Big Dick McGee
If you don't know, now ya know
*halfheartedly pokes at Cait with is pinkie finger*
Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Did the Beatles have even ONE song that was any good?
- Thread starter Big Dick McGee
- Start date
C
Cloudy
Guest
all the young dudes?
Lilac
Luci ain't got nothin' on me.
Actually, in a way I think a lot of you are trying to compare the Beatles to the style of Rock that is present today, which is a misnomer.
Musically speaking-- especially the Seargent Pepper album-- the Beatles didn't play Rock so much as we know it as much as a variety of styles. Look at 'When I'm 64' especially. It isn't a rock and roll piece, but neither is it truly Jazz, either. (When was the last time you heard the clarinet and bass clarinet in a rock piece?)
My second cousin in Belgium plays in a Dixieland band; '64' was one of the pieces they played.
Ultimately, the reason that the Beatles defined Rock and Roll was because subsequent artists took what they were influenced by the Beatles into their own music. A good example, IMO, would be Elton John and Billy Joel. Both, largely, are rock artists, but they have pieces that don't fit the Rock formula. Billy Joel's 'Scenes from an Italian Restaurant' is a great example. That piece fits both the jazz and rock idioms.
Jazz and Rock are both decended from the Blues, so to try to seperate the Beatles era Rock into its own seperate category doesn't make much sense, nor does trying to lump them into modern Rock.
In my opionion, the Beatles are a great group, musically speaking, for taking risks that seem to run against the grain (scoring for instruments that don't 'belong' in rock, having orchestral accompanyment), and for giving their successors the influence they needed to evolve rock to what it is now.
Musically speaking-- especially the Seargent Pepper album-- the Beatles didn't play Rock so much as we know it as much as a variety of styles. Look at 'When I'm 64' especially. It isn't a rock and roll piece, but neither is it truly Jazz, either. (When was the last time you heard the clarinet and bass clarinet in a rock piece?)
My second cousin in Belgium plays in a Dixieland band; '64' was one of the pieces they played.
Ultimately, the reason that the Beatles defined Rock and Roll was because subsequent artists took what they were influenced by the Beatles into their own music. A good example, IMO, would be Elton John and Billy Joel. Both, largely, are rock artists, but they have pieces that don't fit the Rock formula. Billy Joel's 'Scenes from an Italian Restaurant' is a great example. That piece fits both the jazz and rock idioms.
Jazz and Rock are both decended from the Blues, so to try to seperate the Beatles era Rock into its own seperate category doesn't make much sense, nor does trying to lump them into modern Rock.
In my opionion, the Beatles are a great group, musically speaking, for taking risks that seem to run against the grain (scoring for instruments that don't 'belong' in rock, having orchestral accompanyment), and for giving their successors the influence they needed to evolve rock to what it is now.
Ishcabittle
New member
"All the Lonely People"'s strings are pretty rockin'.
No band will turn on everyone all the time. The Beatles turned on a fuck-ton of people, though.
No band will turn on everyone all the time. The Beatles turned on a fuck-ton of people, though.
Morrhigan
Pussie
Caitriona said:
Well said, Cait.
Some of the comments here about the Beatles not being revolutionary remind me of something Hambil once said about reading Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" for the first time. To him, it seemed like all the other fantasy stuff out there. But that's because all the other stuff was shaped by Tolkein's work - not the other way around. He'd just happened to read that other stuff first. In the same way, the Beatles' music doesn't seem all that special to people today simply because most of today's music fans have been listening to stuff that was inspired or influenced by the Beatles' work. If you'd heard the Beatles first - in the actual time in which they were creating - you probably would have been blown away.
Unless you're a complete moron, or something. :bigass:
Big Dick McGee
If you don't know, now ya know
I read LotR way before any other fantasy. I liked it fine.
I recently tried to read it as an adult; it's horrible. I'd rather read a history textbook, quite frankly. It'd be less dry.
I recently tried to read it as an adult; it's horrible. I'd rather read a history textbook, quite frankly. It'd be less dry.
Number_6
beer, I want beer
The thing with The Beatles being revolutionary is that they were one of many British bands doing pretty much the same thing, which was taking American rock and blues and translating them into a British pop register. As for something like Sgt. Pepper's, that was actually inspired by The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds.
Not to knock The Beatles. But they are considered revolutionary mainly because they had such a great publicity machine, not because their music was completely unique and different from what was being produced around them.
I'd also argue that they are one of those bands for whom the sum is greater than its parts. Ringo is a rather mediocre drummer, George's "lead" guitar is pretty weak, and John's rhythm guitar is adequate to the task. Paul is actually a better bassist than many give him credit for, but he's still no John Entwistle, John Paul Jones, or Jack Bruce.
Not to knock The Beatles. But they are considered revolutionary mainly because they had such a great publicity machine, not because their music was completely unique and different from what was being produced around them.
I'd also argue that they are one of those bands for whom the sum is greater than its parts. Ringo is a rather mediocre drummer, George's "lead" guitar is pretty weak, and John's rhythm guitar is adequate to the task. Paul is actually a better bassist than many give him credit for, but he's still no John Entwistle, John Paul Jones, or Jack Bruce.
jack
The Legendary Troll King
Ringo is a rather mediocre drummer in the scope of all drummers, but his uncanny unwavering timekeeping ability, plus his knack of doing it right for the sound puts him apart from many. You nailed it 6, when you talked synergy, because individually they are/were pretty bland.
But in my life, I've loved them more as I've gotten older. The real early stuff has become my very favorite. I was doing some rewriting with the band of stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand, and Please Please Me, and I Saw Her Standing there, and you know, it's just such thrilling clean fun still.
But in my life, I've loved them more as I've gotten older. The real early stuff has become my very favorite. I was doing some rewriting with the band of stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand, and Please Please Me, and I Saw Her Standing there, and you know, it's just such thrilling clean fun still.