[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]
The Beatles — She Said She Said
Album: Revolver
Avg rating:
7.9

Your rating:
Total ratings: 3250









Released: 1966
Length: 2:31
Plays (last 30 days): 4
She said
"I know what it's like to be dead
I know what it is to be sad"
And she's making me feel like
I've never been born

I said
"Who put all those things in your head?
Things that make me feel that I'm mad
And you're making me feel like
I've never been born"

She said, "You don't understand what I said."
I said, "No, no, no. You're wrong.
When I was a boy,
Everything was right.
Everything was right."

I said
"Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cos you're making me feel like
I've never been born."

She said, "You don't understand what I said."
I said, "No, no, no. You're wrong.
When I was a boy,
Everything was right.
Everything was right."

I said
"Even though you know what you know
I know that I'm ready to leave
'Cos you're making me feel like
I've never been born."

She said, she said
"I know what it's like to be dead.
I know what it's like to be dead.
I know what it is to be sad.
I know what it is to be sad.
I know what it's like to be dead.
I know what it's like to be dead."
Comments (330)add comment
Music listener, 2024: “Wow I love this new music?”
Old fart: “The Beatles were doing this 60 years ago. You’re welcome.”
I absolutely LOVE The Beatles, but this song is overplayed here and rather tiresome for me. Thank you for asking. 
 baddog8it wrote:


Overrated - No!     Overplayed - Yes!

so is almost every beatles song
 Aghori wrote:

The Beatles are overrated



Overrated - No!     Overplayed - Yes!
This song doesn't get half the credit it deserves. On so many fronts.
 deepwoodskev wrote:





Señora, que modales!
The story goes: John was at a party in Laurel Canyon and overheard a woman at the party say, "I know what it's like to be dead." That's where the song was hatched. 
 lily34 wrote:

i love the drums in this one.


Ringo is badly under rated.
 Piranga wrote:

Yet another major shift in music created by the Beatles. You had to be there to feel the quakes, one after the other.



Took me three re-reads before I've finally realized that there is a "F" in the fourth word of your comment ... 
 alexandersmcmillan wrote:


Are you still in your hotel room?


i believe he got DD'd/banned, but maybe not...
 Lazarus wrote:

incredible...  absolutely incredible...  this is as good as it gets...
 


Are you still in your hotel room?
i love the drums in this one.
 ImaOldman wrote:



While most of what you say is right on I have to quibble with the characterization of their films as "terrible". I was in Jr High in Germany when Hard Days Night and Help! came out and they were absolutely marvelous. I saw both multiple times and loved them for years. I admit they're corny as shit but still great!


"Hard Days Night" and "Help" were and are very well received by movie critics. And viewers too. 

@h8hater:   Of course the Beatles had "commercial intent". They wanted to be famous and likely rich too. They also wanted to produce music that got airplay, so they had to honor the pop-song rules of the time. 

But by the end of their existence, the Beatles had dramatically changed pop and rock music. They made music and albums that reflected their changing interests and tastes. 

Who cares if they wanted fame and money? They achieved musical and cultural greatness. They bent the curve of of music and culture to their will. 

James Joyce wanted money and fame too. So did Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Should we criticize them for it? Please. 
From the start in the 60's to today - I can't imagine how many times I've heard all of their tracks ....... and yet they are still phenominal.

Goes off singing .... "everything was right, everything was right ..  I said ..... cause you're making me feel like I've never been born"

What a terrific time it was to be a teenager.

✌️  ❤️
 Aghori wrote:

The Beatles are overrated



I wonder how many bands will still be around 60 years after they started.  

I saw them when I was 14, they were doing their rounds in their van as all bands did back then the UK.  They visited our church hall and we sat on the stage whilst they played, not knowing anything about them at the time - a few months later all hell let loose.  The Animals  was another band amongst many that also came - it was a weekly event in Sutton Coldfield and we loved it. For me it was also the start of the Byrds and the Beach Boys - a wonderful time to be alive, growing up and enjoying every moment.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but as said above I do wonder how many bands will still be around, being played, still loved by so many 60 years later.
 ImaOldman wrote:



While most of what you say is right on I have to quibble with the characterization of their films as "terrible". I was in Jr High in Germany when Hard Days Night and Help! came out and they were absolutely marvelous. I saw both multiple times and loved them for years. I admit they're corny as shit but still great!


