You learn something new every day; what did you learn today? Submit interesting and specific facts about something that you just found out here.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
They could still reunite. You’d just have to weekend at Bernie’s a few of them
Hasn’t stopped the Rolling Stones
If S Club 7 can still call themselves that with only 5 members then Ringo and Paul can still reunite as The Beatles
When they broke up, they agreed that none of them could appear/tour/record as "The Beatles" unless all four of them were present.
I don’t think that would still be a binding agreement at this point.
Sssss cluuuub
I never thought that in 2023 I would buy a record of The Beatles’ latest single but here we are. Pretty cool to think about!
I'm kinda mad 'Free As A Bird' from the Beatles Anthology didn't make number one. It's was hyped up as the first 'new' Beatles song in forever.
Real love and Free as a Bird didnt hit # 1?
Especially shocking since both of those songs were considerably better. Looks like Real Love peaked at #4 and Free as a Bird stopped at #2, ironically stopped by a Michael Jackson song.
I purposely haven't listened to Real Love (saving my last unheard Beatles song for a special occasion), but I think Now and Then is much, much better than Free as a Bird.
Mainly because comparing yourself to flying like a bird is a massive cliche, and the tech used to clean up John's voice makes it sound warbly and distant to me.
I like the way John Lennon’s voice sounds distorted and distant. It’s almost like his ghost is singing from beyond the grave…
Agreed. I don’t see it as a song the Beatles made. I see it as echo.
I think FaaB is their best of the last three, if only for its different parts having a considerably different vibe. The others aren't bad, but I don't think they match what Paul and George brought, vocally, to FaaB.
Real Love is still my favorite of the three. Free as a Bird is nice that they all worked on it but it’s not as strong a song in my opinion. It’s the one they put the most work into in 95. But Real Love, I dunno, when I was first getting into the Beatles, I downloaded it along with their other songs and I think it fits right in
I think Jeff Lynn really brought so much to the table on that one.
Lennon originally wrote Free as a Bird in the 70s, when McCartney was having a lot of success and touring the world with Wings. I don't think the pun is accidental - I think he was basically saying, sure, freedom and travel and touring are great, but I'm happy to be home and dry with my family now.
I still agree that I like Now and Then better as a song, though - the tech to do it properly just wasn't there in the 90s.
I think Real Love is the best of the bunch so it’s worth saving. It’s the most simple but the melody hits for me.
No shame in coming in second to the King of Pop.
Interestingly, it was a MJ that wasn't even released as a single in the US. "Earth Song." Never heard of it...
No, but "Free as a Bird" was their other "last song." Who knows how many last songs they'll put out at this point!
Ballad of John and Yoko is not terrible, but the vagaries of the pop charts are astonishing.
It's infectiously catchy tho.
Vagaries looks like a dirty word.
How did now and then get to number one? I’m a pretty big Beatles fan, but it’s mid at best. Definitely worth a listen when it came out, but who is listening to it more than once or twice?
Me. I like it and it's mixed in with the rest on a playlist. Not my favourite song of theirs or anything but I don't hate when it comes up.
Honestly I'd put it in my top five Beatles songs. But in any case, sales are going to account for a chunk of its chart progress (not 100% of it unfortunately) and even if everyone agreed with you that it wasn't a great song, they would still have to listen to it once to figure it out - that's a lot of streams being counted too
Glad to hear people like it! It totally slipped my mind that streams count towards chart position, and to me it seemed like a strange song to buy
what do you mean how? It's a decent little song that tugs at the nostalgia heart strings, from one of the biggest bands of all time, who is still very popular and well known, in an era where a video of a dog wearing sunglasses taking a shit can "go viral" and get tens of millions of views in a day.
It would have had to be a completely terrible song to not do well.
Got a link for the dog vid? That sounds fire.
I just listened, it never gets to a hook or anything listen-worthy. Just sounds like meandering notes and vocals.
I get the nostalgia factor but this is not a good song
George Harrison said the same thing when they went to go record it for the Anthology sessions in the 90s.
They were supposed to do three "new" songs based on John's old demos (free as a bird, real love, and now and then), one for each disc on the album, but George thought now and then was garbage and said he didn't wanna do it.
Since he died it's been whitewashed to "oh yeah the technology just wasn't there to get a clean vocal from john's tapes" but that obviously wasn't a big concern at the time when you listen to free as a bird.
That's why there's basically zero George on the track, just rhythm guitar strumming that's super buried in the mix. he didn't think it was good enough to bother with
Haha glad I’m not going crazy with my take. Really surprised to see that people actually like it
Not a real Beatles song.
How so?
The band broke up in 1970 and never reunited. John Lennon died in 1980 and George Harrison in 2001.
It was not an unreleased track from a Beatles recording session but a Lennon solo demo.
