50 years ago ...

Page: 1, 2
Online now: Bing (sucks), Google [Bot], juice, Majestic-12 [Bot], maurvir
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
this concert happened

yeah, half a century

i still wish i could have been there

meanwhile, peter jackson is working on a doc about the beatles

Quote:
Jackson said in a statement of making the new film: “The 55 hours of never-before-seen footage and 140 hours of audio made available to us ensure this movie will be the ultimate ‘fly on the wall’ experience that Beatles fans have long dreamt about.


now was that the session where they wanted to make it this big multi-media project? recorded in a cavernous film studio and spent most of their time arguing with each other? sounds like fun!
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
I realize I'm solidly in the minority but I just find the Beatles incredibly "meh"

I don't get what all the fuss is about, their music is not great.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
Donkey Butter posted:
I realize I'm solidly in the minority but I just find the Beatles incredibly "meh"

I don't get what all the fuss is about, their music is not great.

I am in this same minority. I like the music, but it's not great.
arkayn Aaarrrggghhhh
User avatar
justine posted:
Donkey Butter posted:
I realize I'm solidly in the minority but I just find the Beatles incredibly "meh"

I don't get what all the fuss is about, their music is not great.

I am in this same minority. I like the music, but it's not great.


Same as me, I really do not get the Beatles. I can listen to them with no problem, but I do not crank the stereo when it comes on.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
I think you Beatles meh lot are just missing the historical context: most of the great music you do like was inspired or influenced by The Beatles.
Metacell posted:
I think you Beatles meh lot are just missing the historical context: most of the great music you do like was inspired or influenced by The Beatles.

So if you don't have the nostalgia factor it just sounds like a watered down homogenized version of modern music.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Donkey Butter posted:
I realize I'm solidly in the minority but I just find the Beatles incredibly "meh"

I don't get what all the fuss is about, their music is not great.

Go write a song as good as "Yesterday" then come back and comment.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Donkey Butter posted:
I realize I'm solidly in the minority but I just find the Beatles incredibly "meh"

I don't get what all the fuss is about, their music is not great.

Go write a song as good as "Yesterday" then come back and comment.

And follow it up with another as good as anything on the Revolver album. Or St Peppers. Or the White album. etc etc etc
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
I think their music is great.

Break out a chart of most Beatle tunes and you will see chord and harmony structures that none of their peers (outside of Motown and maybe Brian Jones could come close to. Even their early material was a studied and expanded mix of of the basis of American popular song and produced an amalgam of rockabilly, R&B, rock n Roll, tin pan alley and girl-group harmonies.

That is in addition to having awesome arrangements and a desire to up the ante on production techniques and sonic exploration. Their musicianship is highly underrated.

The "Get Back" (Let it Be) project is an interesting part of their history. They recognized the fractured aspect of the White Album and sought to make something cohesive, less "concept" and more back to their roots. Apparently they recorded hours and hours jamming on their back catalog, playing covers, etc, but they had grown up and were unable to go back to where they came from.

That said, all that jamming is part and parcel as to why their playing was so sharp on their final recordings (Abby Road).
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Betonhaus posted:
Metacell posted:
I think you Beatles meh lot are just missing the historical context: most of the great music you do like was inspired or influenced by The Beatles.

So if you don't have the nostalgia factor it just sounds like a watered down homogenized version of modern music.

If you don't like the blues, you ain't got no soul.
dv
User avatar
Betonhaus posted:
Metacell posted:
I think you Beatles meh lot are just missing the historical context: most of the great music you do like was inspired or influenced by The Beatles.

So if you don't have the nostalgia factor it just sounds like a watered down homogenized version of modern music.

You have that backwards.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
The Beatles really are only "good" when taken in the context of the period during which they arose. From what I understand, they were among the first "hyper popular" 'pop' bands, and that is why they have such an out-sized place in history. Other bands were producing even more forward looking music at the time, but it was outside the mainstream. That is, they didn't have as many teen girls flinging panties at them.