Paul's "Da" in HDN was brilliant! ("Alwees got yer nuse in a buke!") And all the Liverpudlian banter!
 deepwoodskev wrote:




Given the circumstances, might it be better to remove the image of HM Queen Elizabeth ?
What was I thinking with a 9?  10 all day on this one for me.
 smartn1 wrote:


Ok. I'll raise my 2 to a 3.


topical GIF
 h8rhater wrote:

Not Even!  

If you think the Beatles did what they did solely for artistic or altruistic reasons, you would be quite wrong.  The Beatles had commercial intent from the very start and marketed their brand with maximum effort.

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

Once when asked at an American press conference to sing (as the media believed that they could not do so because the screams in concert drowned the sound) all four shouted "NO!".  When pressed Ringo replied, "No, we need money first."

Without marketing agencies and brand creation, the Beatles may never have gotten off the ground.  You think they wore those collarless suits and mop hair dos for nothing? George Harrison once referred to their early efforts by saying they were the "Spice Boys" of their time. Their logo was universally recognized.  Again, not by chance.  Let's not forget those terrible movies too.  It was all about placement, brand, and imaging. From. Day. One.

They founded Apple Corp specifically for tax advantages and surviving member to this day search for new commercial avenues with which to market the brand. 

Heck, they were rock pioneers at commercialization.



While most of what you say is right on I have to quibble with the characterization of their films as "terrible". I was in Jr High in Germany when Hard Days Night and Help! came out and they were absolutely marvelous. I saw both multiple times and loved them for years. I admit they're corny as shit but still great!
 deepwoodskev wrote:




Ok. I'll raise my 2 to a 3.
 Aghori wrote:

The Beatles are overrated

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 RabbitEars wrote:
 
That's the stand out comment. How many people can actually do that? Sit down and write a hit? That speaks to the uniqueness of their talent. 


About 20 years ago (maybe longer!), a British DJ called Mike Reid put out a serialised documentary where Paul McCartney talked about all the songs he had been involved in writing - their inspiration, origins, thought process, song-writing process, etc.  It was a real insight into the everyday sources of inspiration - however, it couldn't explain the element you allude to - the pure talent involved.  That 'spark' that is the difference between good and 'genius'.
 dkwalika wrote:

Beatles' best album?



Close.  It is a real banger.
Came straight here from Vivaldi's Concerto Op 4 No1 ... Great intro to this.
nice segue
 h8rhater wrote:

Not Even!  

If you think the Beatles did what they did solely for artistic or altruistic reasons, you would be quite wrong.  The Beatles had commercial intent from the very start and marketed their brand with maximum effort.

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

Once when asked at an American press conference to sing (as the media believed that they could not do so because the screams in concert drowned the sound) all four shouted "NO!".  When pressed Ringo replied, "No, we need money first."

Without marketing agencies and brand creation, the Beatles may never have gotten off the ground.  You think they wore those collarless suits and mop hair dos for nothing? George Harrison once referred to their early efforts by saying they were the "Spice Boys" of their time. Their logo was universally recognized.  Again, not by chance.  Let's not forget those terrible movies too.  It was all about placement, brand, and imaging. From. Day. One.

They founded Apple Corp specifically for tax advantages and surviving member to this day search for new commercial avenues with which to market the brand. 

Heck, they were rock pioneers at commercialization.

This reminds me of Life, the Universe, and Everything, when Arthur is on Krikkit and some of the Masters of Krikkit are singing a song about how nice everything is and "Arthur could almost imagine Paul McCartney sitting with his feet up by the fire on evening, humming it to Linda and wondering what to buy with the proceeds, and thinking probably Essex."
 radiomao wrote:

Even if the Beatles began with commercial intent, they were, nevertheless, frighteningly talented.  And many other "pioneers" of early rock (Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, etc.) were admittedly equally, if not more, financially driven.  

Heck...what professional artist can honestly say they haven't "honed" their art somewhat to avoid having to take an alternate job for survival?   


