The Beatles - Very Impossible to Improve On

[mumford]

Originally posted by SpectralJulian I used to be completely obsessed with the Beatles. Now I can only listen to the White album. I'm more of a David Bowie person.

 

 

I love the Beatles, but I have pretty much run them into the ground myself. They've turned into that music that I never need to hear again, even though I think it's brilliant.

 

Every guitar player should learn every one of George Harrison's solos off of Abbey Road. Some of the best ever, incredibly melodic.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by sub rosa Let me be the first to tell you I have different taste. I know the Beatles did a lot for music...I just don't like them very much. Am I an Elvis or a Beatles man? Elvis all the way!

You just don't get it, that's all.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror The Beatles will always be considered great, as will Bach and Beethoven. But people will stop listening to them, and not through any fault of the music. It's just how people run.

People haven't stopped listening to Bach so it seems to me by your own lame analogy that the music of the Beatles still has some more centuries of validity ahead.

[ChitownTerror]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous People haven't stopped listening to Bach so it seems to me by your own lame analogy that the music of the Beatles still has some more centuries of validity ahead.

Let me rephrase that -- very few younger people listen to Bach any more, much like few people listen to Tin Pan Alley songs. If you can't understand the analogy, I'll break it down further for you, but percentage-wise, Bach's listening audience has gone down.

That's what happens when you preserve music as it was a museum artifact.

Personally, I could give a {censored}, but you seem awfully upset at the whole prospect.

[ChitownTerror]

Oh, and for the record, I think the Beatles were probably the best pop band on the planet for many years. But you know what, I'll take a Curtis Mayfield album or James Carr anyday over the Beatles. Not for technical ability or songwriting, but just that they make records that are more meaningful for me, because that's what I grew up with.

But hey, let's turn this thread into another retarded "Young Punks Don't Like GOOD Music" thread. I'd hate to not validate someone's poor opinion of my taste.

[funksta v2.0]

Originally posted by sub rosa Wrote some good songs. Horrid vocals and so so playing. Overrated.

 

 

I'm with you on this one. I've tried to get into them many times, but I just don't like their music at all. I do like a few of their tracks and understand that they were influential on a lot of bands that I enjoy.

 

Funny though, I almost always enjoy the results when another artist covers one of their tunes.

[sub rosa]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous You just don't get it, that's all.

I just don't like them, that's all.

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Let me rephrase that -- very few younger people listen to Bach any more, much like few people listen to Tin Pan Alley songs. If you can't understand the analogy, I'll break it down further for you, but percentage-wise, Bach's listening audience has gone down. That's what happens when you preserve music as it was a museum artifact. Personally, I could give a {censored}, but you seem awfully upset at the whole prospect.

No, I'm not upset in the least. I simply think you are wrong. Your "percentage -wise" argument seems kinda strange to me. In the 18th century, what percentage of the population was listening to Bach's Music ??? "Museum artifact" ??? I don't follow you.... And I like Curtis Mayfield just as much as the next guy but truly your (lack of?) logic escapes me...

[ChitownTerror]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous No, I'm not upset in the least. I simply think you are wrong. Your "percentage -wise" argument seems kinda strange to me. In the 18th century, what percentage of the population was listening to Bach's Music ??? "Museum artifact" ??? I don't follow you.... And I like Curtis Mayfield just as much as the next guy but truly your (lack of?) logic escapes me...

You're a real sweetheart, you know that? Remind me to give you a few backhanded compliments someday will you?

Anyhow, maybe you're not well read on musicology, but performance of Bach's pieces was quite wide-spread up until about the post-war period. People perhaps didn't buy records of Bach's chorales or orgelwerke, but you could hear them played at recitals, churches and orchestra halls. People paid to go see these, and not just the wealthy, uppercrust types. (Interestingly enough on a tangent, opera was considered a "low-class" passtime during the middle of the 19th century). In fact, Bach's popularity peaked probably around the Post-war period. It's been a steady decline in listeners since.

Sure many people can recognize a Bach tune, but how many go out and buy a CD of E. Power Biggs' rendition of Bach staples? How many bands outside of the metal community cite Bach as an influence? His cultural influence is diminished, as happens to things that are several centuries old.

