The Beatles catalog is finally downloadable!...Oh wait, no it isn't.

Sr Soloman makes me laugh Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM EST

Illegal downloading is like being arrested for simple assault, criminal mischief/vandalism. It's plain stealing. Listening to Beattles albums does not make you a musician, just a wanna be.

Casey Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:49 PM EST

The Beatles were groundbreaking. A Day in the Life" broke new ground by combining 2 completely different tunes in different keys,sung by 2 different singers and played at 2 different tempos...what an amazing step toward a larger scope of composition. "And Your Bird Can Sing" the prototype of the dual harmony guitar lines that Brian May and the Allman Brothers would record. Paul McCartney is one of the greatest bassist of times. Any listen to the vocal harmonies on Abbey Road. Harrison played the sitar listen to his solo on "Love You To" really groundbreaking stuff for a rock band in 1966. The Beatles broke on top and they are the most covered rock artists in the last 50 years. They basically started Modern Electronic Music with "Tomorrow Never Knows" and Jimi Page is not playing his electric 12 string if it was not for Harrison bringing out first in 1964. Peace.

Shaaron Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 02:45 AM EST

I saw them in '64 at the Hollywood Bowl...Really, the best way to hear the music is still on vinyl and most of the time in mono as that is how they were mastered. Stereo mixes where an afterthought in those days. But. of course, however you hear it just Love it, that's all that matters.

resbeatlefan Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:00 AM EST

And the real hold up is EMI who have been losing money. The Beatles saved them back in the 60's maybe they can save them again.

resbeatlefan Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:46 AM EST

My brother in-law who is fifty "hates" The Beatles but when I played Love Me Do one night at his house when we were partying, he remembered and love it so much, that I gave him my copy of Beatles 1 and both another. His son who is 18 also "hates" The Beatles. When he heard In My Life it ended up on his burned CD along with Lil Wayne, Three Six Mafia, Akon, T-Pain, etc., etc. Also when he heard my vinyl copy of The Beatles VS The Four Season, he liked it so much that I have to "rip" it to my computer and burn it on a CD-R so he could have a copy, which he still has to this day. ENOUGH SAID!

father mckenzie Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 07:38 PM EST

Beatles fans, check this out:
http://magazine.jamsbio.com/2009/01/05/playing-the-beatles-backwards-the-ultimate-countdown/

Trever-free ipod music download Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 05:56 PM EST

Considering any favorite video and audio in ipod.the iPod generation is more interested in the hot new single than an LP work of art.

litmus Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 07:22 AM EST

I already have the entire catalog so who caresm if it hits itunes. ! Anyone want it ?

bass_man86 Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:48 PM EST

Heck Blackjack, "urban" music stations did not exist back then, so it would have been pretty hard for The Beatles to have gotten air play on one. In any case I am sure that Jamerson wrote his own parts, I know that I insist on it when I do original music, and even when I do covers, as I am sure you do; us bottom feeders are funny that way no? However I am talking about writing an entire song, not just the groove, but it seems that we agree on that point. Now admit it, regardless of how you may personally feel about The Beatles, and Paul McCartney there is no denying their musicianship as a whole package, even if it may not appeal to your "urban" sensitivities. I am sure that you are a fantastic musician, but if you insist on shutting something out just because it may not be your cup of tea, you are only cheating yourself. Take the time to really listen to the music of The Beatles, I am sure that you will be surprised at some of the pithy little things that only us musicians can hear.

raven Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 08:05 PM EST

I don't think it's the Beatles fault for not going digital yet. This sounds like a problem with the record label and somebody wanting more money.

Brian from Canada Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 07:45 PM EST

The holdup is EMI. Paul said in the promotion for his new solo album that EMI's asking for something that Apple's not ready to give.

Given EMI's present financial position, that can range from those unwanted compilations to increased royalties or control rights. When an agreement's decided, the REMASTERED cuts — and, yes, they've all been remastered — will hit iTunes.

But the Beatles were pressured into a release schedule in 1987 and few are happy with the results. The Beatles want to do it right so they don't have to do it again.

db Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 07:31 PM EST

If the RIAA had their way, it would be.

