"I'd be the first to say that our success is all out of proportion to our musical talent." - John Lennon, 1963

"I'd be the first to say that our success is all out of proportion to our musical talent." - John Lennon, 1963

What exactly did he mean by this? Does this claim still hold up, in light of their later, and more "seminal" releases?

It was true in 63. They weren't really that great at their instruments, you can hear them struggle in some recordings quite a bit. But up through 69 they certainly got a lot more proficient. Definitely none of them got to virtuoso level but they got good. I like watching John at Toronto 1969, I struggle to play and sing that stuff, he seems to do it effortlessly, even if it's a bit rough. Vocally though Paul was virtuoso from the beginning John was near that, aside from the one-in-a-billion voice. Even from the very first album John added extremely impressive vocal ornamentation and Paul was known for being able to follow it all exactly while doing all the legendary harmonies by ear. If you listen closely Paul had some inhuman fucking harmony parts.

Their success was out of this world so I'm not sure any amount of musical talent would match up to it. But in a lot of ways it was deserved.

Scaruffi was right

Paul came up with some bloody solid basslines in his time, stuff that almost works as its own composition.

John had a really intuitive musicality, I'd say. He was born with gifts that he didn't necessarily perfect or hone, but they were gifts regardless.

literlally 90% of this is wrong

Correct user then, user.

The beatles are the unmatched, unbeatable masters of the pop song. The catchy melody. The hook. Nobody else compares to them. They could fart shit and people would lop it up and hum it every morning. Anyone who denies this is a fucking faggot.

This is something that deserves appreciation. They're not master musicians. They didn't actually pioneer a fucking thing. They're just masters at taking any song and making it stick to your head like a fucking leech.

>They didn't actually pioneer a fucking thing

desu john was a really insecure person and was jealous of paul's godtier music talent and probably george's technical talent

he shat on the beatles whenever he could get a chance to make himself look not as bad as he actually was

What did they honest-to-god do that was completely original?

they were a supergroup user

as a group they were a powerhorse

>completely original = pioneered

nothing in the history of music was completely original

They, along with George Martin, pioneered and mastered 8-track recording.

fair enough, but what did they innovate? other than said which is true but not what I meant. I meant in the actual music. They brought many things into the mainstream, but that's not the same as innovating.

>later and more seminal

OP pls

The Beatles are offensively mediocre. So clean, safe, nice. Decent pop, but horrible rock and roll.

This is true. The Beatles are the definition of a commercial, made-to-order band.

>inb4 fanboys get buttmad

Clearly he wasn't referring to Paul McCartney.

they were macca's backing band.

this is the answer you're looking for:

that's easy to say when they literally were the benchmark for what is now considered "commercial"

They are now, but they used that success and fame to actually make the music they wanted to in the later half the 60s, something that I massively respect. Rubber Soul was a game changer for them, Revolver just escalated that.
>So clean, safe, nice
There was constant outrage around them in the 60s. Ignoring the "bigger than Jesus" comment (which is what it was. Not a brag, just a comment, a statement), tons of people thought Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was about LSD, and Helter Skleter (and the White Album as a whole) were given pretty negative attention thanks to the Manson killings. The White Album was pretty edgy at the time, really artsy and just different. Plus there were songs like Revolution which perfectly exemplified late-60s counter-culture. Their music aged with their fans.

It was really nice of McCartney to let the others have lead vocals every now and then. Shame they weren't as talented.

>it's a beatles thread
>filled with scruffi dick suckers and mcaartney dick suckers

Why every time?