[pierced mikey]

Personally I've always like the early Beatles more, but of course I still like the later beatles.

[mike nixon]

Niether don't care for the beatles I prefer the Pre 1980 Stones.

MIke

[F ROCK]

cant decide.
i like all beatles.
and stones...
and kinks...
and about 3 who songs.

[pierced mikey]

I like a lot of the Stones stuff too, some Who...But when I was growing up my friend & I would put the Beatles on and listen while playing Nintendo(this was before games were also movies lol).

[David Jones]

My brother had an 8 track with Hey Jude on it. Actually that might have been the only ONLY tape in his car.
I grew tired of them.........

[Gulliver]

I'm gonna say "mid-Beatles" a la "Rubber Soul" or "Revolver".

While it's all pretty good musicianship/singing/writing, the early stuff is too bubble gum, the later psychedelic stuff is too far out there for me..

[goatmanmitch]

Love the Beatles, early stuff is good but the I like the trippy stuff better.

[Old Blue 66]

I love it all. Early, mid and late Beatles. Cant vote because of that. latley, Ive been into the late Beatles and listening to a lot of Abbey Road. I NEVER get tired of Beatle music.

[Johnny406]

I love it all with a slight edge to the early years

[LeighP]

I have to say some of the later stuff is in my favourite list of music.
And some of it (namely Obla-di Obla-da and Hey Jude) I hate with a passion...truly aweful shlock music.

One of my favourite Beatles tracks... Tomorrow Never Knows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE1_QGwVG5s

[pierced mikey]

The reason I thought of this was someone posted the video for Chains on FB, and I haven't heard that in forever, but I loved that song.

[MikeNoun]

Love them all.

What's interesting is that there aren't too many bands where you can define an early, middle, and late sound, and all three of those sounds are radically different. There are lot of casual Beatles fans that say they don't like them, but they like some of their "early stuff", or some of their "later stuff". Each time they changed, it was like having a new band that evolved for 3 or 4 albums. Then it seems like another band emerged, did 3 albums, etc.

They evolved so quickly, and every album changed rock and roll. In their wake were bands that latched onto one of their albums sounds, and that band ended up making a career out of it.

One of my favorites from their early days was "Boys", which Ringo sang. A rockin' song, originally recorded by The Shirelles (girl group). What's funny is that they never thought about the fact that a guy (Ringo) was singing about boys, they just knew it was a rockin' tune, they loved the Shirelles version, and the rest was history.

This was Ringo's moment to shine, and I always thought it was cool how the other three sang backup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN6ZZiKWZYA

[68gtoMN]

Beatles were simply amazing talents. they changed music. they took the simple tune and made it hip. You can walk down the street and sing a Beatles tune - this is not true for many other groups.

[Kurt Zimmerman]

The early Beatles were solid, dependable, but produced little horsepower and no heat.

The later Beatles were still cute, but were complicated and prone to annoying failure.

You guys are talking cars, right?

Kurt

[Old Blue 66]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

Love them all.

What's interesting is that there aren't too many bands where you can define an early, middle, and late sound, and all three of those sounds are radically different. There are lot of casual Beatles fans that say they don't like them, but they like some of their "early stuff", or some of their "later stuff". Each time they changed, it was like having a new band that evolved for 3 or 4 albums. Then it seems like another band emerged, did 3 albums, etc.

They evolved so quickly, and every album changed rock and roll. In their wake were bands that latched onto one of their albums sounds, and that band ended up making a career out of it.

One of my favorites from their early days was "Boys", which Ringo sang. A rockin' song, originally recorded by The Shirelles (girl group). What's funny is that they never thought about the fact that a guy (Ringo) was singing about boys, they just knew it was a rockin' tune, they loved the Shirelles version, and the rest was history.

This was Ringo's moment to shine, and I always thought it was cool how the other three sang backup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN6ZZiKWZYA

You can say that again. In less than 10 years too. BUt also, you can argue that the 60's culture changed pretty quick too with Kennedy's assassination and the war.

[MikeNoun]

One of the reasons The Beatles changed so rapidly was that they were very aware of imitators. Once they exploded onto the American scene in early 1964, it only took a few weeks before copycat acts flooded the market. Groups that wore the same haircut, same suits, and attempted to write the same types of songs. Record labels began signing anyone with a British accent.

The Beatles were always trying to change their sound, which is remarkable in an era when record companies, when they had a hit record on their hands, wanted the group to write the same song again and again to guarantee another hit. The Beatles kept changing their recording mix, their writing evolved quickly, they discovered new instruments, and they were open to new ideas. Each album had its own sound, and every album was a departure from the last album.

And an example of how fast they changed, compare something like "If I Fell" to "Tomorrow Never Knows". The songs are only 2 years apart.

[Old Goat Racer]

The Beatles, like GTO's, are only original once.

[Keith Vrabec]

Rubber Soul a bit of both

[bpenrod]

For some reason I listen to "Abbey Road Medley" almost every day.

[4dblnkldude]

Nope don't care which.