Now, I never said the Beatles would be cuturally obsolete in the near future or now, but eventually they will. Somehow you seem really upset about this, trying to dig at people that don't like the Beatles. I'm just trying to talk you down from the ledge, son.

The Mayfield point was just to say that hey, people like what they grew up with generally, not what's objectively best or critically acclaimed. I didn't think it was that obtuse, but then again...

[Jack Luminous]

Originally posted by ChitownTerror You're a real sweetheart, you know that? Remind me to give you a few backhanded compliments someday will you?

Thank you !!

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Anyhow, maybe you're not well read on musicology, but performance of Bach's pieces was quite wide-spread up until about the post-war period.

Which war ? I recall from my very modest musicology knowledge that Bach's music, apart from being "re-discovered" for the general public by Mendelssohn in 1829 in Leipzig became popular again in the 1930s thanks to Karl Straube and later in the 1950s thanks to people like Gustav Leonhardt and Nikolaus Harnoncourt (initiating the "baroque renewal").

Originally posted by ChitownTerror People perhaps didn't buy records of Bach's chorales or orgelwerke, but you could hear them played at recitals, churches and orchestra halls. People paid to go see these, and not just the wealthy, uppercrust types.

I don't know. I can hear Bach's music played in churches, and orchestra halls almost everyday day where I live. Not that I go everyday of course but I could. And I usually pay for it, I'm rarely invited.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror (Interestingly enough on a tangent, opera was considered a "low-class" passtime during the middle of the 19th century).

I think you are mixing up operette and opera.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror In fact, Bach's popularity peaked probably around the Post-war period. It's been a steady decline in listeners since.

Decline is a way of looking at it. I don't rate music by the amount of money generated by it at any given time.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Sure many people can recognize a Bach tune, but how many go out and buy a CD of E. Power Biggs' rendition of Bach staples? How many bands outside of the metal community cite Bach as an influence? His cultural influence is diminished, as happens to things that are several centuries old.

I prefer Marie-Claire Alain or Pierre Cochereau to E. Power Biggs but that's not the question. I don't even understand what you're trying to say by "his influence is diminished". That comes out meaningless. He almost single-handedly (re-)created western music as we know it. Influence is not really the right word in that situation IMHO.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Now, I never said the Beatles would be cuturally obsolete in the near future or now, but eventually they will. Somehow you seem really upset about this, trying to dig at people that don't like the Beatles. I'm just trying to talk you down from the ledge, son.

"Obsolete" is a term best applied to technical appliances, again IMHO. It strikes me as inapplicable to art.

Originally posted by ChitownTerror The Mayfield point was just to say that hey, people like what they grew up with generally, not what's objectively best or critically acclaimed. I didn't think it was that obtuse, but then again...

Curtis Mayfield came out of place in your post about Bach and the Beatles.

[SpectralJulian]

Rejection of your idols is very natural in rock and roll.

[ChitownTerror]

Originally posted by Jack Luminous Thank you !!

It actually came out harsher than I thought. Bad day at work, so I take it back. You're a swell guy.

Which war ? I recall from my very modest musicology knowledge that Bach's music, apart from being "re-discovered" for the general public by Mendelssohn in 1829 in Leipzig became popular again in the 1930s thanks to Karl Straube and later in the 1950s thanks to people like Gustav Leonhardt and Nikolaus Harnoncourt (initiating the "baroque renewal").

Post WWII. Hence the baroque revival you're speaking of.

I don't know. I can hear Bach's music played in churches, and orchestra halls almost everyday day where I live. Not that I go everyday of course but I could. And I usually pay for it, I'm rarely invited.

I think there's sometimes a difference between being part of a canon and part of a musical or cultural vernacular, but that's something I don't have time to discuss right now. Maybe later tonight?

Decline is a way of looking at it. I don't rate music by the amount of money generated by it at any given time...

I don't mean to suggest profitability to be the ultimate measure of something's cultural worth, but more 'influence' in the sense of affecting current artistic trends. And on that note, Bach certainly has waned, in some respects.

I prefer Marie-Claire Alain or Pierre Cochereau to E. Power Biggs but that's not the question. I don't even understand what you're trying to say by "his influence is diminished". That comes out meaningless. He almost created western music as we know it. Influence is not really the right word in that situation IMHO.

