|
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | What do you think about them? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Innovative and ahead of their time but some credit should go to George Martin. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2008
Posts: 1453
Location: Texas | Who? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2007
Posts: 672
Location: New South Wales, Australia | I'm a fan. Love the way Lennon & McCartney's voices sound, and some of their harmonies, to my ear, still can give me tingles.
Did I say tingles :eek: |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 214
Location: Stratford, Connecticut | Well they definitely don't suck, that's a fact!
Truly creative. Truly genius.
But they were free enough to be that way.. to learn their craft... to be shaped into what they became by creative influential people.
Right place at the right time maybe?
Meh... most successful people are just that.
I like em' a lot mate!
Now how bout' a pint then!
Cheers!
MJK |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | I don't see how you can not appreciate The Beatles. Even if it is just one of their different "eras".
And George Martin does not get enough credit IMO.
Think about how young they where when all that great music was written and recorded. How much had you accomplished by the time you were 22 years old?
I hope that in my lifetime I get to see something like the Beatles come around again.
We sure could use it.
L.L.&P. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2005
Posts: 5328
Location: Cicero, NY | Couldn't possibly agree more, Brad. The most amazing thing to me beyond the great writing, the harmonies and the creativity they showed was their age when they did it. With the cookie cutter "star" world we've entered, you'll never see another like them. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2007
Posts: 1486
Location: Cincinnati | The best ever. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | Their creativity extended to film (something like 30 years ahead of music videos), and they were the first to successfully (sort of) pull off a large venue stadium concert. I also think George was just as talented and a creative writer as well, but didn't receive the credit early on like his more prolific bandmates. I still remember the morning walking to junior high school when I heard "I Want to Hold Your Hand" for the first time on a small transistor radio I was carrying. I could not believe what I was hearing and ran the rest of the way to tell my friends all about it. Sure wish I still had my collection of early Beatles 45s and albums. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | I still remember the morning walking to junior high school when I heard "I Want to Hold Your Hand" for the first time on a small transistor radio I was carrying. I could not believe what I was hearing The impact on me was the same. I was in a local hardware store, I think I was 13, and they still had local hardware stores in NY. I was there to buy a lock for my bike. They had a small plug in radio on a shelf and I Want To Hold Your Hand was playing as I waited. I can still see the color of the radio, pink and tan, and the sound coming from it was nothing I'd ever heard. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 1225
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | I think they might catch on .... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | We've talked about this before, but it's a good topic.
I remember my little sister telling me that Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings!
The Beatles were pathfinders showing us the way, like Ramones and other seminal groups.
I wonder whose the Big Group today, showing the way. I'd say the kids still love Jason Mraz.
Any thoughts? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12754
Location: Boise, Idaho | I was not a fan. I tended to go the opposite direction from the majority at the time and I particularly despised screaming girls. I still don't care for most live music. Only recently, when I tried to learn to play some of their songs, did I come to appreciate their talent. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Where will talent like that develop again? Where is a group of people hungry enough going to find a place like Hamburg to work in sweatshop conditions to put in the 10,000 hours it takes to get that good? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | I've said this before, and most of you didn't hold it against me, but I didn't like them at all. I was listening to John Mayall and FZ, and, even though the term hadn't been coined yet, they sounded like bubblegum to me. I didn't think theyir songwriting was all that great. Sounded to me like they just chose random words because they rhymed. I didn't think they were exceptional musicians either. They were in the right place at the right time, and with heavy promotion, they made it big. Sorry. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2007
Posts: 2711
Location: Vernon CT | Most of what they did I loved!! And then every once in a while it was like HUH????
Whether you loved them or hated them, they changed things!!!! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | A lot of young kids these days know a lot of Beatles songs by heart, and are finding the music on their own. That's saying a lot. Last week, a young co-worker (~25) heard "Don't Let Me Down" on pandora or whatever they are playing out there in the dev area, and was blown away and wanted to know who the group was (they thought it was a new release). I told them to dial up Abbey Road, which they did and had never heard before (they sort of knew Come Together, but only the Aerosmith version). They were stunned and amazed. And played the whole thing over again.
There are those who started disliking the Beatles once Revolver came around, and never really listened to them again. Then there were those who listened to Revolver and loved everything from there on out, including and despite the fractures. I'm in the latter group. Although I do think Paul is pretty schmaltzy most of the time. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6268
Location: Florida Central Gulf Coast | "Rubber Soul" ignited my Beatles appreciation that goes on today! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2007
Posts: 270
Location: Yorkshire, England | I'm a big,big fan but appreciate that they would not have had as big an effect on the world as they did without Brian Epstein or George Martin.
(Don't Let Me Down was on the `Let It Be' album) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 288
Location: New Hampshire, USA | Huge fan. Best band ever, but definitely greater than the sum of their parts. Neither Lennon or McCartney produced the same level of quality after the breakup IMO.
I think the combination of 1)the songwriting rivalry between them and 2)each keeping the other's indulgences in check is what kept them at such a high level of production.
Well, there's that plus for every Beatles album they each only had to come up with less than half an album's worth of songs once the George and Ringo songs were thrown in. They only truly wrote "together" for the first few albums.