None probably, and my commentary on the Beatles commercial intentions was NEVER meant to indicate that they were not amazingly talented.  Or that I am not a lifelong fan of their music because I most certainly am.  It was just aimed at the polly-anna assertion (made by another commenter) that money was way down their list of motivations.
Absolutely genius segue from Vivaldi to The Fab Four! Never change Bill! Please!
 bluematrix wrote:


Interesting trivia, thanks. It appears Paul was pissed that the others were trying hard to get him to take acid so he stomped out and George did the bass line. Fun story on wikipedia about it.


Yes, that is an interesting entry.  Was a little disappointed to read that Lennon had difficulty with Fonda talking about his near fatal gunshot wound.  

Was Lennon doing acid to escape?  
 cambuddyf wrote:

I believe this is one of those rare songs that McCartney doesn't play on.  That's your Beatle trivia for the day.  



Interesting trivia, thanks. It appears Paul was pissed that the others were trying hard to get him to take acid so he stomped out and George did the bass line. Fun story on wikipedia about it.
 Yiungdrac wrote:


because your opinion is up your tuckas



And your opinion is UNIMPORTANT!!!
 eileenomurphy wrote:



Same here! ....BOTH!


because your opinion is up your tuckas
 deepwoodskev wrote:




 deepwoodskev wrote:




GREAT!!! ICONIC!!!
 blackieray wrote:

Either I'm old or this song is still good....or maybe both.




Same here! ....BOTH!
Either I'm old or this song is still good....or maybe both.
Wow. I have three of the last four songs played rated 9:
 
The Police — Driven To Tears
Calexico — El Picador
Appliance — Pacifica
The Beatles — She Said She Said
 


I believe this is one of those rare songs that McCartney doesn't play on.  That's your Beatle trivia for the day.  
OH WOW! (I can't remember how many times I said that when I first heard 'Revolver')
 ace-marc wrote:
"Comments" are for the music, not for your unpleasant harassment needs.

You're projecting.  Again.
 dwhayslett wrote:

Whether it's offensive seems to be a matter of opinion, but as you're offended ... why did you include it?


"Comments" are for the music, not for your unpleasant harassment needs.
 radiomao wrote:

Even if the Beatles began with commercial intent, they were, nevertheless, frighteningly talented.  And many other "pioneers" of early rock (Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, etc.) were admittedly equally, if not more, financially driven.  

Heck...what professional artist can honestly say they haven't "honed" their art somewhat to avoid having to take an alternate job for survival?   



Frighteningly?
 guipumi wrote:
Is this a classic? I don't think so. Maybe when this music came out it was a decent song. But damn it didn't age well at all!
 "This Music"

The Beatles........ get to know them


George’s guitar is magic!
Is this a classic? I don't think so. Maybe when this music came out it was a decent song. But damn it didn't age well at all!
HaHa...

Saw the finger salute and thought "that's a bit harsh"... Turns out it ain't aimed at the Beatles
 h8rhater wrote:

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

That's the stand out comment. How many people can actually do that? Sit down and write a hit? That speaks to the uniqueness of their talent. 
 dwhayslett wrote:

Whether it's offensive seems to be a matter of opinion, but as you're offended ... why did you include it?
 

Mwa hahahahaha  nice one dwhayslett.
 henryisland wrote:

They will be remembered long after you. Can we get rid of this GIF? It is pretty offensive.
 
Whether it's offensive seems to be a matter of opinion, but as you're offended ... why did you include it?
 unclehud wrote:
<About whether the Beatles were motivated by financial gain ....>

I'm sure they were at the beginning of their careers; aren't we all?  Make some money, sell some records, gain approval, book bigger venues, and repeat.

After a while, they had more money than they could spend -- although it seems they certainly tried to spend it on drugs, cars, meditation, extended international trips, making movies ...

But there can be no argument about the musical progression of Rubber Soul, Revolver,  Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Yellow Submarine, and Abbey Road.

Those albums set new definitions for popular music, and were absolutely NOT recorded with the goal of making money -- each one was far outside the musical expectations of the day, and would have caused conventional record company executives to lose their minds.
 