I haven't heard Alain, but Cochereau is most certainly better than Biggs. I just picked him off the top of my head. Lack of coffee plus hanover and I'm afraid I'm not the most charming or stimulating conversationalist.

As for your other point, I'm of two minds about it-- yes, Bach is the father of the Western classical tradition, however, how much of American popular music borrows from that? How much influence are we willing to concede to folk traditions, and are these intimately related to the aforementioned classical tradition?

This is shaping up to be a much more interesting discussion than "The Beatles are Supar!". Mea culpa for the rough start.

[Condomondo]

Anyone know what effect that is in the picture posted by McLenison. I remember reading Lennon jacked right into the recording console for his tone on revolution (which was against abby road's rules). I wonder what Fuzz he is using in this video clip. Anybody know?

[endo23]

ChiTown--

I respect your opinion, but I must also say you're comparing Apples and Oranges. Until people's penchant for songs with vocal melodies married to instrumentation dissipates, the Beatles will continue to have a massive audience. Their combination of specific lyrical phrases with self-reflexive melodies/harmonies is an inherent part of their musical impact, and is something Bach lacked. ("Yesterday" has a gorgeous melody, but without the words, it would be just another piece of smooth jazz, easily dismissed by modern listeners.)

If a day comes when all human beings listen to is electronic blips and whale sound samples, then yes, the Beatles will fall out of favor. But frankly, I don't see that happening. Human beings are ultimately too attached to the organic elements of music that remind them of themselves.

(An incredible book for any aspiring songwriter is THE SONGWRITING SECRETS OF THE BEATLES. Despite the cheesy title, it's actually an incredibly accessible book on Western Music theory as filtered through their music-- and anyone who reads it will understand that the Beatles truly stand alone in the pantheon of rock bands, even if their tunes are played out.)

All that aside, I LOVE me some Curtis Mayfield.

[endo23]

Funny though, I almost always enjoy the results when another artist covers one of their tunes.

 

This is actually evidence of the Beatles' genius, if you ask me. Jon Brion says something interesting in the current issue of LA WEEKLY-- that people no longer write songs, but author/sell "performances." E.g. people listen to The Strokes to hear those players strum their guitars and Julian Casablancas howl over the top. You wouldn't want to hear Aimee Mann play a Strokes cover (other than for novelty's sake), and you might not even want to hear them play the song live. They're selling a performance.

 

The Beatles, on the other hand, wrote SONGS. Their performances are stellar, in many cases, but the material-- the chord progressions and the words they are married to-- transcend their specific "reading" on record. That's something to aspire to, and they made it look effortless, cranking out a handful of incredible albums in a period of FOUR YEARS. Not too shabby.

[GuitArtMan]

Originally posted by sub rosa Again, it's my opinion. Yours is different. I think their stuff is way overrated, you don't. I think they wrote a few good songs, and still do, you think they wrote a lot of good songs. And yes, I think they were rubbish singers, really, really bad...in my opinion.

 

What do you consider good vocals then?

[Mr. Poopsicle]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r-3nfxJ40bA&search=The%20Beatles%20Baby%27s%20in%20Black

The Beatles are the greatest band ever. There is my proof. I'm sorry but its true.

[funksta v2.0]

Originally posted by endo23 Funny though, I almost always enjoy the results when another artist covers one of their tunes. This is actually evidence of the Beatles' genius, if you ask me. Jon Brion says something interesting in the current issue of LA WEEKLY-- that people no longer write songs, but author/sell "performances." E.g. people listen to The Strokes to hear those players strum their guitars and Julian Casablancas howl over the top. You wouldn't want to hear Aimee Mann play a Strokes cover (other than for novelty's sake), and you might not even want to hear them play the song live. They're selling a performance. The Beatles, on the other hand, wrote SONGS. Their performances are stellar, in many cases, but the material-- the chord progressions and the words they are married to-- transcend their specific "reading" on record. That's something to aspire to, and they made it look effortless, cranking out a handful of incredible albums in a period of FOUR YEARS. Not too shabby.

 

 

I agree, I think they were good songwriters. I just can't stand their performances of the songs- nails on the chalkboard for me.

[MoreGuitars]

I can respect the idea of the Beatles not being your music of choice.

But I have a hard time considering popular music without the inclusion of the Beatles.