Once they broke up and didn't have each other to keep themselves in check, I found most of their solo albums too indulgent, though there were certainly bright spots (e.g. Band On The Run). Most of them had a half-album's worth of good songs, just like each contributed in the Beatle days.
I haven't liked much that McCartney's put out in the last 10 years or so. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2008
Posts: 1453
Location: Texas | Originally posted by stonebobbo:
A lot of young kids these days know a lot of Beatles songs by heart, and are finding the music on their own. The relatively-recent musical movie "Across the Universe" was pretty popular with teenagers… (mine, anyway.) The entire story was developed (contrived?) around the lyrics to Beatles songs, and most of the "dialog" is singing of the songs. (It has tons of inaccurate, but fun, 60's references and characters in it, but only Beatles' music.) I think that movie caused many kids to seek out the original versions of those songs. (By stealing CDs from their Dad's collections… ;) )
Beatles' songs seem to pop up in other movies pretty regularly, too, so kids hear them…
Also, many of the Beatles songs are pretty timeless, and cover tunes by newer bands keep the songs alive. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 214
Location: Stratford, Connecticut | Apples and Oranges... The Beatles and Mayall and FZ? There's no comparison, actually.
The difference between the two, MAINLY, is that one group impacts the world pretty quickly and the others impact much smaller groups of people. Over time lots of people may come to appreciate stuff like FZ and Mayall BUT nothing impacts the world like one, simple, GOOD song. A song that immediately changes lives on a major scale. The Beatles wrote MANY of those types of songs, by the way. There is a talent there to do something like that. It may seem unimprtant to s "serious musician" type, which we all are from time to time, but it ends up being HUGE FOREVER to the general population of the WORLD, right? And that's something outside. Something spiritual. Something talented. When you write that song and people just KNOW it's a timeless forever type of song. That's definitely a HUGE talent. Undeniable. But I LOVE Zappa more than words can say... he just doesn't have that "mainstream appeal" for lack of better words... it's very subjective. So be it! Music is God given as well as from LORD SATAN so take it lightly... or it may drive you batty! Hahahahahahaa!
MJK |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | I've still got to get around to getting the soundtrack album (Ugh, something I would normally avoid like the plague) for I Am Sam. It had great and reverential reworkings of Beatle tunes. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2008
Posts: 1281
Location: Ohio | Didn't like them.
Just never got into that whole Brittish thing. Definately donl't like the Stones....THey need to do the final Steel WHeelchairs tour.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | The question was "What do you think of them?" I answered it honestly. But as far as impacting the world, a lot of people would say the same about Madonna, but that doesn't mean she's a good musician. Elvis changed the world, but I wasn't a fan of his either. I was answering the question as a musician, which I already was at the time the Beatles came out. I just never could see what all the fuss was about. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2005
Posts: 1320
Location: Round Rock, TX | The short version (for Paul ;) ):
I like a lot of musicians, but the Beatles are the only band that I can listen to all day and not want to listen to something else.
The long version:
I have my own categories for musical accomplishment. The next to the top level is Genius. There are lots of geniuses. Zappa is a genius, Beethoven is a genius, the list goes on and on. The top level is Mutant, people that are so good that they transcend human. I only have three entries in my mutant category. J.S. Bach is a mutant. Mozart is a mutant. The Beatles, collectively, including George Martin, make up a mutant. While I like some of their solo stuff (Harrison,s All Things Must Pass, Lennon's Imagine and Double Fantasy (Lennon's parts of it anyway), and Macca's first two spring to mind), none of it compares to the stuff they did together. In seven years they went from a well-regarded pub band to world-changing icons and put together a library that, 40 years later, still excites a huge population of fans of all ages, races and cultures. No other band has done what they did. AND they did it all with no musical training (except for GM), terrible management and on serious drugs. Amazing.
George Martin was, in my mind, crucial to their success, but name me one other band he produced that did nearly as well as the Beatles. On their own, none of them had more than a few genius moments (Harrison more than the others, IMO) while most of their post-Beatles stuff is "merely" great (I except Wings, which rarely, if ever, did anything great). The five of them, together, however, produced true mutant-level music. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| It's been my experience that when someone asks me what I think, they're really using it as an opening to tell me what they think.
So what do you think, Brooklyn? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | Losov, my wife and I run our own business, and we're generally each other's company, so you can imagine that it's rare that someone asks my opinion, so I'm honored. I love the Beatles. I started playing guitar because of them, I agreed with the statement that they're up there with those other mutants, Bach & Mozart. I agreed with a news reporter who said, 'great music is heard in the heart and body & soul and the least important place you experience it is the ears.' That's what I think of the Beatles. Thanks for asking! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1478
Location: Michigan | they were the reason that i got into music.
it was so cool to see them in the beginning stages of the group how much they enjoyed playing together and how equal they all seemed to be with each others roles ,and then as fame and fortune started to grow on them so did their talents and egos.it was great for music but the end for the band as equals.that's the way it goes with huge success but they did completly turn the world on their ass with their music, wit and personalities and i don't think that anyone or group in my lifetime will ever top them.
that is why they are called the fab four.they made the music history books that our grandkids are reading about today.the were the biggest life altering band that i have witnessed in 55 years.
GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 5563
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains | Sure wish I still had my collection of early Beatles 45s and albums.