No. There's a difference to wanting to make a living from doing your art and your passion and doing whatever art will sell the most to make the most money. The difference is huge.
 deepwoodskev wrote:


 
They will be remembered long after you. Can we get rid of this GIF? It is pretty offensive.
 deepwoodskev wrote:


 

If they were so overrrated why do they still sell huge numbers of albums 50 years after their last record was released?
 tonyjory wrote:
You Philistine, you!
 

 deepwoodskev wrote:


 
 deepwoodskev wrote:


 Many people will disagree!

Nice transition, Bill!
 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated
 
Not sure about overrated, but definitely overplayed.
 dkwalika wrote:
Beatles' best album?
 
Music
's best album
Interestingly, this is rare track where McCartney isn't involved.  No particular reason other than he wasn't in the building I believe. 

Great track from a great album.
 deepwoodskev wrote:

Well, they weren't "Gods", as many of their most devoted fans believe(d). But they were musical geniuses, all 4 of them, and they were musical pioneers on almost every front imaginable. Where does your anger come from?
 
<About whether the Beatles were motivated by financial gain ....>

I'm sure they were at the beginning of their careers; aren't we all? Make some money, sell some records, gain approval, book bigger venues, and repeat.

After a while, they had more money than they could spend -- although it seems they certainly tried to spend it on drugs, cars, meditation, extended international trips, making movies ...

But there can be no argument about the musical progression of Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Yellow Submarine, and Abbey Road.

Those albums set new definitions for popular music, and were absolutely NOT recorded with the goal of making money -- each one was far outside the musical expectations of the day, and would have caused conventional record company executives to lose their minds.
Yet another major shift in music created by the Beatles. You had to be there to feel the quakes, one after the other.
 h8rhater wrote:

Not Even!  

If you think the Beatles did what they did solely for artistic or altruistic reasons, you would be quite wrong.  The Beatles had commercial intent from the very start and marketed their brand with maximum effort.

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

Once when asked at an American press conference to sing (as the media believed that they could not do so because the screams in concert drowned the sound) all four shouted "NO!".  When pressed Ringo replied, "No, we need money first."

Without marketing agencies and brand creation, the Beatles may never have gotten off the ground.  You think they wore those collarless suits and mop hair dos for nothing? George Harrison once referred to their early efforts by saying they were the "Spice Boys" of their time. Their logo was universally recognized.  Again, not by chance.  Let's not forget those terrible movies too.  It was all about placement, brand, and imaging. From. Day. One.

They founded Apple Corp specifically for tax advantages and surviving member to this day search for new commercial avenues with which to market the brand. 

Heck, they were rock pioneers at commercialization.
 
Even if the Beatles began with commercial intent, they were, nevertheless, frighteningly talented.  And many other "pioneers" of early rock (Elvis, the Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, etc.) were admittedly equally, if not more, financially driven.  

Heck...what professional artist can honestly say they haven't "honed" their art somewhat to avoid having to take an alternate job for survival?   

I went to see McCartney this past weekend... what an amazing show at 77 years old!  an amazing guy and amazing band... if you have yet to see a Beatle in your life time... I totally recommend it!  He's definitely not hitting all the notes like he used to be able to, but its brilliant to watch!
 xray38 wrote:

They might seem so when placed into todays music scene, but their music changed everything. And their music kept changing. 
 
They were the right band at the right time.  No need to go deeper than that.
The Beatles are not over-rated, but this song is 6/10. Not bad, not particularly good either.
FUCK! This is a great song eh?
 h8rhater wrote:

Not Even!  

If you think the Beatles did what they did solely for artistic or altruistic reasons, you would be quite wrong.  The Beatles had commercial intent from the very start and marketed their brand with maximum effort.

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

Once when asked at an American press conference to sing (as the media believed that they could not do so because the screams in concert drowned the sound) all four shouted "NO!".  When pressed Ringo replied, "No, we need money first."

Without marketing agencies and brand creation, the Beatles may never have gotten off the ground.  You think they wore those collarless suits and mop hair dos for nothing? George Harrison once referred to their early efforts by saying they were the "Spice Boys" of their time. Their logo was universally recognized.  Again, not by chance.  Let's not forget those terrible movies too.  It was all about placement, brand, and imaging. From. Day. One.

They founded Apple Corp specifically for tax advantages and surviving member to this day search for new commercial avenues with which to market the brand. 

