Beatles

[Mal Hombre]

I've always been more of a Stones man,but I would not downplay the importance of The Beatles.For Me They are least as influential as Bob Dylan,I could name at least three times as many Beatles as Dylan tracks.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by TCO95

Paul McCartney played bass, guitar, piano and drums on various records. He wrote some of the best lyrics ever

Um . . . his lyrics are atrocious. What's worse than the lousy lyrics -- every songwriter has some howlers-- is the sense that you get that what he's saying is "lyrics don't matter at all, we can talk gibberish, and it's just the same".

John felt pretty much the same way, for example on Ob Bla Di, Ob Bla Da

According to studio engineer Geoff Emerick, John Lennon openly hated the song, calling it "Paul's granny shit"

Sometimes hearing a Beatles' song, you get the impression that these were "placeholder" lyrics, stuff there just to have something to mumble along the songline, until someone got the real lyrics written.

@Norbert, re: George
Yeah, George was amazing, and musically curious. You look at "All things must Pass" -- what an extraordinary album (three discs was one too many, but anyway). Just genius.

I give John more points for music than you do: there's some rhythmic surprises, some very original compositions that are very original, the abrupt in res media opening of "#9 Dream" for example . . . he's got a genuinely interesting way of interpreting music.

[rockernut]

Ok, Paul might not be a contender for the Nobel prize in litterature, but what the heck, it's pop music ,it's fun and beautiful, it makes people happy , what's wrong with that?

[Brecht]

Originally Posted by rockernut

Ok, Paul might not be a contender for the Nobel prize in litterature, but what the heck, it's pop music ,it's fun and beautiful, it makes people happy , what's wrong with that?

Nothing, mate. I was only posting my two cents.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by rockernut

Ok, Paul might not be a contender for the Nobel prize in litterature, but what the heck, it's pop music ,it's fun and beautiful, it makes people happy , what's wrong with that?

Its what prevents the songs from having "staying power".

At the time an album is released -- lyrics don't matter much. But the audience hears a hit over and over, and it becomes "the soundtrack to your life". If the soundtrack is "ob bla di", that song will become irrelevant over time. Abba wrote pretty songs too . . .

That's why songs with some kind of engaging lyric age better. Even in the case of David Byrne, an artist devoted to nonsense lyrics, the song that really persists is "Life during Wartime" . . . although it made next to no sense in 1983, by 2001 it made a lot of sense.

A meaningful lyric leads folks to reprise the song, to reinterpret it. With the exception of Richie Havens, who has a kinda unique sensibility, no one's going to look to "Rocky Raccoon" for inspiration.

Its performance that keep songs "alive", it can even bring very different performers and their audiences in to appreciate your music (think of Cowboy Junkies covering Waylon Jennings, for example), Steve Jobs quoting "The Times they are a-changin" at the 1984 Apple Shareholders' meeting

The best the Beatles did lyrically, IMO, is the "B" side of Abbey Road; its a long operatic construction, and you do have a sense of genuine emotion, trivial stuff ("Mean Mr. Mustard") slamming into heartfelt emotion "Golden Slumbers/Carry that weight" and a genuine denouement ("In the End"). Unfortunately, this is unusual for them . . . there's more "Octopus's Garden" in their catalog than there ought to be.

[rockernut]

Well I see some point, but songs like "Be-Bop-A-Lula" and "Tutti Frutti", songs written 55 years ago still make people jump and shout...

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by rockernut

Well I see some point, but songs like "Be-Bop-A-Lula" and "Tutti Frutti", songs written 55 years ago still make people jump and shout...

"Tutti Frutti" kept alive by Little Richard, who's performed it for three generations now, all the while with the question "is he talking about something really dirty, like in Laudy, laudy Miss claudie?"

. . . if the original performer is around to keep on playing, then the song can have a bit more in the way of "legs". Fats Domino is an example . . . "Blueberry Hill" and "I want to walk you home" -- trivial songs, but he's been playing them for many years.

What artists really like out of his catalog are the things that have some lyrical punch to match the triplets -- take "One night of sin".

One night of sin
Is what I'm now payin' for
The things I did and I saw
Would make the Earth stand still

I'm going to bet that in 50 years that'll still mean something to someone, while "Blueberry Hill" won't

[rockernut]

We'll all hope there are some sins left 50 years from now

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

I'm not expecting every musician to "shred" nor do I put the same measures for everyone. My personal definition of a good musician is the ability to combine to virtuosity with beauty. There was a big hype around the Beatles back in the day for no comprehensible reasons except the superstar factor. Kinda like with the boygroup thing. John and George went different paths later but it was really George who decided to become more serious about his music, doing his own thing instead of remaining a pop star. I love his music and it's not about playing fast notes.

. . .very slow notes, in fact. "Isn't it a Pity" is a masterpiece, IMO, very slow, but matches sound to atmosphere.

Harrison also was incredibly generous and wise in his choice of collaborators-- giving Eric Clapton the most memorable guitar line he has "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". "Badge" is also a very interesting George/Eric creation, but idiot lyrics (apparently inspired by Ringo) mean that the song is of little interest now.

Interesting to me the role of Phil Spector in all this. Spector's sound is everywhere in late Beatles, and although they've re-released stuff with more spartan mixes, they just seem lifeless . . . we've heard the songs one way for forty years now, too late to change the sonics.

[otiscleotus]

Originally Posted by victor meldrew

All I will say is the Beatles were my generation, musically in the sixties, they did more for me in five years, than Dylan has in my lifetime.

I like a lot of Dylan's work but it's the rare musician that can release somethng as gawdawful as Bob Dylan at Budokan and manage to be retained by the same label. As Col Kurtz reviewed it - ...the horror, the horror...