Brad, guess what else is "under my bed"...lol
I have a complete set of Beatles Capitol LP's, and Lennon Capitol LP's and many 45's...and I recently bought a vintage Sansui stereo to listen to my records again the way they were meant to be heard...loud and proud...as Al says, "If its too loud, then you're too old"!
The Beatles are responsible for opening my ears to music...from a tiny transistor radio w/one earpiece...my first iPod...lol
George Martin was a genius...and the Boys were simply great!
"Beatles 65" IMHO is one of the best albums of all time..."I'm a Loser" still grabs me even today... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 416
Location: On the Coast - Halfway between SF & OR | Bach, Mozart and the Beatles? Sorry, I just can't see it. Maybe it's just a matter of time and place. My youth was filled by Bill Monroe and his ilk; the Beatles, though known, just weren't a part of my world. I came to appreciate some of their work but that work will never have the power to move me like Bach or Mozart can. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
I've said this before, and most of you didn't hold it against me, but I didn't like them at all. I was listening to John Mayall and FZ, and, even though the term hadn't been coined yet, they sounded like bubblegum to me. I didn't think theyir songwriting was all that great. Sounded to me like they just chose random words because they rhymed. I didn't think they were exceptional musicians either. They were in the right place at the right time, and with heavy promotion, they made it big. Sorry. Nothing to be sorry about. I'm right with ya. Maybe it's a CT thing? I like a few of the songs over the years.. Birthday, Helter Skelter, WHile my Guitar Gently weeps and a few others, but as a group.. and all the fuss... just didn't get it.
That answers the topic question, but moving onto philosophy... Everything has to start someplace... and thanks to the right group of guys, including George Martin, at the right time, and much MUCH larger than the music, they created the concept of the "Super Group." It's the reason everyone from Hannah Montana to Madonna to Britney Spears to US, to the Jonas Brothers and the list goes on and on.... achieved what they have achieved.
The concept model of making music for the largest audience that's likely to hear it, hyping it, creating an image, launching a brand. The Beatles did it first and while the formula may have been tweaked a bit to accommodate modern times, it essentially has remained the same.
I'm sorry but "raw talent" was NOT the key to their success. I'm not saying they weren't great musicians, singers and songwriters, I'm just saying that without the machine, the hype, the branding, the marketing, I doubt we would be having this conversation. They'd be like all the great musicians who came before them and after them that we'll never hear of.
There is one thing that has erked me about the Beatles that I've never really heard anyone address, and that's the famous "kids against the barrier at the airport" film when they arrived in NY. I remember, even as kid wondering... how did all those people find out what flight they were going to be on, what day, and where. Even today, with cell phones, twitter, that interweb thang.. unless it's leaked information (which in most cases it is) no one knows when anyone shows up anywhere. What did it take in the early 60's to get 1000's of screaming kids to mob the right airport at the right airline at the right time for the right people? I've always wondered about that........
So yes... great musicians, but that was only a part of what was known as "The Beatles." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | I remember watching The Beatles at Shea Stadium on TV (in B&W) and I could hear... well nothing.
Later on in life I discovered that if you went to any of those concerts you wouldn't Hear the concert.
I am trying to remember what music I was Really listening to back then. (early 60's)
I believe that it was Peter Paul & Mary, Burl Ives, Johnny Rivers... (I was really young)
In the later 60's, Donovan, Steppenwolf, Cream, Iron Butterfly, Ten Years After, The Animals...
[I didn't much like the Stones back then either] |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 214
Location: Stratford, Connecticut | Timeless and Memorable... Madonna is not that... Elvis on the other had was/is.... FZ and Mayall albeit amazing technical musicians... not timeless and memorable... and I mean that with the utmost respect for their talents. This is how I see it.. just basic common sense "to me". |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | What a boring world this would be if we all liked the same things for the same reasons. Thanks for all the comments so far, on both sides of the appeal spectrum. It's what I hoped to see, and it's always an education when people are willing to say 'what' backed up by 'why' |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| When I was younger, people would sing incredibly bad versions of "Michelle" when they found out my name. I just wished that the song would die! :mad: Now that I'm an "old fart", how I wish that someone would sing it to me! :D
I do like some of the Beatle's stuff, especially "In My Life". But I wouldn't say that they were a big influence on me musically. I would consider The Lovin' Spoonful to be a bigger influence on me musically than the Beatles. JMO of course.
Michelle |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2003
Posts: 4389
Location: Capital District, NY, USA Minor Outlying Islands | ~Michelle, ma belle, son les mots que vont, tres bien ensemble, tres bien ensemble ... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | I liked them. Their impact was hugh. How many times have you read in guitar mags that "I started playing guitar after I saw them on the Ed Sullivan show" THAT FAMOUS NIGHT THAT THE WORLD CHANGED. So the rest is about their impact on music, which was also great, and much of that credit needs to go to George Martin.
