Beatle Albums vs other bands

westtexasrickenbacker · Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:34 pm

I know most Beatle Albums were recorded in a very short period of time, so the songs in those albums were written in an extremely short period of time. Even "Sgt Peppers..." took only 6 months to record. That was a very long time for a Beatles product, yet only a fraction of time for other bands.

I think the contrast is very interesting when comparing how long it took to record, say "Rubber Soul" or "Abbey Road", both great albums, to the duration of time it took to record "Hotel California", "Rumors" and "Dark Side of the Moon", all of which I think are great albums, too.

I read somewhere that the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac both took well over a year on those wonderful records. That was a tremendous amount of time to craft the songs. I guess that came from how the music industry had changed by the mid 70s.

Taking nothing away from the great bands that followed, but I have always been impressed with the quality the Beatles could put out in such a short period of time. That kind of creativity and quality must be why a band that died on April 10, 1970 is still so influential today and stills sells a ton of records.

lyle_from_minneapolis · Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:03 pm

Their impatience and freshness paid off, didn't it? I just finished the Lewisohn book and am just dumbfounded at the timelines.

apollo11 · Post by **apollo11** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 4:51 pm

Barely over 7 years separated Love Me Do and Let It Be. Incredible output and mind-boggling development over a period of time when most bands of today would release two or three albums. The Beatles released 13 albums over these 7 years, which includes one double album and many singles which weren't a part of any album. Creativity in such staggering output hasn't been seen since, and quite possibly won't be seen again.

They pushed the envelope as far as they possibly could and changed the music scene many times over. They are a rare band in that they never really had a low point, album-wise. They got better and better with each release up through Help, and then from Rubber Soul on it is hard to say for certain which is their best album. In fact, it could be impossible, even from a critical standpoint. They were all impeccable, really.

Another thought---all this was done at a time when they were very young---George and Paul were 27 when the Beatles broke up in April 1970, John and Ringo were 29. Simply unreal.

jt10824 · Post by **jt10824** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:10 pm

... and let's not forget that they recorded their entire first album in just eleven HOURS.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:14 pm

Also not to forget that in that same time, they managed four movies, countless TV and radio appearances, and lots of touring.

alanz · Post by **alanz** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:53 pm

... and let's not forget that they recorded their entire first album in just eleven HOURS.

Pffft. The Rutles recorded THEIR first album in 20 minutes!

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm

The second took even longer!

lyle_from_minneapolis · Tue Jan 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Spinal Tap chimes in on the Beatles

ST. HUBBINS: I never met any of the Beatles. I enjoyed their music, I liked it, it was light. With a few exceptions, it wasn't really what you'd call gritty, hard music. It was more like really accomplished, professional music.
TUFNEL: It wasn't dirty. It was musicians who washed their hands.
SMALLS: No jiz. Jizless music.
TUFNEL: It's okay to have music like "Here Comes The Sun," if you're shopping in the market, buying meat or poultry. [Sings very high] "Here comes the sun, here comes the sun. There it goes, here it comes."
ST. HUBBINS: We're not trying to be unkind.
TUFNEL: No, that's just the way it is. They know it.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:10 pm

And how long did it take to record 'Please Please Me' ?

1 day?

There will never be another Beatles. Just amazing.

malvernlink · Post by **malvernlink** » Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:29 am

With the passage of time we forget how truly different they sounded from everything else that was being played on the radio. I first heard The Beatles on Radio Luxembourg in 1963 while living in Frankfurt, Germany. I was 13 and even for a musically unsophisticated kid I was just amazed. This was music from another planet, this was the best music I had ever heard.

westtexasrickenbacker · Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:12 pm

Marc has a point. I still remember hearing "Sgt Peppers" and "Abbey Road" for the 1st time. It was right after John died. I remember the room I was in, everything!

Their music does sound very unique. That must be why it is still played so much. I very much enjoy other bands. I love U2's 80s stuff.... especially "War" and "Joshua Tree" and I NEVER hear it on the radio anymore. Same with lots of other music from past eras.

So many radio stations still play the Beatles often. Those songs contain so much melody and simple, but extraordinary talent (how's that for a contradiction) and they are timeless.

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:47 am

I guess it just takes a little longer to measure up now.