Jason Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 07:08 PM EST

You falsely claim that " the only option for someone interested in obtaining the Beatles in digital form is an illegal version where nothing goes to the artists."

I've paid for all of my Beatless CDs and they are on my iPod right now. Since when is ripping your CDs to your computer illegal?

Tym S Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 06:11 PM EST

You're working on an assumption, that The Beatles are resistant to digital change. Nonsense. They just want the sound right, and they want the pay rate right. Martin and the boys were sticklers that the CDs' sound the best the first time around ('87); and they've been stung enough on pay rates and song rights from EMI to Michael Jackson/Sony to now ensure they are paid correctly. This 'gimme now' herd mentality is irrelevent and immature. Quality is timeless; the songs will come and will be done right. (Hopefully as remastered CDs with real range, beyond the hollow 'jpeg' version of MP3s.)

JGRIZZ Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 06:06 PM EST

ok one more thing: The Beatles kind of messed up their career when they stopped playing live. I understand they wanted to make Excellent studio material but they locked themselves into the studio and eventually got sick of each other and broke up. Kind of lame. Now there are only 2 remaining Beatles left, do they even have the rights to make the decision to release thier tunes to digital? Probably not. Also lame. Maybe it is better anyway that it isn't available yet because they are in the process of making better quality audio. ?? who knows....maybe Yoko does ask her

JGRIZZ Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 05:55 PM EST

ok so It seems no-one really knows the specifics as to why Apple publishing won't release it to a digital format so this discussion is kind of poitless and just based on everyones opinions!
Kind of wacky that a lot of folks here are BASS players (myself included) weird. Anyone nowdays can buy a USB record player and convert thier vinyl to high-quality digital versions. Possibly better versions than iTunes "proprietary" format. And they can rip thier CD's to thier computers. The problem is iTunes is really popular and that's where a lot of people are downloading thier music. BUT it's not the only outlet for digital music, you have amazonmp3, Rhapsody, Napster, etc. I feel that owning the physical CD or vinyl recording is always better but I am a collector. Also, I am a musician, I know that the Beatles had great musicianship, but also they had lyrics that cannot be duplicated or reproduced because that's really what stands out is thier great lyrics.
Record shops have tons of used CDs 2

Kat Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 05:32 PM EST

This topic pains me. I'm a 25 year old Beatlemaniac (been a fan since I was 10), and I can't understand why it's taking forever and a day to get the Beatles catalog on the Internet. It's really embarrassing that it's taking Apple Corps. or whomever so long to do this. This delay is a lose-lose situation--the listeners don't get what they want, and the companies aren't making extra revenue. The Beatles need to be heard by a new generation of fans! Stop dragging your feet on this!!

MetallicA29 Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 05:23 PM EST

You guys are retarded...McCartney is all about the new digital world. Read an interview with him and you'd know that, but then again...I don't think you're real fans if you're too f'ing lazy to just take your CD and convert in iTunes...this is and always will be the greatest band ever recorded.

Penny Lane Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 05:09 PM EST

i would have to agree with mike bruno...this is just bad business.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 05:05 PM EST

bass_man86, the song has changed. Jamerson was a bassist. When Motown was in it's heyday, no one wrote his parts, he made them up on the fly. Now if you are talking song writing, then that is a totally different beast. Stanley and Larry had #1 hits in different genres of music. None of the Beatles songs were #1 on urban music stations. Doesn't mean the Beatles didn't have #1 songs? Nope.

bass_man86 Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:48 PM EST

Blackjack, I am a big fan of Jamerson but he did not write his own music, McCartney did and does. There is a big difference between actually writing the music for some of the greatest albums of all time, and playing on some of the greatest albums of all time. How many number one hits did Stanley Clarke, Louis Johnson, and Larry Graham actually write? Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of those guys myself, I find no fault in your taste in bassists, but like I said previously, I am looking at the total package not just chops.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:39 PM EST

bass_man86, if you are using sales as the measure of a great bassist, then Jamerson has more #1 hits than all the Beatles. Motown is still selling and being used in movies and commercials. Jamerson played bass on them all. Money is not a good measure. Stanley Clarke, Louis Johnson, and 10 boat loads of bassist got their thumping and picking style from Graham. Don't use money, Paul would lose.

jenn Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:37 PM EST

The White Album? Really? I like the Beatles as much as anyone, but if you're going to single out one of their albums, how about one they made together as a group, like Sgt. Pepper?