Now I find their music really dated, I can't stand to listen to it. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| Originally posted by an4340:
~Michelle, ma belle, son les mots que vont, tres bien ensemble, tres bien ensemble ... Thanks, An! That made my day! :)
Michelle |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | There's no question that the music of the Beatles was (and is) extremely successful, certainly financially and most definitely with respect to cultural popularity. However, I'm not sure I'm ready to place them on the same historical shelf as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Verdi. They may well be remembered more for their place in pop culture rather than their musical prowess. Maybe those who are listening to music 250 years from now will have a better idea of how the Beatles stand up over the test of time. The same goes for other popular 20th century musicians such as George Cohan, Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Frank Sinatra and many others. Leonard Bernstein and Andrew Lloyd Webber might have a better chance of still being played in the year 2400. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15664
Location: SoCal | The Beatles' music was fun. To make more of it than that is a mistake. They were the right people with the right tunes at the right time. Their early stuff was light fun pop. I started getting tired of them when they started thinking too highly of themselves -- mid 60's or so. It became interesting, but boring.... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Originally posted by Mr. Ovation:
There is one thing that has erked me about the Beatles that I've never really heard anyone address, and that's the famous "kids against the barrier at the airport" film when they arrived in NY. I remember, even as kid wondering... how did all those people find out what flight they were going to be on, what day, and where. Even today, with cell phones, twitter, that interweb thang.. unless it's leaked information (which in most cases it is) no one knows when anyone shows up anywhere. What did it take in the early 60's to get 1000's of screaming kids to mob the right airport at the right airline at the right time for the right people? I've always wondered about that........
Murray the K. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2008
Posts: 90
Location: los angeles | I'm with Beal on this for being able to listen to them now. Then, there was always excitement for me to hear the newest album by them. That ended for me with "Let It Be" which I never liked from the beginning. My first guitar teacher told me to take any Beatles songbook and learn the chord progressions. One thing they did for rock and roll is integrate a lot of new chords into the mix which made it really interesting and quite beyond the Chuck Berry thing which seemed to continue in watered down form until the Beatles. Heavy marketing? Yes. They also fine-tuned the Col. Parker machine but instead of being stuck in bad movies,they got to do what they wanted to do. Are we the better for it? I think greatly. Unfortunately, I think they stopped growing by the time of Let it Be, going back to "roots" which in my opinion was not done really well. But their cultural phenomena will live on - even if I can't listen to them anymore.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
The question was "What do you think of them?" I answered it honestly. But as far as impacting the world, a lot of people would say the same about Madonna, but that doesn't mean she's a good musician. Elvis changed the world, but I wasn't a fan of his either. I was answering the question as a musician, which I already was at the time the Beatles came out. I just never could see what all the fuss was about. I agree...kinda silly, requently inane words, simple melodies...kids' stuff. Moved a lot of money around, but didn't move music forward. All of this is Just My Humble Opinion, of course, but music seemed to peak with the truly greats -- Bach. Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn... It's been little more than pretenders since. And recently, it's been all so non-musical...people who couldn't survive without their light-shows, videos, dance moves, makeup, odd hairstyles, beheaded chickens, effects, fog machines, outlandish behavior, weird clothes...all very interesting stuff, I'm sure, but all very non-musical.
And, of course, the Beatles for the longest time, were simply all about their shocking long hair,a nd the rebellion it represented, and how CUUUUUUTE they were. Again, all on-musical stuff. And, again, JMHO, but none of these fun, but largely insignificant pop bands, last very long in a dark room with the eyes shut, where their sound has to carry them.
Mozart does. He ALWAYS does. Never needs any of the non-musical, 'cause that would distract from the astonishing music.
So, if the question is what to think of them in the broader musical context, I think they were a non-musical, but historical, phenomenon. In a narrower sense -- an excuse to "dance," meet girls, become a "musician" quickly (and therefore meet more girls), and have a party, they were good enough. But, I think THAT was their principal significance. Most pop bands since then were really pretty much the same thing. Not artistically significant, but when lots and lots of money cahnges hands, then they DO become worthy of notice by historians and sociologists. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Just fun. Just a fad. Just lucky. Just good marketing.
Sure.
...of course, that makes it harder to explain why they are still ranked as either #1 or #2 (depending on the source) best selling artists of all time. And how a 'greatest hits' album released 30 years after their breakup managed to sell 12 million units in 3 weeks worldwide.
Whether you like (or liked) them or not it's hard to deny there hasn't been anything like them since. Their musical influence is still widely found in modern music. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Originally posted by AlanM:
Moved a lot of money around, but didn't move music forward.
And, again, JMHO, but none of these fun, but largely insignificant pop bands, last very long in a dark room with the eyes shut, where their sound has to carry them.
So, if the question is what to think of them in the broader musical context, I think they were a non-musical, but historical, phenomenon. Nothing personal, Alan, but I am now officially convinced you have no idea what you're talking about...
JMHO. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2004
Posts: 256
Location: chicago | I had just purchased HELP!been listeneing to it for a week straight,when I was a kid Ive just seen a face was on rubber soul(my fav. Beatles lp)now its on help like the original intention.Here comes the sun has recently motivated me to leave the capo at the 7th fret on my twelver inspiring a cool Mike rutherford anthony phillips sound......Damn Beatles,Hey what happened to the Bangles they were supposed to be the next Beatles? Jeff |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 12754
Location: Boise, Idaho | I agree with Alan. Their huge popularity doesn't prove anything in terms of musical talent. Certainly they had it, but comparing them to great classical composers is pretty ridiculous, like comparing a popular current novel to a literary classic. Just because a huge group of teenagers fell in love with them, doesn't make them musical geniuses. It just makes them one of the giants of pop culture. I pretty much tuned them out at "I Want to Hold Your Hand". They got much better after that, but the popularity of that song didn't make it high art. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2008
Posts: 1119
Location: Michigan | Originally posted by Losov:
It's been my experience that when someone asks me what I think, they're really using it as an opening to tell me what they think.
