|
|
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. |
|
| |
The Beatles