Ana Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:35 PM EST

Beatles the best band EVER. p.e.r.i.o.d

bass_man86 Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:21 PM EST

I have to tell you Blackjack, as a bassist and a musician myself, I am amazed that you could consider the Beatles average musicians. You are certainly welcome to your opinion but you will forgive me if I find your opinion rather....disconcerting. Larry Graham better than McCartney? Different, certainly, better? I don't believe that they can be really compared or quantitatively measured, after all, we are talking about two totally different playing styles. Of the two, I will have to say that Sir Paul is the most influential by and far, but not because of his expertise as a bassist, which is beyond question. Rather, because Sir Paul is simply more than just a bassist. You are welcome to your opinion, but people speak with their wallets. Beatles recording still sell at full price, as do most of McCartney's solo outings. Larry Graham is ....well, he is a great bassist, and that is where it stops.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:05 PM EST

Ok kidz, I'm out. It's been a slice. I hope all you Beatles fans get the catalog someday, but I am sure the money will have to be "sorted out" first. Remember, fans only come first if they have already figured out how to pry the money out of your hands. :)

Michael Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:01 PM EST

This talk about musicianship is pointless. Neil Peart is my favorite rock drummer, but Rush is not in my top 10. Best drummer ever? Maybe Buddy Rich. It's a fun discussion but irrelevant here.

Did The Beatles cover songs? Early on-- but everyone does. "Something" is still the most covered song ever. Harrison wrote it. Lennon and McCartney played every instrument on "The Ballad of John and Yoko". The other guys weren't even there. Point is-- the sum of their parts was better than their individual ability. Which is why many consider them the best group ever.

Would I rather play guitar like Page or Lennon? Page! But I'd rather write like Lennon! John was a guitar player-- but he played piano on "Imagine" (cheating the discussion with a solo reference), one of the great songs of rock history.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:58 PM EST

JPC, hell no hard feelings, I loved it. Yes, I play bass and drums. Yes I hate everyone who makes more money doing it that I do and it pisses me off that money ALWAYS stands in the way of the music. But I will keep playing and one day I will get as good as Paul or Jameson or Weeks or Patorius or Wooten or Clarke or Graham or JPC :)

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:54 PM EST

Blackjack: Now I can go home happy! No hard feelings eh? Have a good one.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:53 PM EST

JPC, Beethoven was a genius. Now you get it.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:52 PM EST

"General Understanding, Rarely Useful" perfect description for Blackjackass.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:49 PM EST

Blackjackass: Now I'm listening to Beethoven, what's the scoop on him? I'm very curious as to what music you listen to.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:49 PM EST

Phillip, excellent point.

phillip brown Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:47 PM EST

Blackjack - That's odd. I thought that covering a tune meant that the artist found a song that they enjoyed playing and hoped to explore the song within their own style. That's why I play other peoples' music. That's why the Beatles played others' music. I'm sure that's why most artists play others' music. If you were talking about the Chipmunks putting out a Beatles album, I'd say you had a point. But when Miles Davis and Ray Charles and Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughan and literally hundreds of high quality artists turn to particular songwriters to cover, it's usually because they find that their music is having an impact on them.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:45 PM EST

JPC, Miles Davis ? Hack, pure hack. His band mates were the bomb that made the music. Oh, and never call some one a "guru" if you really respect them, because a guru is "General Understanding, Rarely Useful".

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:43 PM EST

Now he's a singing critic, what's next?

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:39 PM EST

Blackjackass: It is not a fact that they were average musicians. It is, however, a FACT that McCartney, Harrison, Townsend, Entwistle and Moon were amazing musicians. I'm listening to Miles Davis...was he average oh guru of musician rating? Because I don't think I would have as much respect for him unless you gave him the above average status

Michael Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:39 PM EST

People are going to think what they want. If you don't like the Beatles, if you think they were a minor influence, just don't listen (goodness knows you can't download the music anyway) and move on.

