i think they Stones are a much better rock n' roll band. I don't deny the huge effect/influence the Beatles had on rock music or music in general, and I do like the Beatles a lot, but I think the RS are a better rock n' roll band. Just like Nirvana blew up Grunge and the huge effect/influence, I think Pearl jam is by far a better band. Not trying to piss anyone off. This is an opinion board, correct?
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
i think they Stones are a much better rock n' roll band. I don't deny the huge effect/influence the Beatles had on rock music or music in general, and I do like the Beatles a lot, but I think the RS are a better rock n' roll band. Just like Nirvana blew up Grunge and the huge effect/influence, I think Pearl jam is by far a better band. Not trying to piss anyone off. This is an opinion board, correct?
yeah i get you amigo.. and you're post is an excellent one
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
aye i know, but i thought this thread was about whether the beatles deserve the credit they get bestowed upon them... so saying the Stones were better.. i didnt know at what? at receiving credit? as a band? i presume the dude means he prefers the Stones music, but then thats not what the thread is about in the slightest so i wondered if he meant better at breaking musical barriers than the Beatles.
i mean, i'm not a fan of Hendrix... but at least i realise his place in music... same with Bob Dylan.. does very little for me... but i realise his importance to the music world.
thats what i'd like to hear from the likes of yourself when you say shit about the beatles... fine you dont like their music, but to ridicule them and deny them their importance in musical history is kinda infantile blinkered behaviour... in my opinion
Easy there killer. Never said shit about the Beatles. Yes they deserve the credit. What do I mean, the beatles started something very special in music, and the Stones came along and became a better band. My opinion.
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
forgive my moment of insanity. I corrected my last post as it was done for no apparent reason, as I am pissed at the world right now, and certainly not at anyone on this board!! My apologies Dunkman if I offended..
Cuyahoga Falls 98, Columbus 00, Cleveland 03, Columbus 03, Toledo 04, Grand Rapids 04, Kitchener 05, Cleveland 06, Cincinnati 06, Washington DC 08, Philadelphia IV 09, Columbus 10, Cleveland 10, Chicago 13, Pittsburgh 13, Cincinnati 14, Chicago (1) 16, Chicago (2) 16
you are proving yourself more ignorant and foolish by the post.
but at least your name is kind've catchy.
Makes me think of you as being a lot nicer than you are currently behaving, though.
Your right I'm busted,somewhat.I've been stir crazy for days,couch ridden with sickness,no one to talk to.My bitter twisted wind up merchant nemesis is in full swing.:p
Your run down was actually very well done.Still don't like The Beatles but you clearly researched that piece well.Fare play to you.
Nothing personal to anyone on the pit.Peace
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
Your right I'm busted,somewhat.I've been stir crazy for days,couch ridden with sickness,no one to talk to.My bitter twisted wind up merchant nemesis is in full swing.:p
Your run down was actually very well done.Still don't like The Beatles but you clearly researched that piece well.Fare play to you.
Nothing personal to anyone on the pit.Peace
Now thats the nice stargirl talkin.
Thanks.
I don't ask that people LIKE anything, but if you can't lay credit where it is clearly due, there is a problem.
BTW, get well, be well.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Now thats the nice stargirl talkin.
Thanks.
I don't ask that people LIKE anything, but if you can't lay credit where it is clearly due, there is a problem.
BTW, get well, be well.
Thanks huni ..........credit to you to for your challenge of my being an arse.Regrounded
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
I don't think it's the same. There's a clear point in history you can point to concerning the lightbulb, and that's when the first one was constructed. Before then, there were no lightbulbs. There's no evolution involved there. Evolution of thought and design yes, but nothing concrete.
Before The Beatles there was music, and music is constantly evolving. Nobody invents a genre. There are bands that come along and push the boundaries more like The Beatles, but they didn't think up rock n roll. Neither did Elvis or whoever else gets credit for such a ridiculous thing.
