Rubber Soul) they quickly expanded beyond the typical 3 chord songs that were so popular in those days. As time progressed, a large portion of their music was "undanceable", something unique at the time but also something they could get away with because of their popularity at the time. In terms of content and variety, they were in a league of their own. Some of this credit should be given to George Martin, who helped with the techonology aspect of the sound, and provided some direction in the music itself. The "non-danceable" music era lasted from about 1967 to about 1972, when traditional rock bands became popular again, long after the Beatles broke up.

I'm going to have to beg to differ. The late 60's was epitomised by "psychodelic rock" bands. Everyone and their mother was playing "undanceable" music. As for the Beatles being in a league of their own again I disagree, I give you Deep Purple & Pink Floyd for starters both very experimental with regards to recording techniques in the late 60's. Pink Floyd pioneered quadrophonic LPs ! For musicians/bands that truely changed the face of music as we know it look to David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Led Zepplin, Jimmy Hendrix et al. Predating that era there were a plethora of Rock n Roll and Jazz bands/musicians that truely changed the worlds perception of music.

The Beatles?? Early music: generic R&B Rock n Roll, later music: hippy inspired semi-psychodelic stuff. Nothing that other bands weren't doing at the same time.

That's just my opinion. I don't dislike the Beatles, I enjoy some of their music. I just don't think they were the world changing band everyone makes them out to be. Influential in the sense that they inspired lots of kids to become musicians, yes. Musically original and particularly gifted musicians, no. IMHO.

Quote from chanoman315 :

they're shit

+1:d