Beatles - Page 3

**tygrkhat40** · March 23rd, 2011, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

All music is "made up" as a pianist and guitarist I can assure you the Beatles music is very simple.

Perhaps that's why the Fabs are so popular, it's simple and easy to duplicate. To be honest, I can think of a lot of Beatles' covers, but aside from the soundtrack of "Tommy," I can't think of a lot of Who covers. Which may be a good thing, because who can play like Pete, John and Keith?

And Billy, I disagree with you that the Beatles are overrated. Now if you were to say the the Who is underrated, I would agree with you. I am of the opinion that when you listen to any band, you can tell who the best player of their chosen instrument is, for example, in the Beatles, it's George. But the Who? Is Pete better than John or Keith? In fact because of that, I will make the argument that the Who is probably the greatest underrated band ever. You've got three of the greatest instrumentalists in rock, a legendary songwriter in Pete and a great one in John and a great vocalist/frontman in Roger.

A lot of people when asked who is the greatest band ever will say the Beatles, the Stones or Led Zeppelin. And then when you mention to them the Who, they say, oh yeah, I forgot about them. I don't know anyone who isn't a fan of the Who.

**scoundrel** · March 23rd, 2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

All music is "made up" as a pianist and guitarist I can assure you the Beatles music is very simple.

In his really excellent series How Music Works, Howard Goodall, a modern classical composer, conductor, music lecturer and DJ on 'Classic FM' did a detailed analysis of several Beatles songs, to explore how they worked in terms of harmony and rhythm; in particular he highlighted Eleanor Rigby as a really sophisticated work:

Quote:

an urban version of a tragic ballad in the Dorian mode.

Of the Beatles themselves he stated that they:

Quote:

almost single-handedly rescued the Western musical system" from the "plague years of the avant-garde.

There is nothing so difficult or sophisticated as art which conceals art; keeping things simple.

**aphex1973** · March 23rd, 2011, 05:16 PM

To my mind, attempting to break the Beatles down to the component parts and assessing the band's quality based on individual talents is a bit like the blind men attempting to describe an elephant...

"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.

"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.

"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not, because they may have a different perspective which we may not agree with. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons."

Maybe they were not the greatest musicians, songwriters or vocalists, but holistically, they formed an amazing musical force which took the world by storm. Like them or not, they changed the paradigm in music and paved the way for bands such as The Doors, The Who, Pink Floyd, Genesis and Led Zeppelin. With regards to The Rolling Stones, they were contemporaries and I think it's pointless arguing who was the better band. They were both great.

bozotheclown · March 23rd, 2011, 05:25 PM

I do understand that it is my subjective objectivity to parade the Beatles as the greatest pop/rock band of all time.
I do have to ask my good man Did you mean that their is no comparison between the Stones and The Beatles?
Fruitless venture.
Watch who's watching whom in the beginning of their careers.
There are no videos of the Beatles in the Stone's record company watching a Stone album being produced.
You see Jagger all the time watching the Beatles at Apple.

**aphex1973** · March 23rd, 2011, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bozotheclown

I do understand that it is my subjective objectivity to parade the Beatles as the greatest pop/rock band of all time.

If you are referring to my post, I wasn't implying that you were wrong or somehow misguided. I believe The Beatles were the best and are still relevant. They really are the standard by which most if not all rock/pop acts from their time to the present are judged.

As for the comparison to the Stones... I would find it difficult to believe that the John, Paul, George and Ringo weren't keenly aware of what the Stones were doing. To some degree, they fed off of each other. For a while, at least. It was a competitive environment and they all knew each other. Regarding the Stones watching film of The Beatles in studio, well let me put it this way. If I were running a fast food restaurant, I'd stop by McDonalds to see what they were up to. It's called best practices. You see what you're competition is doing and take the best parts of their organization and adopt it into yours. It's not demeaning, it's smart business.

**blondifan** · March 23rd, 2011, 05:55 PM

While not wishing to discredit the four themselves I wonder how much credit is due to their producer, George Martin? Wasn't it he who suggested speeding up what was originally a slow ballad called "Please Please Me"? Although it wasn't him who contracted Andy White to play drums on "Love Me Do" he was somewhat responsible for Ringo being recruited.

It was Georges suggestion that strings were used on "Yesterday" against McCartney's initial reluctance and he who scored the string arrangement for "Eleanor Rigby".

**billybunter** · March 23rd, 2011, 05:55 PM

I would like to remind you all that i'm a Beatles fan. I just think there is too much hype surrounding their music. The best musicians are indeed those who keep it simple but interesting. I wish they had toured properly. With good gear. When I said they were crap live I didn't mean they couldn't have been great live! They could've been fantastic.

**marlon** · March 23rd, 2011, 05:57 PM

Hmm, in 1963 Please Please Me was released.

In 1970 Let It Be became the Beatles last 'proper' album release.

In all 12 studio albums were released in the UK in that period, plus various compilations and international versions.

Look at the releases,

1963
Please Please Me
With The Beatles
1964
A Hard Day's Night
Beatles For Sale
1965
Help
Rubber Soul
1966
Revolver
1967
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
1968
The White Album
1969
Yellow Submarine
Abbey Road
1970
Let It Be

Twelve albums in only eight years! That's the most amazing thing. Only eight years. No duds, no fillers. No repeat of tracks between albums. Each album was different from the one before and broke new ground musically. Consider the first and then the last - the musical development and progression is there for all to hear. Consider what came in between and you realise they weren't flooks - every album oozed quality and the fact that so many years later those same albums (not just the compilations) sell in the bucket load, are still named as major influences by new bands and are still being discussed in threads like this suggest The Beatles are the definitive band of the 20thC.