I think it's the "someone would have done it eventually" attitude some people (not necessarily you) have that irritates me. You may as well forget about crediting individual songwriters, since someone would have written that song at some point anyway. The Beatles connected to audiences in a way not many bands can claim to, and did so while constantly pushing boundaries in the more technical aspects of the business too. They deserve pretty much every accolade they get.:)
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
To the original poster: I don't know anyone who would ever say The Beatles "invented" rock and roll. You friend is just misinformed, or you are not hearing him correctly. Rock and roll had a foundation laid a decade before The Beatles were even a thought. The whole point is not that they invented rock, but that they came in as essentially a boy-band pop group, did that style of rock better than anyone at the time, and then proceeded to continually reinvent themselves solidly for the rest of their careers, putting out unbelievably powerful and timeless music while influencing countless bands to come. They were master songwriters, had a knack for melody, played the part well, evolved as musicians and as people, and became icons. They didn't put out distinct sounding albums...every SONG is almost distinct in and of itself. Ignoring the early stuff, which was groundbreaking enough, they covered an unbelievable amount of ground between Rubber Soul and Abbey Road: pop (Drive My Car), folk (Blackbird, Two Of Us), hard rock (Helter Skelter, I Want You), psychadelic (all of Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour and a lot of Revolver), love songs (Here, There and Everywhere) and other types of music not as easily defined (Rocky Racoon is a good example).
When they got off the plane in NYC, and subsequently played the Ed Sullivan show, the world (and rock music) would never be the same.
They didn't invent rock and roll, they perfected it. They *are* rock and roll.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for.)
Whoa!Ok FPC I read ALL of that *shiney star shiney star* and I have really learned something.
I didnt know Paul was integral in checking out Syd Barretts early Floyd stuff........P.F fan here.......and def didnt know he got Hendrix booked for Monterey..........J.H. fan here.Thanks.And tonight for the first time I watched I Am Sam on Film 4,didnt know it was ALL Beatles songs,knew Ed had did Hide Your Love Away for it but that was all.A great film.Ok I'm Beatled out today,christ I'll be glad to get better and be back to work.Will stop me hanging around here picking crap fights lol.Cheers matey.
Oh why you no want dunk in on it?????? :(
“There should be a place where only the things you want to happen, happen”
Whoa!Ok FPC I read ALL of that *shiney star shiney star* and I have really learned something.
I didnt know Paul was integral in checking out Syd Barretts early Floyd stuff........P.F fan here.......and def didnt know he got Hendrix booked for Monterey..........J.H. fan here.Thanks.And tonight for the first time I watched I Am Sam on Film 4,didnt know it was ALL Beatles songs,knew Ed had did Hide Your Love Away for it but that was all.A great film.Ok I'm Beatled out today,christ I'll be glad to get better and be back to work.Will stop me hanging around here picking crap fights lol.Cheers matey.
Some things the Beatles "invented": (and a lot of credit should be given to Geoff Emerick and the Beatles production staff in general, but particularly to the "sound engineers" and Geoff in specific)
1. "Album Rock" \ "Concept Album" , Sgt. Peppers is rather undeniably the first pop album to run songs in to one another using sounds\themes and studio trickery to create a continuity of the aural experience
2. Sample based recording, or "looping": Way way way before Hip Hop or Brian Eno or any other band in the world realy, the Beatles were using every fucking track on every fucking board in Abbey Road studio ... literaly running wires through walls with over a dozen engineers standing all over the building feeding reels of tape to different sound boards at the exact right time as called out over studio mics in order to get all these crazy sounds for Sgt. Peppers on to a final 4 track mix in real time. This was absolutely unheard of in its day, and was a technical nightmare. In a very real sense, the Beatles pioneered sample based recording.
3. Backwards masked guitar\effects\vocals
The Beatles are probably the first band to utilize the tape machines to play back instruments backwards on tape. They prearanged guitar parts that would work backwards, and it was way ahead of its time.
4. Using a Lesley Speaker to sing vocals through -- Lennon wanted to sound "underwater" for some of his vocals (again, on Peppers, I believe) ... first they experimented with putting a microphone in a milk jar filled with water (and nearly killed John through electrocution in the process) ... and then john wanted to actualy try and sing underwater ... but finaly Geoff came up with the idea of using a Lesley speaker. Most great bands since then have "borowed" this trick, everyone from the Grateful Dead and Rolling Stones, to White Stripes and Flaming Lips.
5. The "studio album" as a work in itself, irreplicable on stage: The Beatles were the first band ever to decide that they would focus on making albums so intricate and studio-centric that they absolutely could not be reproduced in good form on stage. In fact, a major reason they wanted to stop performing live was not just the fact that they didn't like the road ... it was that they wanted to be free from the pressure of having to reproduce their impressive studio trickery out in a live setting. They wanted to focus on making a unadulturated studio album, the best it could possibly be.