What I think gets lost in the mix is-- if you track their albums, there aren't many bad "filler" songs. Today's CDs give you three songs if the album is good, then jam it full of junk you'll skip over.

My addition to the conversation is that rock 'n roll was in trouble when The Beatles arrived. Holly was dead, Elvis joined the Army. Except for Motown, there wasn't much happening. The Beatles energized the era.

I enjoy their early music, though not my favorite, but when they turned the recording studio into an instrument, in my opinion their last years together yielded some of the best music ever recorded. Without the filler.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:39 PM EST

Phillip, covering a song means," I need money and people already like this tune". It doesn't mean the song is influencing my way of producing music.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:37 PM EST

RPGR, Paul can't sing, Larry Graham can sing if we are talking bass player with a voice.

phillip brown Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:36 PM EST

Blackjack - I believed we were talking about the genre of pop music, a wide ranging genre that occasionally does include jazz and blues. But even in these genres the Beatles had influence. The Lennon-McCartney catalogue is covered in jazz recordings more than any other artists from the rock and roll era, and is the most covered in soul music as well. George Clinton, Stevie Wonder, all the Motown artists, in particular Marvin Gaye, were influenced by the Beatles. They certainly covered their songs. Sure, more guitartists want to sound like Hendrix, but more bands want to sound like the Beatles. Hendrix's 2 biggest influences on his songwriting were the Beatles and Bob Dylan. I don't see the sense in trying to downplay their importance. It's almost as if you resent it for some reason.

RPGR Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:34 PM EST

Blackjack,

I AM a bass player. Are YOU? If you don't KNOW that Paul McCartney was a GREAT bass player than you are indeed clueless. I am amazed how some "musicians" (usually guitar-playing "doodlers" and speed freaks who never composed a song in their lives) are still in the dark when it comes to this. Someone who supposedly has studied Jamerson (less is more, the concept of space, melody, playing for the SONG, etc.) should KNOW better.

Doodlers and "players" are a dime a dozen. Rock music (at least good music that stands the test of time) has NEVER been about "technique" players. With Paul, the SONG always came first. The Beatles never tried to impress "players". Also, how many "bass players" do YOU know who can also play piano, guitar, drums, and many other instruments - oh, and also sing their ass off at the same time - while they are playing the (great) songs THEY wrote?

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:33 PM EST

JPC, to answer question. I like the Beatles. I have their music, it doesn't detract from the fact they were average musicians. I also have The Who, Stones, and Grateful Dead. But they are average musicians and they got rich. Good for them.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:30 PM EST

bass_man86, hmmm...........expertise, lets see. Bass, drums, percussion. Yep that about does it. JPC, STOP IT!!! That is how wars start. One guy has an opinion about the Beatles, another guy won't respect that, and before you know it we are looking for WMD again.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:29 PM EST

Blackjackass: No, I'm not a bass player but I can recognize quality bass, guitar or drum playing when I hear it. I'd like to know what bands you like.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:26 PM EST

Blackjackass: Are you NUTS? John Entwistle was probably the best bass player ever, Pete Townsend is a writing and guitar genius, Keith Moons drumming is off the charts, he wasn't just the rhythm section, he made the drums a separate instrument altogether and Daltrey's vocals were unmatched.

bass_man86 Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:26 PM EST

Hey Blackjack, do you play any instruments? I want to know what kind of expertise you bring to the table when you say that the Beatles were "average musicians."

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:24 PM EST

JPC, I will assume you are a bass player so you should know. Good enough ?

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:22 PM EST

Phillip, you are looking at a limited scope of music. If we are talking just rock, give the Beatles props. They Beatles had no influence in jazz, blues which even the Beatles and most British groups admit influenced them, or soul music. They influence radio targeted music, that's it. Even in rock, do more guitarist want to play like Hendrix or John Lennon ? You have to take a look at all music, not just what you listen too.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:22 PM EST

Blackjackass: I read your first post and I still say his bass playing got better and better as they made more albums and his best bass playing is showcased on the later albums that's what I was saying so unless you saw them when they played on the rooftop then you didn't really experience his amazing bass playing, also, I'd be VERY surprised you could have heard a thing with all that screaming going on, the Beatles couldn't hear their own music for crying out loud. You have no idea who I am so to assume that I wasn't around during that time is pretty dumb.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:17 PM EST

