|
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Ok which one is it? I have always been a Lennon fan, I love the way he can turn a simple melody and phrase into something beautiful and fantastic. McCartney was always too pop oriented and sweet for me. I never liked Wings could not stand them I would rather watch the ringo traveling all star show. Of course my close second goes to Harrison especially the Traveling Wilburys stuff. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Once read a great quote in the British press: "We expected Paul McCartney to be the next Cole Porter; instead, he became the next Henry Mancini".
I'm definitely a Lennon fan. McCartney showed flashes of brilliance, but then always managed to turn out something goofy. Kudos though for his lush sound and ear for production quality. But as far as songwriting goes, always something seemed lacking (like John's edge).
That said, together they had magic.
I think George blew us all away when All Things Must Pass was released. Was clearly the best release of all the solo releases immediately following the breakup, not to mention his work with Ringo (ie Photograph) and Badfinger.
Traveling Wilburys Vol 1 is on my Top Ten All-Time Best Albums list. It been back in the rotation in my CD changer for the past week and I'd forgotten just how much I like the whole album. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2002
Posts: 1026
Location: Back in the Valley of the Sun Mesa Az. | It's almost like asking "Peter? Paul? or Mary?" or "Simon? Garfunkel?" individually, they each have their musical merits I'm sure, but together....magic.
Norse(jmho)man1
p.s. McCartney's vocals + Lennons lyrics= Magic! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 939
Location: Fort Worth, Texas | Anybody listened to the posthumous Geroge Harrison release - I like it a whole lot! :)
You know, at first I really hated Wings. Silly Love Songs for goodness sakes.
But, I've come around to liking stuff like
Band on the Run and Jet...
John had his edge, Paul his pop sensibilty, George his spiritualism and Ringo his panache. :rolleyes: |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2003
Posts: 146
Location: Germantown, MD | Maybe Lennon; after all, he provided "Woman" and "Imagine" and some other good stuff after the Beatles broke up.
My wife says that the ideal guy to date would have been a combination of Paul (when she introduced him to her folks) and John (after the folks were out of sight). Of course, she married me. . . . |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2002
Posts: 939
Location: Fort Worth, Texas | LOL :D |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7247
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Never really a big Beatles fan here. I do like some of the early rock'n roll stuff. I think some was even covers like twist and shout, that era. I like Paul and Ringo. I tend to lean towards artists who can perform what they write. Although John or George probably exceed Paul in writting talent, I always thought Paul had the talant, personality and performance sence. Bottom line is that I would pay to see Paul live, and even Ringo (just cause I understand he is a blast live). But the others I was always content to buy the album. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | Paul |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 14842
Location: NJ | George Martin. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 4
Location: MN | Lennon. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2002
Posts: 125
Location: Dallas | They were all geniuses to me. I inhereted them from my sisters, and then Radio took over. My rebel spirit goes with Lennon....my musical spirit goes with Harrison.... my emotinal spirit goes with McCartney....my spirit of sensation goes with Starkey. McCartney lost me after his 1st solo album (almost - there were a few unparralleled hits in true Beatles genre shortly thereafter). Paul's 1st solo album was treasure, but he went hard Pop with the Wings Shiite...and crashed like a badly designed glider...went down like a $2 whore...hit the ground like a bad transmission....never recovered....very disappointing. Beatles '65 was prob my favorite from my childhood. I remember seeing them live on Ed Sullivan.....and I remember being disappointed in only seeing a recorded "Hello - Goodbye" video (everyone was waiting for a live appearance) on the same show a few years later. I was taking guitar lessons when they broke up....I was shattered.
The Annual Guitar Show is in Dallas this weekend....I'm there....
Blessings to all....God bless the USA...KD |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15684
Location: SoCal | One of the things that has always struck me over the years is how all of the Beatles, at one time or another after the breakup, said that at their roots, the Beatles were always a great little band. Abby Road was an attempt at getting back to that type of playing, but it was too late.
I loved the Beatles when they wrote together (Paul & John) and played together as a band, thru 1966. I enjoyed some of the studio music after that, but I didn't love it. I have always preferred music that can be done live by a group (or individual) over music that is done in a studio that can't be replicated.