6. Breaking down "The Producer As Boss" mentality. [the Grateful Dead get a nod here too]
Up until the Beatles came along, the prevailing logic was that The Producer was in charge of just about everything. By the middle of their career, the Beatles had nearly made George Martin little more than an aranger of vocal harmonies (if that) and a simple booking agent for guest musicians. Which brings us to the next one
7. The Beatles were probably the first band to extensively use outside musicians in their pop music. Sure, other artists had used symphonic work or strings, but the Beatles were one of the first to realy go all out with their use of hired musicians ... they used a full symphony orchestra on more than a few ocasions and were probably the first band to piss off said musicians by forcing them in to settings they were uncomfortable with (drugs and improptu performance, no sheet music).
8. Eastern music. One of the first to incorporate eastern melodies and scales in to their music.
9. Dual lead vocalists. How many pop\rock bands before the Beatles had two male lead vocalists that were both extremely impressive song writers? How many bands since then have their even been?
10. More studio tricks than i can list here. Besides the Lesley, the "sampling", and the reverse guitar, the Beatles (vis a vis their strange requests for different sounds coupled with Geoff Emericks amazing talent) pioneered more daring and innovative studio "tricks" than any band before or since. Things like the distortion on "Revolution 1" were absolutely unheard of at the time, primarily because to achieve that sound they had to mic the amps much closer than studio rules allowed (don't want to blow those expensive mics!) and turn up the limit levels on the mixing board way higher than studio protocol allowed (don't want to blow the board either for fucks sake)! That distortion on Revolution 1 alone is probably THE distortion sound that sticks in most "in the know" musicians heads as the sound to beat, to this day. Again, there are more of these type tricks than can even be listed here, all of which are credited to the Beatles alone.
11. Among the first bands to decide that they could build their own studio instead of using a rented space. Abbey Road Studios was one of the first build by a band with big recording contract, for their own personal use. Hendrix is another one of the first.
12. Inventing 4 track before there was 4 tracks. Back in the early days, when all the major studios still had TWO track machines, the beatles were looking for more tracks. They got Geoff to convince the maintenance engineers (the brown coats) to hall the other machine from Studio 2 back in to Studio 1 so that they could Jerry-rig them together using some werid synch technique based off of some new fangled technology that both machines had, that was not ment for rigging them together but only ensuring the correct start time of the tape in one machine ... but never the less, the jerry-rigged them together and in a round about way invented the 4 track recording process ... even though it didn't realy work so well.
13. Esoteric or non-sensical lyrics as something more than just goofey (Louie Louie?) ... John Lennon was one of the first song writers to recognize that a song didn't have to make sense from a "logical" perspective. He helped pioneer the psychedelic rock movement with his new lyrical approach. While one can argue that the Grateful Dead beat The Beatles to LSD proper, it is probably to Lennon that credit must go for the actual change in the way inherent meaning of lyrics to songs became less important than the impression those words left the listener with.
14. Merchandising. The Beatles, hands down, win for the prize for first band whose management figured out how to cash in by marketing the name and image to everything and anything imaginable under the sun. They basicaly invented the pop phenomenon of band products.
15. The Fan Club Christmas Single. You need look no further than Pearl Jam to see how influential the Beatles decision to put out a Fan Club xmas single was.
These are just a handful of the unparalleled (at the time) achievments of the beatles ... and to argue that they get more credit than they deserve is fucking absurd.
I'd say they don't even get enough credit.
Most people have NO idea just how goddamn important their contributions were to rock ... i mean outside of just "yeah they were one of the first real pop\rock bands to bring a hysteria to the masses" ... no ... they actualy pioneered REAL achievments. I can't even think of all of them right now, but i'm sure i could come back and add at least another half dozen to this list. Things like pioneering "album rock" and changing the Talent\Producer dynamic alone should be enough to keep them in the upper echelon of the Pop\Rock pantheon for all time!
1. Frank Zappa released two concept albums before the Beatles did. In fact, Paul McCartney cited them as influences on Sgt. Pepper's. To the Beatles' credit, they POPULARIZED the format; however, they did NOT invent it.
14. I'd also argue that Elvis' management and promotions team was the first group to truly figure out how to create a massive demand for their product, much of it from teenagers who for the first time in history had spending power (thus creating popular teenage culture).
I believe the children are our future... unless we stop them now...
I'm keeping .3 of the merchandizing argument though.
I know Elvis had merchandise, but i think the beatles took it truly global.