Heck, they were rock pioneers at commercialization.
 
Don't overthink it. I'd argue with you but I'm too lazy at the moment.
 user4176 wrote:

I don't. Songs written for the pure purpose of making money are commercial, whether they are "good" or "not good", whether they sell or don't. We'll never know for sure but my impression is that the Beatles wrote their songs for a variety of reasons, money not being among the relevant ones. So one could argue they were not a commercial band, even though they sold like nothing else.
 
Not Even!  

If you think the Beatles did what they did solely for artistic or altruistic reasons, you would be quite wrong.  The Beatles had commercial intent from the very start and marketed their brand with maximum effort.

Paul McCartney once famously said about the Beatles being anti-materialistic, "‘That’s a huge myth. John and I literally used to sit down and say, ‘Now, let’s write a swimming pool.’”

Once when asked at an American press conference to sing (as the media believed that they could not do so because the screams in concert drowned the sound) all four shouted "NO!".  When pressed Ringo replied, "No, we need money first."

Without marketing agencies and brand creation, the Beatles may never have gotten off the ground.  You think they wore those collarless suits and mop hair dos for nothing? George Harrison once referred to their early efforts by saying they were the "Spice Boys" of their time. Their logo was universally recognized.  Again, not by chance.  Let's not forget those terrible movies too.  It was all about placement, brand, and imaging. From. Day. One.

They founded Apple Corp specifically for tax advantages and surviving member to this day search for new commercial avenues with which to market the brand. 

Heck, they were rock pioneers at commercialization.
timeless. cool. love it...
 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated
 
They might seem so when placed into todays music scene, but their music changed everything. And their music kept changing. 
 alexpohlenz wrote:
 I agree!

The Beatles are overrated
 Maybe by today's standards, but in 1966 this stuff was revolutionary. And they kept evolving at light speed in their relatively short (band) career. I don't think that they weren't overrated in their brief time together . 
 


 

Then who should be more highly rated?        

Yes they are. As much as I love them.
 

 rdo wrote:

This is a very curious observation.  The Beatles are the best selling band of all time, yet according to you they are not commercial.

I find this bamboozling. 
 
I don't. Songs written for the pure purpose of making money are commercial, whether they are "good" or "not good", whether they sell or don't. We'll never know for sure but my impression is that the Beatles wrote their songs for a variety of reasons, money not being among the relevant ones. So one could argue they were not a commercial band, even though they sold like nothing else.
 guiguy wrote:
Everyone says Sgt. Pepper was their best, it was surely Revolver that changed the world.

 
Some 
people say "Sgt. Pepper" was their best album, but a lot of other people do not.  To me, it's maybe their fourth-best album.

 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated

 
Yes they are. As much as I love them.
The lyrics perfectly describe the fleeting, racing thoughts that go through one's head when tripping on LSD, which is, indeed, what the events in the song are based on.

Or so I've heard.

Great Lennon classic.

{#Hug}
 gjeeg wrote:
Let's argue about The Beatles!!!!!

 
Because we might be able to change the reality of culture: they were the soundtrack to a worldwide revolution that we've all benefited from.
 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated

 

 Angry_Old_Man wrote:
My mop top is gray now.

 
If you still have one, you have me beat.
My mop top is gray now.
 ChrisVIII wrote:
It might be time to acknowledge that they were big and great in their time but aging very poorly in ours... So bad...

 
Why would anyone "acknowledge" something that's only true in your imagination?
a lot of people say the Beatles haven't aged well, I agree somewhat, but the Lennon written songs still stand up today,
that is to me or IMHO 
 ChrisVIII wrote:
It might be time to acknowledge that they were big and great in their time but aging very poorly in ours... So bad...

 
What?  If only I were aging as well as this song.  We are both products of the 60s, but it is not at all a fair contest. 
 ChrisVIII wrote:
It might be time to acknowledge that they were big and great in their time but aging very poorly in ours... So bad...

 
Aging? Do you mean like vintage wine? Because, of course, that must be why there are two highly anticipated documentaries on The Fabs that will be released by year's end. I suppose there is a thriving market for has-beens, the trite, the passe and obsolete. 

