Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 2, 2009 Members Share Posted May 2, 2009 Right. Each artist builds on what existed before. If they didn't, then nothing new would ever happen (although there are people I meet who insist that nothing new has been done for hundreds of years musically, a bizarre argument if there ever was one). well, there are a few who have absolute new ideas, music which was never heard before, but you seldom hear an Em or Am chord in such music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 2, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 2, 2009 I'm seeing Knobs quoted as saying Rob Thomas can out-sing any of the Beatles? Dude. Rob Thomas sings like a billy goat. And that's fine though cause he's got soul... no wait, he doesn't does he... hmmm... so his technique sucks and he lacks soul... must be his awesome songwriting that updates classic prairie ROCK into moist AAA product! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Why is it that hard to understand that what moves you could not move me? Aren't we individuals, after all? I don't like the Beatles. To be fair, I can hardly find anything "new" that I like, either. I guess I'm stuck to the music I grew with and some others like -said- Pink Floyd. That does not mean "The Beatles suck" and that my musical tastes should be criticized by you all. Having some weird "Beatles evangelist" trying to convince me about why I should love the Beatles, only could make things a little worse BUT agreed, I can certainly appreciate their commercial achievements, their impact in society and the influence they still have on many musicians, how profound some of their lyrics are, how GREAT some of their productions were -thanks, Sir George Martin- and maybe I could agree that they were fine singers / performers (but would never agree Ringo Starr is the greatest drummer in the world ). That does not make me like them; that does not make you wrong; but it also does not mean I am wrong. ... hell ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members New Trail Posted May 2, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 2, 2009 BTW the point of this thread as stated was to get some idea as to what kind of music that those who don't 'get' the Beatles like, not to be particularly confrontational or argumentative. I think we would all agree that musical taste is subjective, so trying to get someone to say that, for example, Rob Thomas sucks while Ringo Starr is a great singer, or vice versa, is, well, a waste of time, unproductive, and not really applicable to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 2, 2009 Members Share Posted May 2, 2009 ... he lacks soul... an atheist maybe this Robert is that english he sings in, sound a little bit like this alpine rockers here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 2, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 2, 2009 an atheist maybe this Robert is that english he sings in, sound a little bit like this alpine rockers here I don't know if Rob Thomas lacks a soul. Possibly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 i have to ask my wife, she is a specialist on that matters, I certainly didn't throw my Calvin Klein slips on the deskwhen I listen to him on tubeyou.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 3, 2009 BTW the point of this thread as stated was to get some idea as to what kind of music that those who don't 'get' the Beatles like, not to be particularly confrontational or argumentative. I think we would all agree that musical taste is subjective, so trying to get someone to say that, for example, Rob Thomas sucks while Ringo Starr is a great singer, or vice versa, is, well, a waste of time, unproductive, and not really applicable to this thread. You are absolutely right. My apologies. BTW, I completely understand people not enjoying the Beatles. It's not shocking to me or anything. Live and let live... it's just that Rob Th... ok ok... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alfonso Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 I think that the music people likes is the music that has been a part of the emotional, intellectual, personal growth. Few of us can say that about the music of the sixties probably, many more can find in the seventies a part of themselves and the youngest of us in the eighties and so on... It seems evident to me that while every music age has its peaks of magnificence that can be rationally analyzed or emotionally "married" if the social context pushes in that way (there are people who only listen and like renaissance music or early polyphonic, others that nothing but dixieland and other extreme examples), the formal aspect of music has an evolution and being the musical experience a whole in which the form is the code we can say that everyone likes to hear and talk the language he learned while growing. I am 48, so the funny thing is that if I listen to some rock music of sort I will immediately recognize the source of everything in the seventies....music of the sixties, which rationally is the source of my sources, will sound much more dated to me. Basically I will feel that Led Zeppelin is a giant evolutive step from the Beatles, not to mention the King Crimson or golden age Yes or Genesis, but I will instead feel that the Nirvana and the Dream Theater or Marillion are not real advancements from my reference models and not as good for sure. Now, it's only my perception, my personal placement in the timeline of modern music that makes me choose these parameters. As a musician i can try to analyze things in a more objective way. Like many others I wouldn't choose to play a Beatles record over many other things normally, but not because i don't get them, just because I don't see myself in their music, my emotions, my youth, my aesthetic growth.But if i compare them to almost everyhing else happening in the sixties in the rock scene but also in other musical forms i can see a the difference between a lot of awesome performers, poetical and also very personal and honest tweakers of the traditional forms and a group of visionaries creating new forms and codes, with the plus of an average quality rarely achieved by other innovators. Some of their songs are really top notch, in the sense that whoever performs them, even a mediocre musician, they keep a strength and a quality that is special. Recognizing this is not in contrast with liking more other stuff, like I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jon Doe Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 Not to be confrontational, but for those of you, as noted in the other thread, who don't 'get' the Beatles, or the hype, who DO you 'get?' What bands do you like? Just curious! As others have said, I "got" the Beatles. I was there. I just never liked their stuff. I especially don't get people who are evangelical about the Beatles. It ain't religion, it's tunes. My all time favorite underrated band is "The Band". Awsome roots rock. I primarily tend toward southern rock, blues rock, motown/gospel, and folk. Piano rock. That said, I really liked most of the euro superbands like zep, floyd, tull, The Who, yes, etc... Marshal Tucker, Allman Bros, buffalo springfield...