You're probably right though.
Consensus - 1.7 to 2 points.
Edit: Actualy i'm pulling back a FULL POINT.
On the Zappa\Freak Out argument, you lose at least .5 point, because though it was a concept album of sorts, it was NOT a continous work of music that had songs deliberately running into eachother ... which is part of what i meant when i was typing the above.
That is a technique that is common place now, but was not done at the time.
Freak Out has complete breaks between songs. nearly 5-8 seconds between tracks.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
as you know i'm a Beatles geek, but thanks Fins... for posting this far better than i could... but i get really annoyed when people think it was all Lennon doing the weird and wonderful stuff... Paul was in the vortex of a creative movement and he soaked in everything he could.. John was 'busy' eating cornflakes and watching daytime TV.
and you cant leave me out... its an old scottish law.. "once invited for a 3some no-one can back out"... or words to that effect
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
they deserve all the credit they get... Led Zeppelin even twisted old blues tracks and made them their own. The Bealtes were the best than and still are. They did everything for the first time and were the first boy band. They along with the king made rock n roll popular and added r n r into the mainstream. They are everything and everyone should have some beatles in their ipod at all times.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
Aye. He's a cunt though
But seriously, I don't care how into Karlheinz Stockhausen he was, or how important he was in pushing pop towards the avant-garde, the execrable pap was all too common on the later albums, especially the White Album. I love The Beatles and they are not overrated but I absolutely despise McCartney.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
I love The Beatles and they are not overrated but I absolutely despise McCartney.
why?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i think lennon was inspired to write meaningful, deep lyrics by Bob Dylan
"I'll tell you what: If all I had was Pearl Jam, and I didn't have another band in the world, I would not be worried. Because in there is the essence of making great music. You don't have to use it all at once, but it's there." - Neil Young
But seriously, I don't care how into Karlheinz Stockhausen he was, or how important he was in pushing pop towards the avant-garde, the execrable pap was all too common on the later albums, especially the White Album. I love The Beatles and they are not overrated but I absolutely despise McCartney.
But seriously, I don't care how into Karlheinz Stockhausen he was, or how important he was in pushing pop towards the avant-garde, the execrable pap was all too common on the later albums, especially the White Album. I love The Beatles and they are not overrated but I absolutely despise McCartney.
i dont despise mccartney, but i agree with your sentiment. regardless of paul's hand in it, lennon wrote the best stuff in the latter half of the beatles days while paul was writing cheesy crap that was better suited to bloated broadway musicals or simplistic commercial jangles. furthermore, paul's solo career was utterly unremarkable while john's, for all its inconsistency, was far more vibrant and engaging. the best of john's solo work blows anything paul did post-beatles out of the water.
He loves him desperately. It's all in Freud. "That which irritates is beautiful." A bit like me with Brian Sewell or Phil Collins. I secretly worship them.
Comments
you are proving yourself more ignorant and foolish by the post.
but at least your name is kind've catchy.
Makes me think of you as being a lot nicer than you are currently behaving, though.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
yeah i get you amigo.. and you're post is an excellent one
Your right I'm busted,somewhat.I've been stir crazy for days,couch ridden with sickness,no one to talk to.My bitter twisted wind up merchant nemesis is in full swing.:p
Your run down was actually very well done.Still don't like The Beatles but you clearly researched that piece well.Fare play to you.
Nothing personal to anyone on the pit.Peace
Now thats the nice stargirl talkin.
Thanks.
I don't ask that people LIKE anything, but if you can't lay credit where it is clearly due, there is a problem.
BTW, get well, be well.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thanks huni
I think it's the "someone would have done it eventually" attitude some people (not necessarily you) have that irritates me. You may as well forget about crediting individual songwriters, since someone would have written that song at some point anyway. The Beatles connected to audiences in a way not many bands can claim to, and did so while constantly pushing boundaries in the more technical aspects of the business too. They deserve pretty much every accolade they get.:)
When they got off the plane in NYC, and subsequently played the Ed Sullivan show, the world (and rock music) would never be the same.
They didn't invent rock and roll, they perfected it. They *are* rock and roll.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Better still, leave dunk out.
Now, back to the topic at, er, hand.