Just read in Rolling Stone that this is the only Beatles song that Paul McCartney didn't play on. George might've played bass on this one.
Beatles' best album?
 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated

 
Just like the song says:

"no no no you're wrong..." 
8.3? Not one of their best tracks, IMO of course.
I love so many Beatles songs, including virtually all of the songs on Revolver and Rubber Soul. This is just one of those that never clicked with me.  
 Aghori wrote:
The Beatles are overrated

 
N E V E R  {#Bounce}
It might be time to acknowledge that they were big and great in their time but aging very poorly in ours... So bad...
Let's argue about The Beatles!!!!!
And the Beatles again, and again, and again!
 I agree!

The Beatles are overrated
 
 


This makes up for the Counting Crows song.
 Picture this in 1966...besides that Shadows Guitar Tango thing.
this again...argh.....PSD....
The Beatles are overrated
 Dazzerb wrote:
thank goodness for the PSD button!

 
Surely you meant LSD button!
 TerryS wrote:
By Grabthar's Hammer, you shall be avenged! Dr. Lazarus 
 
Hope life be grand for you right this minute, TerryS...  this video is very very groovy...
thank goodness for the PSD button!
 Lazarus wrote:
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song soooo much!!!!

 
By Grabthar's Hammer, you shall be avenged! Dr. Lazarus 
 absolutely disagree {#Arrowd}  {#Mrgreen}
This falls into their 'filler' category. There were a lot more cracks in those days, and this is just tripe.
Everybody in my alien space craft loves this song soooo much!!!!
Gov't Mule does a great version of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAsgzIVRwBA

{#Cool}
 zigzag wrote:
How the fug did they manage to slip in and out of waltz time so seamlessly?
 
They were masters at Aeolian cadences, don't forget!    

======================================

"We were on an acid trip and the sun was shining and the girls were dancing, and the whole thing was beautiful and Sixties, and this guy— who I really didn't know— he hadn't made 'Easy Rider' or anything... kept coming over, wearing shades, saying, 'I know what it's like to be dead,' and we kept leaving him because he was so boring!"

Hmmm....poolside on (real) acid....dancing girls...sunshine..... "I know what it's like to be alive!"
 
 rdo wrote:

This is a very curious observation.  The Beatles are the best selling band of all time, yet according to you they are not commercial.

I find this bamboozling. 
 

Not really, crap is the operative word that distinguishes. I never said The Beatles were not commercial.  Back then before Clear Channel took over, commercial and crap were not necessarily synomonous as they are today.   If you want to call The Beatles music crap, feel free. I am not so inclined to do so.
 rdo wrote:
This is a very curious observation.  The Beatles are the best selling band of all time, yet according to you they are not commercial.

I find this bamboozling. 
 
I don't know what the OP meant, but to me "commercial" means that a song is selected and/or written and/or produced to "fit into" a popular standard, which "should" increase its chances of making money. 

Certainly starting with Revolver, The Beatles didn't fit into the popular standards of the time, and created albums that were largely (almost completely) outside of those standards because that's what John, Paul, George, and Ringo wanted to do.  (Compare to this list of 1966 hits.) Sure, George Martin and others played a helping hand, but the OP was commenting on how many Beatles tracks are "well known." 

I'd disagree with the OP in that I'd bet many people don't know Beatles tunes like "Yer Blues," "Flying," "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite," or "Dr. Robert."  But lots of people are familiar with "Back in the U.S.S.R.," "All You Need is Love," "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," and "Eleanor Rigby."  I guess somebody'd have to do a poll to claim one way or another. 
Bravo RP! yeah!!! 
 sirdroseph wrote:


Very very few maybe less than any other serious artists (pop commercial high selling crap excluded of course). A true sign of greatness.

 
This is a very curious observation.  The Beatles are the best selling band of all time, yet according to you they are not commercial.

I find this bamboozling. 
{#Bananapiano}{#Bananapiano}{#Bananapiano}{#Bananapiano}  Godlike song from the Beatles best album 
 lemmoth wrote:


Actually that's what Peter Fonda said.

 
...and that's the story that I heard.
I'm typically not a "Beatles person", but *love* this 
incredible
great song off "buddy holly '66"        {#Dancingbanana}