To accept as a Beatles song requires that they did reunite last year. If so, are they still a band? If not, when did they break u
It ain't nearly that deep bruv
Why is a man with a t shirt that says ‘Genius at Work’ writing an essay about a pop song drafted together based on an audio cassette home recording?
I withdraw my statement.
Bruh. Bro. Bruvva. It’s not a Beatles song.
I mean but if you consider the fact that all 4 of them worked on the song with Lennon as the initial writer then it can easily be argued that it is a Beatles song. Sure you could say that it isn’t a Beatles song because they didn’t work on it together, but they didn’t work on most of the album Let It Be together either
They all agreed to release Let It Be.
Both Lennon and Harrison thought this song was not good enough to release and should not represent their output.
The facts beg to differ with your opinion.
But please feel free to tell The Beatles which of their songs count. I’m sure they would benefit from your expertise and undeniable knowledge.
Kind of hard to tell John Lennon since he's been dead for 43 years. While George Harrison has been dead for 22 years.
Id be curious what you consider a real Van Halen song?
If two of the original four were dead and twenty years later the surviving two recorded a song, I wouldn't consider it a Van Halen song.
Oh come on. Lmao
Never heard it. Or of it.
I'll never understand the people who fawn over this overrated group. I also think it's funny how the 60s tribute bands are far more technically skilled and have better singers than the groups they're paying homage to and yet they barely get any appreciation or acknowledgement. It's a shining example of herd mentality.
I’m not a huge Beatles fan, but the thing about music is…people like what they like. Post who you fawn over musically.
I give credit where credit is due but I'm not a fanboy of anything because fanboys are mindless circle jerking drones and I enjoy having thoughts and opinions of my own because thinking critically and challenging your beliefs and opinions is what makes you grow as a person.
Maybe you'll grow up one day and not whine whenever you see someone who doesn't like the beatles.
Look at this badass too cool to have a favorite band 😎
For real. What a cool guy with an edgy opinion. One day I hope to be as cool when I grow up.
I have many favorite bands I just separate them by genre. It's not a complicated concept.
No artist you like would exist without the Beatles.
Every time.
A lot of the time cultural impact doesn't equate to technical proficiency. It's not like Grunge in the 90s took over because it was an era of skilled musicians, they just captured a moment of youth culture that many people needed at the time. And there'll always be some people who yearn for a return to those eras. The Beatles are kind of the same in capturing a moment of the "teenager", rock music, and the beginning US love for Brits. I think their longevity has also been from adapting during their time as a band. It would kind of be like if One Direction stayed together but stopped touring and then made some of the most drugged out Pop music with some experimental stuff.
I've seen lots of insanely talented bands that never got noticed for record deals or broke up without ever getting recognition and it's always a bummer. But that doesn't make me simply hate something that was popular. If the most popular things in media were always a show of expertise then films like Transformers wouldn't have been a billion dollar franchise.
I understand WHY bands like The beatles are iconic but the fact that idiots can't comprehend that being the first to do something a certain way doesn't make you the best for all time is insufferable manchild behavior.
The Claypool Lennon Delirium's album south of reality is better than anything the beatles ever put out and yet most people don't even know this group exists because they refuse to listen to anything other than the same overplayed overrated crap that they're told is good. It's ridiculous and annoying.
You better be careful boy, you'll set the world on fire
Except none of their songs are particularly memorable and Les Claypool's voice (and whole demeanor) is immensely annoying.
Anyone who thinks the Beatles are overrated is incredibly ignorant to music history and isn't worth listening to.
Also no shit, a Beatles tribute band isn't going to get the same recognition as the group that wrote the damn songs in the first place lmfao. Their music is one of the most enduring pieces of pop culture of the 20th century.
Catchy songs, good vibes
Because imitating something =/= the thing. Being a "better" singer is a meaningless quality for a song.
Nice edit ya goob 🫡
Rule two.
I'll never understand how someone (you) goes to such lengths to sell the idea that your taste in music makes you smarter than everyone else, but you're incapable of understanding that having skill doesn't mean you have the ability to create something that that people care to listen to.
People acknowledge the skill of tribute bands by showing up to hear them cover other peoples stuff, which is all they really expect...
get your head out of your ass.
I used to think like this, then I grew up.
“Shakespeare is so overrated. I don’t understand why he’s so highly regarded”
you
Shakespeare is considered boring and lame by nearly all modern theater fans so yes, overrated and long winded.
I can’t believe I fell for the bait
Comment deleted by user
I listen to multiple genres and have Playlists containing music recorded from the 1920s to today, I listened to 98 genres and well over 100 bands on Spotify last year. I don't need to ask to know that I almost definitely have better and more varied tastes than you.
r/todayilearned is the sub you are in.
Are you hear to learn things or beak off on reddit?
The bottom line is they couldn't write songs as good as the Beatles nor were they as innovative. It's not about being technically better. The Beatles while not being the best musicians were certainly up there with the best. No one in a Beatles tribute band is singing as good as Lennon.