I think Paul McCartney deserves a lot more credit than he gets, for elevating popular music above the constraints of blues-based rock (even though he was a great blues shouter with a lot of Ray Charles soul, on albums such as Beatles for Sale or songs such as I'm Down). He was listening to Stockhausen and incorporating classical music - before George Martin could push it - into song arrangements, way before King Crimson, ELP or the prog movement started strutting its bellbottoms across rock's glittering floor. When Paul combined classicism with popular music, he would do it in an unpretentious way, and he would never lose track of the centrality of a song and its hit potential, even on an album. That kind of ear for balance between art and commerce requires nothing short of genius. After the Beatles, he lost that particular focus, I think, but with The Beatles, he was a prime mover. With regard to the avant garde nature of The Beatles, people often talk of Lennon's musique concrete piece, Revolution 9, but Paul was the brains and ears behind the tape loops on John's Tomorrow Never Knows, and the as-yet unreleased Carnival of Light.
Paul was the man who got Hendrix booked for Monterey; the man who was hanging out at UFO checking out Barrett's Floyd from the start; and who was also down the Indica gallery while John was playing recluse in his Weybridge mock tudor mansion.
If he wasn't at the vanguard, he was pretty near it. So, he was light and fluffy a lot of the time. So he wrote some execrable pap. He also wrote many of the most unselfconsciously surrealist songs in rock (even a throwaway ditty such as Martha My Dear, though a cod-twenties ode to a sheepdog, had chord shifts and modulations that most bands in the day would kill for).
Whoa!Ok FPC I read ALL of that *shiney star shiney star* and I have really learned something.
I didnt know Paul was integral in checking out Syd Barretts early Floyd stuff........P.F fan here.......and def didnt know he got Hendrix booked for Monterey..........J.H. fan here.Thanks.And tonight for the first time I watched I Am Sam on Film 4,didnt know it was ALL Beatles songs,knew Ed had did Hide Your Love Away for it but that was all.A great film.Ok I'm Beatled out today,christ I'll be glad to get better and be back to work.Will stop me hanging around here picking crap fights lol.Cheers matey.
Oh why you no want dunk in on it?????? :(
Me no-a wanna dunka cocka inda picture-uh.
Yep! Cheers!
1. Frank Zappa released two concept albums before the Beatles did. In fact, Paul McCartney cited them as influences on Sgt. Pepper's. To the Beatles' credit, they POPULARIZED the format; however, they did NOT invent it.
14. I'd also argue that Elvis' management and promotions team was the first group to truly figure out how to create a massive demand for their product, much of it from teenagers who for the first time in history had spending power (thus creating popular teenage culture).
I will concede 1.7 of my 17 points.
I'm keeping .3 of the merchandizing argument though.
I know Elvis had merchandise, but i think the beatles took it truly global.
You're probably right though.
Consensus - 1.7 to 2 points.
Edit: Actualy i'm pulling back a FULL POINT.
On the Zappa\Freak Out argument, you lose at least .5 point, because though it was a concept album of sorts, it was NOT a continous work of music that had songs deliberately running into eachother ... which is part of what i meant when i was typing the above.
That is a technique that is common place now, but was not done at the time.
Freak Out has complete breaks between songs. nearly 5-8 seconds between tracks.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
as you know i'm a Beatles geek, but thanks Fins... for posting this far better than i could... but i get really annoyed when people think it was all Lennon doing the weird and wonderful stuff... Paul was in the vortex of a creative movement and he soaked in everything he could.. John was 'busy' eating cornflakes and watching daytime TV.
and you cant leave me out... its an old scottish law.. "once invited for a 3some no-one can back out"... or words to that effect
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
But seriously, I don't care how into Karlheinz Stockhausen he was, or how important he was in pushing pop towards the avant-garde, the execrable pap was all too common on the later albums, especially the White Album. I love The Beatles and they are not overrated but I absolutely despise McCartney.
why?
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
Take the pap challenge.
What are Paul's pap songs on The White Album?
i dont despise mccartney, but i agree with your sentiment. regardless of paul's hand in it, lennon wrote the best stuff in the latter half of the beatles days while paul was writing cheesy crap that was better suited to bloated broadway musicals or simplistic commercial jangles. furthermore, paul's solo career was utterly unremarkable while john's, for all its inconsistency, was far more vibrant and engaging. the best of john's solo work blows anything paul did post-beatles out of the water.
ob-la-di, ob-la-da... aka corky's theme song from the tv show "life goes on."
He loves him desperately. It's all in Freud. "That which irritates is beautiful." A bit like me with Brian Sewell or Phil Collins. I secretly worship them.