Something about a 4-5 piece group pumping out music on stage that just appeals to me. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2002
Posts: 33
Location: Pittsburgh PA | Initially, John and Paul were very similar in composition style. As the years went on, they developed their own distinct styles. John's melodic lines tended to be more horizontal in nature, using one or two notes to carry the melody, relying on counterpoint melodies of the backing music - example Lucy in the sky with Diamonds, Help, Dear Prudence etc. Paul's melodies are more vertical in nature - example Here There and Every Where, Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby. I guess it all depends on your taste in music. Based on song and melodic structure I would give Paul the nod. As far as musician ship it is Paul by far. As good as an artist John Lennon was, there is no way he could of put on concert tours like Paul does, playing bass, lead guitar, acoustic guitar, and Piano. Although George was the best guitarist, Paul is by far the best all round musician of the group. As far as Ringo goes, it is just great the way he puts those All-Starr Bands together and tours. I've seen him. He's great. He is now such a showman and he sings better now that he did with the Beatles. Who would of guessed he could be such a great front man.
--Mike Z |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | If I could vote twice I'd say George Martin too. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 613
Location: Zion, Illinois | I went to see Paul last September. It was the first concert I had seen in decades!
I was just an entirely fantastic show. I really liked the part when Paul dismissed his band and said that it just you, me and my guitar. My wife, who originally was against spending $125 for tickets, had the time of her life.
Now, we're going to attend at least 2/3 concerts a year. We just missed out on Elton John / Billy Joel tickets a while back. She's going with my sister to watch figure skating in Chicago with her favorite stars. This coming Friday we're going with my sister to watch an oldies show in Indiana featuring Mike Smith of the DC5 (he hasn't toured in decades), Mark Lindsey of Paul Revere & Raiders, Gary Lewis, and a couple more I can't remember (I think). Shows my age, but it should be fun.
Bradley |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 25
Location: St. Louis Mo. | In the music of my world,it's the Beatles and everyone else. I was a child when my family left Scotland in the mid sixties and even then I knew the power of that group. I could write all day and night about what I know, belive to be right and in a few cases could prove to be rightabout the Lads. Lennon has been my hero forever,along with McCartney. I think that each one is weaker without the other. Paul to showbiz and pop Lennon like freight train in a cathedral. Together the blend of all the people they loved in music provided the Beatles "sound". I know my father was cop in Glasgow and watched the crowds go crazy first hand. That magic was there from the start. The short of it is they where very much a four legged table. The power was the group. Always interesting any of guys,but together in my veiw simply the best. I teach guitar and always find students who want to know how to play Beatle riffs,I think Lennon and McCartney will be around long after any of us. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7247
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | I know I'm not alone, but I am also not afraid to ask. Can someone please explain the Beatles to me? I don't dislike them, don't go there. I just don't get the "greatness". George Martin, absolutely, that's a no brainer to me. I hear at least 3 distinct kinds of music from the Beatles and although I like some songs, and the fact that they CAN have three (at least) distinct style sais something. I so like the "twist'n shout" "Shake It Up Baby" "Birthday" era but think most bands cover them better. Help, was pretty cool and so was Sgt Pepper, but I just wasn't into it. The White album holds my attention the longest, but again... as background music. As far as musicians, I must say I like most of the work they have done post Beatles more than anything when they were together. That goes for all four of them.
I am not being sarcastic, I'd just like someone to educate me, as I feel I am missing a gene or something. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10583
Location: NJ | Ok I will bite.
The beatles' music was significanly different from the music that was currently popular at the time. When they came to the usa the surf music and perry como dean martin lounge lizards were no longer in demand. Their type of rock was different than the rock in the fifties and somewhat unique.
What happened was then the beatles were used as the litmus test for the current music of the day. Although they cannot take the credit for inventing the musical style that they performed (rock. rockabilly, blues, country rock, psychedelic, etc etc etc) they absolutely defined those styles. Although non were exclusive strickly to the beatles.
Yesterday, Michele, hey Jude Something, just to name a few have become not only examples of good pop songs, that had great arragements and went outside of the 3/4 chord rock that was blues based and so prevalent in their era, BUT these tunes have become "standards" that cross generational, ethnic, economic etc boundries.
