2. music
  3. 1251672347

How to listen to the Beatles re-releases?

There have been some stupid questions asked on these forums over the years, and several of those stupid questions have come from me. Perhaps here's another one for the ages...

I'm 38 and have never really listened to the Beatles catalog. I own "Peppers", "Rubber Soul" and "Abby Road" on vinyl, plus "Love", but wouldn't say I'm as familiar with their body of work as I am with, say, R.E.M (they were "my" band during my high-school and college years).

However, I've pre-ordered both the stereo and mono Beatles re-releases. What's the best way to re-introduce myself to the genius of the "fab four"?

Should I sit down and work my way through their collection chronologically? Is there a good companion book to read through while I listen? Should I listen to an album over-and-over until I really "get it" before moving on to the next? Both mono and stereo?

There are albums that I pick up and think "Wow...It would have been awesome to listen to this the first day it was released." Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors". CCR's "Willy...". Rush's "Moving Pictures". Etc. The excitement of the release. The cultural and musical context. The significance. I'll never be able to experience that with the Beatles, and I'd like to put myself in a place (mentally) to really listen to the Beatles for the first time (again).

Does this make sense? Blast away. I figure I couple of people will understand what I'm asking and have some thoughtful suggestions.
128x128nrenter

Showing 2 responses by rcrerar

rcrerar
215 posts
 
Has2be, what I think Mofimadness is trying to say is that without the Beatles, rock music, while still existing, would have followed a very different path sound wise and style wise than it did. As much as the early greats influenced the Beatles I think the Beatles influenced the music of their own time and later times even more. I think it would be difficult to argue that the Beatles had more influence on modern music than any other act past or present. Just talk to any pop or rock artist that came along post Beatles and you will find very few who do not mention the Beatles as their main influence. Even the artists who released music very different from the Beatles and who claimed to hate the Beatles, like the early punk bands, were still in fact influenced by the Beatles music.
rcrerar
215 posts
 
My point is that it is still just pop music, albeit very great pop music, but people treat it as if it were something more.

I don't think you can judge the significance of certain music simply by the genre from which it comes. I think the assumption that classical or jazz are automatically superior to pop or rock music is nothing more than snobbery. If any type of music is to be judged, as more than just music, it has to go beyond just the consideration of the artistic makeup of the music itself. I think the most important factor is how that music affected it's generation in it's own time. How it influenced other artists, how it weaved its way into the fabric of peoples lives and imprinted itself onto their psyche, how that music continues to affect people in later generations. One could just as correctly say that Bach was after all just classical music, or that Miles Davis was just jazz. I think anyone who attempts to argue that these forms of music are inherently superior to modern music is making a flawed preposition.
More to discover