So what do you think, Brooklyn? :) :) :) So true except for questions about which strings are best. :) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 795
Location: Texas | I am also with Beal, liked them a lot but can not stand listening to those songs now, specially anyone doing Beatle covers.
I still really like some of George's songs, after Beatles.
Now, Jim Croce, I can listen to him everyday. :) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by The Wabbit Formerly Known As Waskel:
Originally posted by AlanM:
Moved a lot of money around, but didn't move music forward.
And, again, JMHO, but none of these fun, but largely insignificant pop bands, last very long in a dark room with the eyes shut, where their sound has to carry them.
So, if the question is what to think of them in the broader musical context, I think they were a non-musical, but historical, phenomenon. Nothing personal, Alan, but I am now officially convinced you have no idea what you're talking about...
JMHO. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2009
Posts: 715
| Now, Jim Croce, I can listen to him everyday. :) I've been watching Jim and Maury almost daily on DVD, and I'm not tiring of them yet! Same way with the Lovin' Spoonful. I rarely get tired of listening to the underrated Zal Yanovsky play.
However, with the Beatles, some of their stuff makes me cringe, especially "Eleanor Rigby". I've never liked that song!
Michelle |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | I agree Mark, that huge popularity doesn't prove anything in terms of musical talent. And I certainly wouldn't compare them to the 'great' classical composers in that regard.
But...
What makes the 'great' classical composers 'great'? Two things - their music evokes an emotional response in us and it has stood the test of time.
Of course the Beatles music was pop - it was the emerging music of their time. But it definitely produced an emotional reaction beyond simple rebelliousness.
Time will tell if they stand the test. So far, 40 years and counting. What other group or artist could posthumously release a 'best hits' album and achieve those kinds of sales in an age where many people don't even actually 'buy' music?
Granted, album sales are definitely not the mark of musical influence.
I love Mozart, but I'd be willing to bet there are more people who've heard "She Loves You" or "All You Need Is Love" than "Eine kleine Nachtmusik"... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | I must be in the minority cause I have never been able to stomach classical music except as background noise.
and I have tried many times.....took a few classes, own at least a dozen CD's (each one a different composer) and it just never made me feel anything other than boredom.
It is actually the only genre that I truly don't care for (not counting hiphop/rap which is another subject entirely). |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Originally posted by enders UKII:
Then, there was always excitement for me to hear the newest album by them. That ended for me with "Let It Be" which I never liked from the beginning. .... Unfortunately, I think they stopped growing by the time of Let it Be, going back to "roots" which in my opinion was not done really well. Abbey Road was the last album The Beatles did. Even though Let It Be was the last one released, it was actually recorded and done earlier. For anyone that saw the movie, that was a bad time and when it really ended. The lads did not like the way the album was, as so they shelved it but later gave the tapes to Phil Spector to produce and put together so they could fulfill contractual obligations. But even though they had all essentially quit the band, they gave it one more shot and tried to put the magic back together, and what resulted was the Abbey Road album. So how fitting is the final statement from the Beatles is called The End ... "And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make." And the cover art was brilliant with the funeral theme, and also the broken Beatles tiles.
Phil Spector's monstrosity was not what they really wanted but everyone was so wrapped up in the legal crap by then they really didn't give a damn ... but cared enough later on to re-master the album into Let It Be - Naked, which was what they wanted in the first place.
I still think the second side of Abbey Road is brilliant, and I still listen and enjoy it from time to time and marvel at the music and the production.
I don't think Geoff Emerick gets enough credit for the incredible enginnering he did on all the later albums. He had a big hand in the actual production quality which I believe is still incredible even after 40 years. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | FWIW; Mozart was just a faddish Pop artist at the time... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | FWIW; Mozart was just a faddish Pop artist at the time. :D |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | Just Thinking Out Loud... People keep mentioning Bach and Mozart, etc.
This music lives-on as a expression of people who had to Study that crap for years.
So once in a while they will get 120 musicians from the university together to play it.
This was a expression of the Rich wasting their wealth. In the times that those composers were writing that music, none of the normal common people listened to it. Nobody was walking around whistling the tune, nor playing covers in bars.
The fact that elite artsy-fartsy types have keep that kind of music in libraries and concert halls in no way reflects it's true popularity, then or now.
When in fact, that kind of music was never really popular.
Whereas people actually play and sing Beatles tunes cuz they Like them. (or Liked them)
So just like Beethoven, 300 years from now someone will have the Beatles stashed-away.
BUT! It is more likely that some guitarist somewhere will be Playing a Beatles tune than Brahms. :p
(PS- I play No Beatles music, and haven't had the desire to learn... Although I might go try to learn that Day Tripper lick now that we are discussing them) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | It took me a long time to warm up to classical music in general. The first piece that I ever wanted to hear more than once was The Four Seasons.
For whatever reason, I was in my forties before I ever heard Mozart. It was like tasting sugar for the first time....something this great has been there all this time and nobody told me!?!?!