Musically and creatively they were so far ahead of anything. Elvis, although he was a tremendous pop star, IMO, is a mere shadow when comparing the achievements of the Beatles.
The Rolling Stones, a good riff band, a white bread blues group, has their place, but again, IMO, a shadow compared to the compositions of the Beatles.

You can say The Beatles are not your music of choice, but to say their acomplishments are meaningless is ridiculous.

[TheToneGestapo]

Didn't John get that fuzz by plugging directly in to the mixing desk and cranking the gain?

[sub rosa]

Originally posted by GuitArtMan What do you consider good vocals then?

Justin Currie (Del Amitri), Thom Yorke (Radiohead), Jeff Buckley, Elvis Presley, Beach Boys, Bono (circa 1987-93), Marvin Gaye, Nick Cave...there are plenty more whom I think are great vocalists, what difference? I'm not saying people shouldn't like the Beatles, I just don't myself. I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion I have .

[capnbringdown]

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Nothing is perfect and nothing is wholy timeless. People thought music wouldn't evolve past Bach, and then along came Mozart. Mozart was supposed to be the musical genius to end all geniuses, then along came the Romantics. The same thing happens in rock and roll. It's just that it's so young as a musical form that we're not really aware of how it's going to change yet. The Beatles will always be considered great, as will Bach and Beethoven. But people will stop listening to them, and not through any fault of the music. It's just how people run.

 

 

This analogy sucks. Bach and Mozart for the most part just wrote the parts, even though that isn't always the case. When you listen to the Beatles albums, you're hearing them play the music themselves. If you had to listen to somebody else play the Beatles tunes and they actually thought they were doing a good job of it, you can compare it to the original and see how they fall flat. I'm by no means a Beatles fan, but when I want to listen the the Beatles, I don't find another band to do so. Except, of course, for a little help from my friends by Joe Cocker. I've always liked that cover, but have you ever heard him do she came in through the bathroom window? {censored}ing awful. But back to my main point, if you could hear Bach or Mozart and not just somebody else's interpretation of it, then I'd bet it be a ton better.

 

And people still listen to Mozart and Bach. Not for nothing but I can think of more people I've known my age who listen to the classics then the Beatles, though both of those numbers are pretty small.

 

 

Originally posted by endo23 If a day comes when all human beings listen to is electronic blips and whale sound samples, then yes, the Beatles will fall out of favor. But frankly, I don't see that happening. Human beings are ultimately too attached to the organic elements of music that remind them of themselves.

 

 

It has already come. We call it Pink Floyd.

 

 

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Oh, and for the record, I think the Beatles were probably the best pop band on the planet for many years.

 

 

Right. They were a pop band. When you put out {censored} like she loves you, you on't get to be called the greatest rock band. End of argument.

 

 

 

Originally posted by MoreGuitars You can say The Beatles are not your music of choice, but to say their acomplishments are meaningless is ridiculous.

 

 

True, I'm not disagreeing with you here. But most people say that nothing has influenced music more then the Beatles. There were several people and bands already doing their thing before the Beatles went pscyhedellic. And I can think of atleast two things that have had a more prominent influence on rock n roll then the Beatles: drugs and the blues.

[JeffreyCH]

They were great, period.

[Mr. Poopsicle]

Originally posted by sub rosa Justin Currie (Del Amitri), Thom Yorke (Radiohead), Jeff Buckley, Elvis Presley, Beach Boys, Bono (circa 1987-93), Marvin Gaye, Nick Cave...there are plenty more whom I think are great vocalists, what difference? I'm not saying people shouldn't like the Beatles, I just don't myself. I'm entitled to my opinion and my opinion I have .

This isn't personal. But you would have to be {censored}ing tone deaf not to recoginze how great John, Paul, and George were just as vocalists. The songwriting and quirky guitar playing is the icing on the cake.

I don't like a lot of popular artists my friends think are great but the Beatles vocal abilities based on the work they produced are not eligible for debate.



But as George wrote, "think for yourself". So I forgive you.

[GuyaGuy]

Originally posted by ChitownTerror Mozart was supposed to be the musical genius to end all geniuses, then along came the Romantics.

[papa taco]

I don't get people that don't like the Beatles. I find it moronic. It's something I'd expect to read from some of the knuckleheads in the amp forum, but here? Strange.