Just to let everyone know it's not "Beatles hatin" I am talking about, I also believe the Stones, Grateful Dead, Jim Morrison, and The Who were average musicians who made it big. No one is going to say that Keith Richard, Bill Wyman, or Charlie Watts could play with anyone that had skills. They were in the right place at the right time. Like the Beatles.

phillip brown Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:12 PM EST

I'm hard pressed to think of any act more influential than the Beatles. You mentioned Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles and while Charles was hugely influential, neither of them really comes close to the impact that the Beatles had. The songwriting, the instrumentation, the beat, the feel, even the look has lasted for over 40 years now. Also, nearly every act that recorded after them was in some part directly inspired by their example. Even such bands as Nirvana cited them for reasons they wanted to play music. As great as Wonder and Charles were, the closest you can get to the Beatles influence is Elvis, and I believe that even there the Beatles' impact was more far reaching.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:11 PM EST

JPC, look at my first post. I said, I was here when they came to the US in 64. That is why I can say I heard it live before you were born. You can read, correct ?

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:08 PM EST

Blackjackass: So I guess your were in England when they played live on the rooftop because before that they hadn't played live since '66 and that was before Sgt. Peppers (their most innovative album) came out. Dope.

rockgolf Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:07 PM EST

Beatle influences that have stuck:

- Videos
- Promoting albums instead of singles
- Merchandising of non-musical material (Beatles dolls, lunchboxes, etc. - Did you ever see an Elvis Thermos?)
- Artist-controlled labels
- Solo careers - before the Beatles split, how many acts can you name that were successful as both a solo artist AND former group member?
- Stadium concerts
- The importance of record producers (Sir George Martin) and engineers (Alan Parsons, among others)
- Acts that wrote and played their own music.

machinegunmana Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:04 PM EST

Ghosts was not free...The Slip was free...Ghosts was a 10 dollar download and then they mailed you a CD. Brilliant music from a brilliant businessman, just simply mis-stated here.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:04 PM EST

phillip brown. Not trying to agitate, just trying to articulate. Yes, they have been influential. Most ever. No. Good musicians. Yes. Great musicians. No. But just for JPC's sake I will download every song they made, listen to it on an IPOD, see if they sound better as a MP3 as opposed to live :)

GAC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:02 PM EST

Blackjackass: Ahh, the beauty of posting everyone can make up anything they want.

rockgolf Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:02 PM EST

Some innovations by the Beatles have stuck. Most have fallen by the wayside: longer album tracks, "theme" albums, innovative instrumentation, poetic allegory in lyrics.

But you can take every track on the "Beatles 1" collection and come up with bands that have made a career of trying to sound just like that one track. From Oasis to ELO to almost any boyband.

What must not be forgotten is that the success of The Beatles made most rock commercially possible. Before that, American guitar-based groups were considered a trend whose time had passed.

phillip brown Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 03:00 PM EST

Oh, Blackjack. You're just stirring the pot. If you're really talking about influence, you know the Beatles were the most influential music group in history. Come on. It's one thing to agitate, but at least be honest.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:58 PM EST

JPC, heard it LIVE before you were born.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:56 PM EST

Seanoos, Hatred. Wow. Hey, I said they are successful. I am sure they influenced some musicians somewhere, but Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles were better musicians more influential, and innovative.

Maddi Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:56 PM EST

Well, thanks to my groovy parents, I've got practically the entire Beatles catalogue on CD anyway, which makes the ability to download it irrelevant. I get that most people buy things on MP3 now, but it's not like there aren't other ways to get the Beatles on your iPod, plus have the ability to play it in your car with decent sound!

rockgolf Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:56 PM EST

And just how many songs longer than 3-4 minutes have hit the charts in the past, oh, 20 years?

propelberry Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:53 PM EST

Actually Blackjack, Paul is a great bassist. Yes, he started out as a guitarist, but that doesn't mean he isn't a great bassist. Geddy Lee, my other favorite bass player started out as a guitarist as well. Both have very different ways of playing, but both great players.

Dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:52 PM EST

This is what you wrote: "If the influence of your playing changes the direction of the music, then you are an innovator."

And this is what the Beatles did for many, many people and groups in the world.

End of story.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:51 PM EST

Blackjackass: LISTEN TO THE F'N MUSIC...ACTUALLY LISTEN TO IT AND YOU'LL HEAR THE AMAZING BASS PLAYING among all the other greatness that's going on. You're as thick as a brick. I'm done with you.

seanoooo Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:51 PM EST

Blackjack...I presume you are trolling for some hatred? Well, you got it.
Much of what you say has to be a put-on, as any genuine, talented critic or musician would disagree with 100% of your comments.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:49 PM EST

Dave, don't be nasty, Dr. Seuss thought they were average too. I am saying introducing an eastern instrument into western music becomes innovation if everyone changes direction and starts doing that. If the influence of your playing changes the direction of the music, then you are an innovator.

Dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:45 PM EST

And if you're looking for one thing that the Beatles completely paved the way for, it's the single that lasted longer than the 3-4 minutes that radio would allow. Hey Jude completely revolutionized and opened the flood gates for artists to write longer singles that would actually get radio play.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:45 PM EST

Propelberry, Paul is good, not great. Fast is not a requirement of influential. Paul may have made some rock bassists think melodically, but he started out as a guitarist. Find a bass player who started as a bass player, then started playing melodic lines, and there you have innovation. Think Jamerson, Patorius. Paul played what the Beatles needed and that is fine. But he was good, not great. Just like the rest of the Beatles.

Dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:43 PM EST

Blackjack: I'm beginning to think that you can't read. I said one ROCK group. And by your standards, someone should invent a completely new instrument to be considered revolutionary. And as for a book you should try reading, I'd say start with Dr. Seuss and work your way up.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:42 PM EST

You said they were average musicians I was saying that Paul and George were above average and John and Ringo were average. How did I miss your point?

Jason Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:40 PM EST

Blackjack - No one is trying to say that The Beatles were the only great band of their time. I think we would all concede the fact that there were a lot of great individual artists out at that time. But the combination of these 4 and what they accomplished together is nothing short of amazing. You my friend, seem unable to acknowledge that The Beatles were in fact a VERY influential band for most musical acts that followed, no matter the genre.

jade Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:40 PM EST

Being British I have to say that the Beatles did a lot for British Music. Before them all we had to listen to were Elvis Presley and Little Richard. They well and truely put Britain on the musical map and influenced many bands to come - do you think the Rolling Stones would have recieved their big break without the Beatles? No.

propelberry Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:38 PM EST

Speaking as a bassist myself, Paul McCartney is awesome. He doesn't play fast or anything like that, but give his basslines a good listen, especially in the later recordings-and he is still playing great to this day! To even insinuate he is not a good bass player is completely inaccurate. I wish I was fortunate enough to have a lesson with him and pick his brain about bass playing.

peter Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:38 PM EST

musicians play other peoples music - the Beatles wrote their own. Musicians are always saying - oh they're songs are easy to play anyone could write that. I always do the same thing - I hand them a guitar and say write a song as good as any Beatles B-Side. They are without a doubt the most influential, most important, talented pop act of all time. And apart from being irrelevent. I don't know one kid who isn't completely enamoured by their music on first listen.

Todd Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:37 PM EST

I have to admit I did play some BeatleZzzzzz music - I needed some quick 'filler' music for our set. It took only a few minutes to learn each song and the 'masses' did like it!

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:34 PM EST

JPC, you are right I was wrong. Paul totally beats out James Jamerson and Larry Graham, John and George were better than Clapton, Hendrix and Beck combined, Ringo made Steve Gadd and John Bonham look like hacks. My apologies, you obviously missed my point.