I'd play Mozart if I could. Have a 'relly in Jolly Olde who gets his clarinet together with five others and works up old chamber pieces regularly. Our chosen instrument(s) here don't lend themselves to some of the more interesting bits.....and few of us (my bad if I'm wrong) have the skill required to pull off the stuff that IS arranged for guitar.
I think quite a few Beatles tunes will be played a few hundred years from now. But I could be wrong, it's hard to predict. I bet few people guessed at the time folks would be singing James Pierponts 'One Horse Open Sleigh' more than a hundred years later...
Beatles - Good
Mozart - Good
Queen - Good
Tiny Tim - irritating
You can be good, you can be irritating, just don't be boring! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Originally posted by fillhixx:
It took me a long time to warm up to classical music in general. The first piece that I ever wanted to hear more than once was The Four Seasons. Ah, Vivaldi!
I love his work, but I could never decide if he wrote 500 concerti or 1 concerto 500 times... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | potato, potati |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | shuffle, repeat |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I hate to burst any bubbles... but.. (heh heh he said bubble butt :)
All Time Top Selling Albums in the USA
Top Selling Albums Worldwide
But, I stand behind what I stated earlier. Someone had to be first, the right place, the right time. They paved the way for all the groups that are higher on the list. There is something to be said for that. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Miles, no bubble burst here. I don't think anyone said they had the top selling album. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1478
Location: Michigan | nobody including the beatles could show up this artist.this video shows one of the greatest live performances ever , and shows off the artists huge voice range and dancing abilities .
nobody can touch this guy noooobody .GWB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUD_aeVi_bY |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | and... boom goes the dynamite. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | I'm just disappointed that in both of the lists that Miles posted "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't #1! :(
It was for a long time y'know?
But 'sales' listing are kinda ambiguous... They mean that you actually Bought the record! :eek:
(As opposed to stealing/copying/pirating it) |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2008
Posts: 90
Location: los angeles | stonebobo,
Thanks for the chronology - I forgot the recording sequence. I remember when a local station in L.A. (KMET-FM) played an advance and apparently unauthorized "Get Back" LP in its entirety months before the "Let it Be" release. It was much like the "Naked" version without the strings and lush arrangements. I also have a bootleg of that LP. Didn't like it then - kinda reminds me of Lennon's Rock and Roll LP, which I didn't like either.
But for some reason, "Free As a Bird": still gives me chills with the beautiful harmonies (excepting the McCartney "Whatever happened to. . . " interludes). That to me was like hearing a fresh Beatle record when it came out. It was kinda Beatle-mania for me all over again.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2008
Posts: 489
| Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
I didn't think theyir songwriting was all that great. Sounded to me like they just chose random words because they rhymed. No, that was Dylan. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Ooops! Anyone care to pick up THAT glove?
This is starting to look like a serious drinking arguement. and I wish I had the time to help amp it up, but there's an ...E!$=%*#N... on here and I've got doors to knock. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Originally posted by CanterburyStrings:
I didn't think theyir songwriting was all that great. Sounded to me like they just chose random words because they rhymed. Allison, like pretty much every other songwriter out there, sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't...
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.
There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you
in time
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by Old Man Arthur:
Just Thinking Out Loud... People keep mentioning Bach and Mozart, etc.
This music lives-on as a expression of people who had to Study that crap for years.
So once in a while they will get 120 musicians from the university together to play it.
This was a expression of the Rich wasting their wealth. In the times that those composers were writing that music, none of the normal common people listened to it. Nobody was walking around whistling the tune, nor playing covers in bars.
The fact that elite artsy-fartsy types have keep that kind of music in libraries and concert halls in no way reflects it's true popularity, then or now.
When in fact, that kind of music was never really popular.
Whereas people actually play and sing Beatles tunes cuz they Like them. (or Liked them)
So just like Beethoven, 300 years from now someone will have the Beatles stashed-away.
BUT! It is more likely that some guitarist somewhere will be Playing a Beatles tune than Brahms. :p
(PS- I play No Beatles music, and haven't had the desire to learn... Although I might go try to learn that Day Tripper lick now that we are discussing them) Again, JMHO, but this is how I used to think before I gave classical music a reasonable chance. Then, it simply grabbed me by the throat and wouldn't let go for 20 or so years. If one has a good recording and lstens to it properly (LOUD!), there's no denying that Beethoven's Fifth Piano Concerto is a work of genius the likes of which, I truly believe, no 20th century composition even approached. Likewise with his 9th Symphony. Likewise with Mozart's Clarinet Concerto and Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony, and many others.
So many people think that, as someone said above, classical music is just to be listened to in the background.
Not at all.
It's meant to be jacked WAAAAAY up, and listened to repeatedly and with concentration, on a good stereo system. I guarantee THAT kind of listening will reveal all the layers, the complexity, the textures, the dynamics, the riveting, compelling, gripping, challenging, mind- and horizon-expanding beauty of so many compositions.
Yes, the classical composers composed for elite, rich fops, but that doesn't change the fact that the results were monumental works or art and pinnacles of human achievement.
To banish classical music because it was written for, and listened to, by rich people is to banish Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Raphael and Caravaggio as well...who painted and sculpted only for rich patrons.