Repeat, all in only eight years - U2, REM, The Strokes, Springsteen et al, take that long to release just two! By the way BB, The Who have released 12 studio albums - but it's taken them 41 years!

**victor meldrew** · March 23rd, 2011, 06:05 PM

The Beatles changed the face of pop music, without them we would still be singing the praises of the likes of Frankie Vaughan and Alma Cogand.

Not sure what Oasis would have done or been, without them.

**billybunter** · March 23rd, 2011, 06:09 PM

Yes, but The Who were a live band. They (the Beatles) spent their time in the studio-Abbey Road. The Who toured endlessly and garnered a reputation as the greatest live band ever.

March 23rd, 2011, 05:16 PM	#23
aphex1973 I heard the bullroarer Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Left Coast Posts: 20,047 Thanks: 184,315 Thanked 333,742 Times in 20,005 Posts	To my mind, attempting to break the Beatles down to the component parts and assessing the band's quality based on individual talents is a bit like the blind men attempting to describe an elephant... "Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg. "Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail. "Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant. "It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant. "It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant. "It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant. They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not, because they may have a different perspective which we may not agree with. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." Maybe they were not the greatest musicians, songwriters or vocalists, but holistically, they formed an amazing musical force which took the world by storm. Like them or not, they changed the paradigm in music and paved the way for bands such as The Doors, The Who, Pink Floyd, Genesis and Led Zeppelin. With regards to The Rolling Stones, they were contemporaries and I think it's pointless arguing who was the better band. They were both great. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Oh, look! A zyzzyva! The absolute last word in weevils.

March 23rd, 2011, 05:55 PM	#27
billybunter R.I.P. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gone But Not Forgotten Posts: 14,404 Thanks: 51,687 Thanked 252,372 Times in 14,171 Posts	I would like to remind you all that i'm a Beatles fan. I just think there is too much hype surrounding their music. The best musicians are indeed those who keep it simple but interesting. I wish they had toured properly. With good gear. When I said they were crap live I didn't mean they couldn't have been great live! They could've been fantastic. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

March 23rd, 2011, 05:57 PM	#28
marlon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Up on the roof Posts: 8,819 Thanks: 36,119 Thanked 341,946 Times in 8,959 Posts	Hmm, in 1963 Please Please Me was released. In 1970 Let It Be became the Beatles last 'proper' album release. In all 12 studio albums were released in the UK in that period, plus various compilations and international versions. Look at the releases, 1963 Please Please Me With The Beatles 1964 A Hard Day's Night Beatles For Sale 1965 Help Rubber Soul 1966 Revolver 1967 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 1968 The White Album 1969 Yellow Submarine Abbey Road 1970 Let It Be Twelve albums in only eight years! That's the most amazing thing. Only eight years. No duds, no fillers. No repeat of tracks between albums. Each album was different from the one before and broke new ground musically. Consider the first and then the last - the musical development and progression is there for all to hear. Consider what came in between and you realise they weren't flooks - every album oozed quality and the fact that so many years later those same albums (not just the compilations) sell in the bucket load, are still named as major influences by new bands and are still being discussed in threads like this suggest The Beatles are the definitive band of the 20thC. Repeat, all in only eight years - U2, REM, The Strokes, Springsteen et al, take that long to release just two! By the way BB, The Who have released 12 studio albums - but it's taken them 41 years! __________________ *To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.* To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. *To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.* “I don't think it's the nature of any man to be monogamous. Men are propelled by genetically ordained impulses over which they have no control to distribute their seed.” *Marlon Brando*

March 23rd, 2011, 06:09 PM	#30
billybunter R.I.P. Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Gone But Not Forgotten Posts: 14,404 Thanks: 51,687 Thanked 252,372 Times in 14,171 Posts	Yes, but The Who were a live band. They (the Beatles) spent their time in the studio-Abbey Road. The Who toured endlessly and garnered a reputation as the greatest live band ever. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

March 23rd, 2011, 05:25 PM	#24
bozotheclown Blocked! Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: MICHIGAN Posts: 34 Thanks: 82 Thanked 123 Times in 24 Posts	I do understand that it is my subjective objectivity to parade the Beatles as the greatest pop/rock band of all time. I do have to ask my good man Did you mean that their is no comparison between the Stones and The Beatles? Fruitless venture. Watch who's watching whom in the beginning of their careers. There are no videos of the Beatles in the Stone's record company watching a Stone album being produced. You see Jagger all the time watching the Beatles at Apple.

March 23rd, 2011, 05:55 PM	#26
blondifan Vintage Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 4,406 Thanks: 55,000 Thanked 60,210 Times in 4,401 Posts	While not wishing to discredit the four themselves I wonder how much credit is due to their producer, George Martin? Wasn't it he who suggested speeding up what was originally a slow ballad called "Please Please Me"? Although it wasn't him who contracted Andy White to play drums on "Love Me Do" he was somewhat responsible for Ringo being recruited. It was Georges suggestion that strings were used on "Yesterday" against McCartney's initial reluctance and he who scored the string arrangement for "Eleanor Rigby".

March 23rd, 2011, 06:05 PM	#29
victor meldrew Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: At the bottom of an empty glass Posts: 15,776 Thanks: 531,870 Thanked 179,944 Times in 15,764 Posts	The Beatles changed the face of pop music, without them we would still be singing the praises of the likes of Frankie Vaughan and Alma Cogand. Not sure what Oasis would have done or been, without them.