phillip brown Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:31 PM EST

For those of you knocking the Beatles music, I implore you -- listen to the music and read the history. The music is unexpected and complicated, both in harmony and chord structure. The impact, musically and culturally, is unprecedented. There is hardly a musical act that wasn't influenced by their music, even to this day. No history of any 60s subject (film, military, fashion, culture, etc) fails to mention the impact of the Beatles. Think of the astounding variety of styles they recorded in then remember that every song you've ever heard from them was recorded in a 7 year time span. In that same time they made 5 movies, wrote top hits for other artists, Lennon wrote 2 books and they had several solo projects come out. I understand having other acts be more to one's liking, but to in any way fail to appreciate their achievement as one for the ages reveals an astounding yet easily remedied ignorance. Do yourself a favor and check them out.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:30 PM EST

Blackjack: I've listened to Paul's bass playing and it is amazing especially on the later stuff. But he didn't just play the bass, he also played guitar, drums, piano etc., etc. try REALLY listening to the music, you'll see how great of a musician he really was and is.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:26 PM EST

Blackjack: AVERAGE MUSICIANS?????? Paul McCartney can play a crap load of instruments, he plays and sings everynote on his solo album Chaos and Creation in the Backyard, but hey THAT'S easy. Harrison got better and better as the Beatles progressed and Clapton himself said Harrison was one of the best guitarists around. Lennon was rhythm and Ringo's drumming was perfect because it didn't over power the other performers.

mark Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:24 PM EST

One of the best things about The Beatles is that none of their songs sound alike. There are a bunch of bands that have one sound and each song is different versions of the same song. If younger folks want to listen to the Beatles, just turn the radio to a real classic rock station and wait 10 minutes. What rock bands of today will be talked about 40 years after they made thier las record?

David Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:24 PM EST

I'm a huge Beatle Fan! And I couldn't agree more Mr. Bruno! You're "Spot On" as the British would say. I understand the theory that if you withhold a megaproduct for a brief period you increase demand, but this withholding has been long overdue. In fact, withholding something too long has proven to pass an artist by. The band Boston experienced that to a degree with the "Third Stage" Album. It seemed to take forever, and many fans lost interest.

The NexGen Music fans will eventually "forget" about the great material the Beatles have dropped over the years.

I'm willing to pay & legally download Beatles tunes from iTunes. But they're the ones that have to make the next move!

Enough already!!! If you really wanna make some money, put the Catalog on iTunes. Otherwise, the less-than-ethical sites with have them for free.

brucez Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:22 PM EST

Let's put things into context. In 1962 Rock and Roll was stale. The Bobbies and Dion etc were putting out the same old stuff. The Beatles, doing mostly covers - gave it a new twist. They were into basics - Lead, rhythm, bass and drums. But the chords were more complex. Later, with Dylan's encouragement, they sought to put some meaning into their lyrics. Much of their output was pop, not Rock and Roll. But, the diversity of their output was astounding. There were other great bands of the '60's - the Stones, Led Zepplin, etc. How many really unlistenable tunes did the Beatles turn out - not very many. Almost every pop musician performing today was influenced by what they did. Their music holds up well. How often is it played today? Not having it available on the most popular source for music makes no sense. I hope that those people responsible for this come to their senses finally allow the younger generation access to the music. Let them hear real music for a change.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:22 PM EST

JPC, didn't say I hated them, just said "Average musicians who took advantage of their opportunities". Oh, next time you talk to a bassist, ask him/her about how good a bass player Paul is. You might be surprised.

JasonZ Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:21 PM EST

Uh-Hmmm!!..How many bands do you know that have/were only together actually for seven(7) years and did what the Beatles have done to music? It is taasteless to give merit to those who say the Beatles didn't influence all music after 1964. To call today's music ..music is a shame and almost criminal!

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:18 PM EST

Dave, I can name a million people in India who used a sitar before the Beatles. Give me a break, that is not innovation, that is integrating something new into your music. Please suggest a book I should read that would make the Beatles any better than the average musicians they were.

JPC Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:17 PM EST

Hey Blackjack, change your name to Blackjackass. OK you don't like the Beatles, that's been established, enough already. Go on ignoring the fact that they changed the face of music and have an influence in pretty much every band out there today. Go ahead and keep comparing them to the likes of Britney Spears, Kanye West, Kid Rock, Spice Girls, Usher Paul McCartney's crap has more talent than all of these knuckle heads put together.

Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:15 PM EST

No band's albums have a selection of songs everyone likes. Some are better than others. But the Beatles always had great overall albums. And "She's Leaving Home" is actually quite a statement if you look at the historic period in which it was written and everythign that was going on at the time. Too often people divorce music from history.

Dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:12 PM EST

Blackjack: Name me ONE rock group that used the sitar before the Beatles. Have you ever listened to Strawberry Fields Forever? And it is not a list of what engineers did. Anyone who knows anything about the Beatles knows that they spent hours in the mixing studio with tracks working on many of those effects, too. Why don't you try reading a book.

Jose Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:10 PM EST

I like the Beatles and own every one of their albums, but some of the albums are overrated. Sgt. Pepper's and the White Album are okay, but my God, there's a lot of crap on those albums. Honestly, don't you cringe every time you hear benefit of Mr. Kite, She's Leaving Home, Lovely Rita, Rocky Raccon, Bungalow Bill? Those are just a few songs that sound lame. Again I'm not a Beatles basher, I'm just saying they're albums not as good as some people claim.

Blackjack Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:07 PM EST

Dave, you're kidding right? This link tells you about what the "engineers" did in Beatles sessions. The Beatles did one thing, got to close to each other and introduced feedback. They musically did nothing with it. You need Jimi Hendrix to show how that little piece of work is done. Hey, glad you think they are pioneers. I see them as average musicians and writers who made the most of their opportunity. Nothing wrong with that. There is evidence today that you can still make it with average attributes; Brittney Spears, Kanye West, Kid Rock, Spice Girls, Usher, you name it.

Wellnow Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:07 PM EST

The issue in my book with the Beatles (and their fans) is not that they were successful or that their music is subpar, because it isn't. My problem with The Beatles is when they become some kind of idol for worhsip when there were HUNDREDS of bands doing music at the exact same time who had JUST as many things to say and, in many cases, did it with superior musicianship and style than The Beatles mustered in their whole career.

Get it through your thick heads people: Nobody would have ever gave a damn about The Beatles if they hadn't been signed after their extensive concerting in Berlin and pretty much advertised more than any other artist in the entire U.K. at that time.

Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:03 PM EST

Todd: I guess you've never actually tried playing a Beatles song, then. Not really a shock. You seem the type to dismiss something out of hand. Good luck with your garage band.

peter Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:03 PM EST

I love it when "musicians" criticize the The Beatles playing. They wish they could whip a crowd into a frenzy like they did. Music is about communicating not showing off. It must be frustrating learning all those scales to find out that there is more to it than that. Any person serious about writing music has to acknowledge the Beatles craft.

propelberry Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:02 PM EST

I suppose some people are way too impatient to buy or borrow the CDs and upload them into their computer for the ipod. Like I said, if someone actually would "Go without" just because they aren't on itunes then how much of a fan can one be when the music is readily available on CD? And as far as some people saying their music is "simple", that statement could not be more false. I am a bass guitarist, and have to say their music is very complex. If anyone disagrees, go and see the Fab Faux perform live and watch some of the things they have to do to reproduce some of the songs this band has given us. It's incredible.

Todd Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 02:00 PM EST

Studio Dave

New music does suck. As far as listening to only 4-chords of the The BeatleZzzz - we have no choice, they only play 4-chords ;-)

studio dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 01:55 PM EST

Whoever says the Beatles are rrellevant are morons. Maybe it's because you haven't heard a song with more than four chords in it or are use to todays rock where the singer whines instead of singing(it's easier to whine than sing, anyone can whine and sound like Blink 182, I'm a record producer trust me I know)because that is suppose to be the 'in' thing to sound punk. It's just the music industry being lazy and not taking a chance on something different. Anyone who thinks the Beatles music is not that important needs to listen to Revolver or the White Album and try to compare them to anything else. As for the Beatles not being downloadable I say wake up people! You are being sold an poor quality product. Buy the CD and load it into your Itunes. What are you going to do when your hard drive dies and you lose all of your music? Folks, there is a reason why The Beatles, Led Zep, Pink Floyd, and the rest of the classic rock icons sell millions of CDs a year. new music sucks.

Dave Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 01:54 PM EST

Blackjack: have a read. more than many groups have ever done for music innovation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles'_influence_on_music_recording