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 What bands do you like? At the moment this one: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=53370933 especially the third erhu player from the right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste Wow, thats deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 one of the interesting things is, and in certain works it became a constant in the mean time, as simpler the music is as more the people like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cooterbrown Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 I don't know if Rob Thomas lacks a soul. Possibly... He sold it to Carlos Satana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Synonym Music Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 Whatever the case, when I say "you had to be there...", I mean that the craziness that was a huge part of their image does subconsciously boast their impact to most people. Its sort of when everyone is running out to get this latest gizmo and it creates such a marketing stir that even 30-40 years later the people that went out to purchase it are still talking about it like it was the best thing that ever happened to them, except in the meanwhile so many other products (bands/artists) have come forth that were equally as good and better in other aspects but you can`t see it because you`re blinded by the emotional connection with the first product. A marketing stir. Yes.... Yes indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Trick Fall Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 I love this thread. I tend to think of the Beatles as an overrated boy band, but I don't hate them. What I do hate though is the assumption that everyone likes them and that they are the greatest band of all time. As was said earlier music appreciation is subjective. Your preferences are no better or worse than mine. I also have to agree with whoever stuck up for Christina Aguilera. I totally thought she was lame and then heard a couple of tunes that blew me away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 ...who DO you 'get?' What bands do you like? Just curious! She, Ms. Gong Yue, is my No. 1 darling and favorit since four weeks http://www.myspace.com/gongyue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste I like that! Mine's already so contradictory that I don't need to impose that. Several of my friends insist that my music collection looks as if you told 50 very different people to bring over their favorite 20-30 CDs or LPs. But that's the way I like it. African field recordings from the 1940s nestle right alongside Sade; Tuvan throat singing alongside Led Zeppelin; Gravitar and Steve Reich; Karen Dalton next to Gasp....and on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 3, 2009 I force myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste So... you're saying you like the Beatles now, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudolf von Hagenwil Posted May 3, 2009 Members Share Posted May 3, 2009 So... you're saying you like the Beatles now, then? Sometimes questions are more important than answers. The man who knows all the answers most likely misunderstood the questions. Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple. Judge a person by their questions, rather than their answers. A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle. Confidence, like in art, never comes from having answers, it comes from being open to all the questions. "A friend who is far away is sometimes much nearer than one who is at hand. Is not the mountain far more awe-inspiring and more clearly visible to one passing through the valley than to those who inhabit the mountain?" - Kahlil Gibran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted May 3, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 3, 2009 I totally get you. And I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kotch Posted May 4, 2009 Members Share Posted May 4, 2009 I don't mind the Beatles themselves. I listen to them in the same way I listen to fifties rock n roll, or twenties jazz (i.e. for historical perspective). It's the myopic Beatle fan worship that {censored}s me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members halljams Posted May 4, 2009 Members Share Posted May 4, 2009 He sold it to Carlos Satana. No i don't think so. Rob is a great singer in that he, like many great pop singers takes the time work out how each line should be sung in order to convey each words meaning. It is something that to me makes a singer sound mature. And i think he knows this as well. Even though i don' think i like him or his taste sometimes, i give him credit as a singer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted May 4, 2009 Members Share Posted May 4, 2009 I'm seeing Knobs quoted as saying Rob Thomas can out-sing any of the Beatles? Dude. Rob Thomas sings like a billy goat. And that's fine though cause he's got soul... no wait, he doesn't does he... hmmm... so his technique sucks and he lacks soul... must be his awesome songwriting that updates classic prairie ROCK into moist AAA product! I remember reading an excerpt from a book at a book store (written by a well-renowned vocal coach; don't remember who), who was hired by Matchbox 20's management. Supposedly, all Rob Thomas could really do was yell, and didn't know how to sing properly. By the end of their shows, his voice was almost totally blown--they were afraid he might be doing damage to his voice . They had to hire this coach to teach him how to use his head voice. He's gotten better since their early songs, but I definitely wouldn't call Rob Thomas a great singer. Certainly nowhere near better than McCartney. "Smooth" was a great song though, gotta give him that. Too bad it got so overplayed. Maybe that's the problem for many people with a lot of the Beatles songs as well, especially the hits; when to this day, you hear them on the radio all the time, they lose whatever effect they were supposed to have. I feel the same way about a lot of Motown songs. In their day, I'll bet they were great, but I wouldn't know, because they are on every oldies station, in every other TV ad, and probably hundreds of movie soundtracks--there's no getting away from it. Whenever you're beaten over the head with something, it's tougher to appreciate it. Fortunately, the effect that "I Am The Walrus" and had on me as a 12 or 13 year old (way back in the early '90s) definitely makes the Beatles worthy of respect, in my opinion. It isn't one of their songs that gets played a lot on the radio. I remember first hearing on a Beatles hits compilation I had (the "Blue" album), and thinking "WTF is this"? It freaked me out; it was so totally out of left-field. And there were a lot of those little moments in their records, especially the later ones. To think their music could have that kind of an effect on a kid, 25 years after it first happened is pretty remarkable. At least for me, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rabid Posted May 4, 2009 Members Share Posted May 4, 2009 I think they were very proficient at writing the best "simplistic" music. I was there and I never understood the God status or the genius labels. Zeppelin, Santana and Janice Joplin had a much bigger influence on my music. So what do I listen to now? My play list ranges from 3 Doors Down to Sasha with a lot of Latin jazz and electronic mixed in. Just because rabbits have the most babies, it does not mean they have the best sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.