And, yes, I DO think that Michelangelo was WAAAAAAAY better, and contributed WAAAAAAAY more to art than Pollock or Warhol or Lichenstein.
This strikes me as terrifically condescending toward the non-rich, or the non-elite, as if saying that they are worth only the earthy coarseness of the Beatles or Dylan, and not the wild intellectual and emotional transports of Mozart and Beethoven.
As a society we tend to think of art as good only when it is "democratized," which, again JMHO, is just a euphemism for "dumbed down." I think that classical music should be for everyone, because it IS hugely mind-expanding and broadening.
However, I also think that The Beatles and Dylan CAN co-exist alongside Mozart and Beethoven, but that they should all know their place. Mozart and Beethoven are Big League baseball, and the Beatles and Dylan are recreational, after-work coed softball. The classics are a 1000-room mansion, and rock 'n roll is a cape.
Again, both have their value, and both have their place.
I'm reminded of a quote from Paul McCartney when The Beatles were riding high. He said to John something like: "Let's go write ourselves a swimming pool." Suggests that he ALSO knew his proper place in the world of music. It was a living, and a darned good one, but nothing all that significant artistically.
Again, my apologies, Just My Humble Opinion, and I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2006
Posts: 2491
Location: Copenhagen Denmark | Not quite sure what people mean when they say ..
" do not like Beatles "
..Beatles of what era ??..
They spanned a vast range of music , a range Unrivalled by any other Musician/Composer , incl. Bach..Beethoven , Brahms , Verdi , Moussorgski , or Whoever..and them Beatles pulled it off , they appealed mostly to the young back then , and , one did not need an education to grasp what they played/sang about..
they made people laugh
" I`m gonna tell aunt Mary `bout uncle John "
they spoke to people in love
" You make me dizzy miss Lizzy"
They made ye think of what it might be like at old age
" will you still need me , will you still feed me when I`m sixty-four "
etc. etc. ...
No LP that I know of , takes ya by the hand and guides ye thru` such a diverse , yet coherent bunch of songs like :
" Sgt. Pepper `s Lonely Hearts Club Band "
Vic |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 288
Location: New Hampshire, USA | Originally posted by enders UKII:
But for some reason, "Free As a Bird": still gives me chills with the beautiful harmonies (excepting the McCartney "Whatever happened to. . . " interludes). That to me was like hearing a fresh Beatle record when it came out. It was kinda Beatle-mania for me all over again.
Bob Though it was nice to hear the harmonizing of Lennon and McCartney again, "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" really reinforce the point brought up earlier: George Martin was a HUGE part of the great music that the Beatles put out.
Those two new songs were nice, but to me they didn't sound like "real" Beatles songs without Martin producing. The first time I heard them, I immediately thought "that's Jeff Lynne", and I hadn't yet heard that he indeed produced the two songs. I could immediately (and still can) hear the ELO sound all over those records.
I have nothing against Mr. Lynne or ELO, but he was not the right producer for the Beatles. I have read that George Harrison wouldn't do the project unless his fellow Wilbury got to produce, so I guess it wouldn't have happened at all without him.
If I had my druthers, those two songs would not have happened. They're not bad songs, but with John not really there and Jeff Lynne producing, they really aren't true Beatles records IMO.
Oh yeah - the one Beatles album not produced by Martin? Let It Be, which is generally thought of as the bleakest of the entire catalog. Coincidence? I think not.
Many have been called "the 5th Beatle", but there's only one real contender and that's George Martin. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | If you haven't listened to the Love album that was recently released, it is very much worth a listen or three. It is the soundtrack to the Cirque de Soleil show, and it puts a whole new spin on Beatles music. George Martin (and his son Giles) took all of the available Beatles material and spliced it up into a fantastic sequence of all things Beatles (and it includes an acoustic version of George doing While My Guitar Gently Weeps). joebobbo sez check it out. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | OK, Wabbit, I'll grant you that SOMETIMES their words were OK, but couple them with that bouncy, to my ears bubblegum tune, and the value of the words is obscured.
As far as classical music goes, those who don't like it should try live symphony, maybe some Bach. Just like a lot of music, you will feel the power of it when hearing it live, get into the individual musicianship of the performers, and come away breathless. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | Thanks for your opinions, well with the exception of Losov who had no opinion, and just wrote to ask for mine; odd I thought. The discussion was enjoyable.
I'll stand by my reverence for the Beatles, and with my thinking that they're up there with the best composers in time, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Gershwin, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, all of them. They were all prolific. Someone mentioned that John & Paul would write a song for a 'swimming pool' or a 'car'. Mozart wrote on contract as well. These were not wealthy people to start out, and they all had to get paid. Their music was based on what came before. All 12 tone scale. All relevant to the popular music of the time.
Beatles' melodies are memorable, their lyrics were positive, and they changed pop music. Those are facts. Is the music of the Beatles relevant today? To some, and to some it isn't. Same with classical music. Relevance is personal, just as music appreciation is personal. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Originally posted by AlanM:
So many people think that, as someone said above, classical music is just to be listened to in the background.
Not at all.
It's meant to be jacked WAAAAAY up, and listened to repeatedly and with concentration, on a good stereo system. I guarantee THAT kind of listening will reveal all the layers, the complexity, the textures, the dynamics, the riveting, compelling, gripping, challenging, mind- and horizon-expanding beauty of so many compositions.