No I do not listen to beatles albums (yes I have their albums not cd;s) all the time since I wore them out in my youth but on occasion I will turn on a record or turn up a tune on the radio. I find it fascinating that my nieces and nephews like the beatles and many other musicians of my era and I help them to discover these artists. I did not share any of the music my parents listened to. Polkas just did not cut it for me, but I did come to appreciate and love big band music through the years.
As far as having 3 distinct styles, I feel you are wrong there they transend many different styles and genres of music. the white album itself has everything even including experimental music with revolution number 9.
Greatness is defined by the individual. There seems to be a concensious that the beatles are great. It is ok not to feel that way. I love tons of unpopular music and musicians that I feel the world is missing but that is ok.
Let me put this in terms you may understand. The beatles would be like the Adamas and all imitators like the MOB LOL just teasing. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7247
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Ok, I think I get it. It's not that it was particularly great music, but they did great things with it. I can follow that. I have run into folks, whom I guess are di-hard Beatles fans, and seem to profess that all things rock and even country and every band since is just a copy of the Beatles. I wasn't really listening to music until the 70's, don't know what happened in the 60's, so for me there was the John Denver, Carpenters and of course Harry Chapin music, the pop music of which I can't think of the bands names, but basically the stuff that was on the radio, and then there was rock, which was Blue Oyster Cult, Boston, etc.. I got into the early Beatles stuff later in life, at about the same time I started to listen to some Chuck Berry and cats of late 50's timeframe.
Over all of that time I would run into people that were totally into the Beatles. I have a ton of Beatles records in an attempt to understand the fuss. My favorites are those two collection sets of years, one has a blue border the other has red border, and on occation the white album.
Yes I admit I sometimes turn-up a Beatles tune if it hits the radio, but I really like most of the remakes and covers. I guess that is really the key. The music, even when done by other groups, still stands the test of "pop" time and is still if not popular, at least familiar and part of our culture. How much of that is because they made so many, and radio played them all the time, I guess we'll never know.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled rants. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2003
Posts: 1498
Location: San Bernardino, California | Who did the best cover of a Beatles tune? My vote goes to "I Am The Walrus" by Spooky Tooth. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7247
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | STP doing Revolution. Not because it's a stellar version, or even my favorite tune, but I've heard many bands, including my own, try this song, and it never quite seems to work... Scott and the gang nailed their own version of it. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2002
Posts: 8307
Location: Tennessee | Eddie Vedder - "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away".
Sean Ono Lennon did a killer version of "Dear Prudence". |
|
| |
|
Joined:
June 2002
Posts: 136
Location: Parkersburg, WV | Marcel Dadi's live version of "Lady Madonna"
Patsbro |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 14842
Location: NJ | ". . . I feel I am missing a gene or something . . ."
Don't worry Miles, you're not alone.
People look at me like I have three heads when I tell them that I absolutely ABHOR both The Grateful Dead AND Springsteen! I just never "got it" (on both counts). I gets it all goes back to the "ice cream analogy".
The earliest recollections of "pop" music that I had were Chubby Checker and the "Twist" craze, and the aforementioned "Surf" tunes. That memorable black & white night on Ed Sullivan just sucked me in and I never got out. As my musical tastes became more vast, a Beatles tune on the radio might get switched off because I had just heard it SO many times that it seemed a bit "stale" (at THAT time), but looking back, that music was so engrained on me (and a LOT of other people) that it almost became the "soundtrack" of my youth. The first flick I ever saw on "the big screen" was "A Hard Day's Night" (a wide-eyed, 7-year-old kid amidst a sea of raging, teenage female endorphins - THAT explains why I turned out like I did! :D ).
If there was anyone that ever engrained a guitar "hook" or a melody into my DNA, it was the Beatles. And it was they (and CSN) that tought me how to develop an "ear" for singing harmony.
I guess I was just born without the "Dead/Bruce" gene(s). |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | I'm missing the Hendrix gene & the Beatles gene. I'm also missing the Westlife/Boyzone/Spice girls gene. I have way too many Cooder/Lindley/Hiatt/Zevon genes, so that pretty much redresses the balance for me. |
|
| |
Lennon Or McCartney?