I have done that...and I assure you that my sound system cost more than some high end imports and I can shake the neighbors house if I truly desired...
but the signs of an extraordinary system is not how loud it can go but how revealing it can be and I would conservatively rank mine in the top 15% of potential.
Having said that, playing classical music LOOOOUUUUD will not increase the pleasure but merely increase the annoyance of clashing cymbals and horns blaring.
I have listened to the majority of great composers on well recorded Lp's and CDs and with the exception of a few, it has never make the hair on the back of my neck stand up and shiver.
For me.....best suited for background music and not worth the wasted time I would spend sitting and dedicating my time to pure listening.
YMMV :cool: |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | Now I'm sure no music major.
But when I when I play Beatles songs I am playing plenty of differnt chords than when I play others songs of that era and before.
Maybe it's a cliche' now but you didn't hear the type of major to minor chord changes before them.
Again, I'm no theorist.
I just know that a Beatle song feels very different to play.
Before someone sites examples to the contrary, I know there are a number of them. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Brad,
I always considered Beatle tunes simple yet complex. They make me smile both when I listen and when I play them. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2008
Posts: 90
Location: los angeles | Totally agree. Simple yet complex. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | Maybe it's a cliche' now but you didn't hear the type of major to minor chord changes before them.
That was a cool, Beatly thing. Simple and complex too. I always thought of the earlier Beatles tunes almost like marches. They were tight and driven, like Please Please Me. Listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9cbMZZTRQQ
OR I SAW HER STANDING THERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCdDwvhgcw&feature=related |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Lennon & McCartney studied the writers of an earlier generation to learn their craft. Lerner & Loewe, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Geo. & Ira Gershwin which led both to their decision to attribute all their songs to the duo, and use the more complex structures of earlier pop music.
As to 'doing it for the money'.... Dr. Samuel Johnson famously wrote; "Who writes not for money, is a blockhead." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by fillhixx:
Lennon & McCartney studied the writers of an earlier generation to learn their craft. Lerner & Loewe, Rodgers & Hammerstein, Geo. & Ira Gershwin which led both to their decision to attribute all their songs to the duo, and use the more complex structures of earlier pop music.
As to 'doing it for the money'.... Dr. Samuel Johnson famously wrote; "Who writes not for money, is a blockhead." And I think it was John McLaughlin who said, "Art and commerciality are diametrically opposed." Another perspective. One thing is sure: reasonable people can disagree, and this has been a really fun discussion with some well-expressed perspectives. Thanks, Brooklyn, for bringing it up. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | Alan, the McLaughlin quote you might be thinking of is "There are two kinds of success. One is musical or artistic and the other is commercial."
He doesn't say you can't achieve both. He certainly has.
He also said, "I have a great faith in every generation's ability to come up with its own music." |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2008
Posts: 1851
Location: Newington, CT | Originally posted by The Wabbit Formerly Known As Waskel:
Alan, the McLaughlin quote you might be thinking of is "There are two kinds of success. One is musical or artistic and the other is commercial."
He doesn't say you can't achieve both. He certainly has.
He also said, "I have a great faith in every generation's ability to come up with its own music." I think I got the quote right (see it here ), but in re-reading the interview (after 31 years!), I may have misplaced the context.
I think that McLaughlin is suggesting that he wishes that riches could accrue to the really talented, by virtue of the masses' upgrading and broadening their taste in music.
Not sure whose viewpoint this buttresses, but I think it DOES indicate that he believes that the more sophisticated (for lack of a better term) musics are for the masses, not just for the elites.
The rest of the interview seems to confirm that McLaughlin believes "classical" music to be in this realm.
Again, just my humble opinion.
Also, the original question could, itself, pose a BUNCH more clarifying and refining questions, such as: Compared to which musicians? Compared to what music? Compared to to what era? Which "version(s) of the Beatles? and many more.
Still GREAT food for thought. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2008
Posts: 4996
Location: Phoenix AZ | Beatles were the best of their (my) era. Sme has held up well, some has not. But frankly I think a lot of their solo stuff is way better. I'll take All Things, Imagine and BOTR over just about any three beatles LPs |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4827
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | ? Bridge Over Troubled Water?
But I do agree....I actually always heard All Things Must Pass as the next/posthumous Beatle album. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2007
Posts: 494
Location: Location Location Location | Band On The Run..took me a while too. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 5881
Location: Colorado Rocky Mountains | Originally posted by stephent28:
I have listened to the majority of great composers on well recorded Lp's and CDs and with the exception of a few, it has never make the hair on the back of my neck stand up and shiver. You should hear it when you're seated "among" the musicians, like directly behind the French horns with the brass on your left and the timpani on your right, or alongside the harp, or in between the bass and cello players. Gives you a whole new perspective. If you've played in a band with four, five or more players, you can appreciate how easy it is to lose synch. Can you imagine the train wreck that could happen when there are 200 musicians! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2004
Posts: 13303
Location: Latitude 39.56819, Longitude -105.080066 | Brad, makes sense. The only time I really enjoyed listening was many years ago when I went to several live performances back when I lived in Houston.
Maybe I need to check out the CSO and see how I feel afterwards. |
|
| |
The Beatles