That isn't to say they weren't an important band, or that they didn't push the envelope of what was popular in the day, but objectively speaking, a lot of their music was dreck even then. There are probably only a dozen or so Beatle's tracks that I would consider somewhat timeless.

I get that they are an important band for a lot of reasons, but I'm not a fan of them myself either.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Metacell posted:
If you don't like the blues, you ain't got no soul.

user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
keep your hands off my jelly roll
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
maurvir posted:
The Beatles really are only "good" when taken in the context of the period during which they arose.


I disagree completely.


Unless you are saying the same thing for any and all types of music and performers.

Quote:
Other bands were producing even more forward looking music at the time, but it was outside the mainstream


Not all that many, and most of them hopped on to the wagon some time after the Beatles hit big.

Quote:
a lot of their music was dreck even then


Again, disagree.
They were one of the bands I think had the lowest ratio of filler to gem. Very rarely repeated themselves at all.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
maurvir posted:
The Beatles really are only "good" when taken in the context of the period during which they arose. From what I understand, they were among the first "hyper popular" 'pop' bands, and that is why they have such an out-sized place in history. Other bands were producing even more forward looking music at the time, but it was outside the mainstream. That is, they didn't have as many teen girls flinging panties at them.

Didn't it come out that all those screaming girls turned out to be a PR stunt? Manufactured?
I think some of you may be jaded by time. Remember the Beatles broke new ground on so many aspects of song writing, recording and musical technique.
Pop tunes; fine for what they were, and are.

I liked the Beatles music more when they stopped touring and started bickering in the studio. I'm sure their producer deserves a lot of credit.
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
Oh I get that they are a popular and important band. I just don't go all gah-gah over them.

I even bought one of their albums once. That's when I realized that I didn't like 'em so that CD wen't back to graywhale where I traded it in for some good music.

And sure they were more musically talented than I am, though, that is not saying much since I sing like an amputee (can't hold a note, can't carry a tune)
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Not to argue, but,
Quote:
That is, they didn't have as many teen girls flinging panties at them.

Elvis
Quote:
That isn't to say they weren't an important band, or that they didn't push the envelope of what was popular in the day, but objectively speaking, a lot of their music was dreck even then. There are probably only a dozen or so Beatle's tracks that I would consider somewhat timeless.

Mozart
Quote:
Go write a song as good as "Yesterday" then come back and comment.

or "Something" or "Eleanor Rigby". I mean, how many chart topping songs of the 60's were written for a string quartet? The Beatles changed the landscape and were ahead of their time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuS5NuXRb5Y
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
To be fair, Eleanor Rigby is a freaking amazing song, and one of the songs I was referring to as timeless.
Pithecanthropus Roast Master
User avatar
Look, you want to say that their catalog of songs isn't 100% great, that's fine. Find me a band or artist whose catalog is 100% great.

You want to say, "they don't appeal to my musical taste," that's fine, too. Taste is subjective.

You want to say, "the Beatles suck because I don't like them," you're going to get into a flame war that you won't win.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Pithecanthropus posted:
Look, you want to say that their catalog of songs isn't 100% great, that's fine. Find me a band or artist whose catalog is 100% great.

You want to say, "they don't appeal to my musical taste," that's fine, too. Taste is subjective.

You want to say, "the Beatles suck because I don't like them," you're going to get into a flame war that you won't win.


I don't think anyone is saying the Beatles sucked, because they didn't. There are quite a few Beatle's songs that I really like, and they even have songs that are still getting airplay. However, I do feel that they were overrated.
It's pop tunes. Over-rating is built in. Proportion often gets lost in fandom. Maher and his Marvell rant touched on a similar thing.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Mozart, Bach, Strauss, et al , all wrote "Pop" tunes for their time.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Mozart, Bach, Strauss, et al , all wrote "Pop" tunes for their time.


I believe one of the reasons orchestras were invented was to make music louder.
They took it to 11.
DukeofNuke posted:
Mozart, Bach, Strauss, et al , all wrote "Pop" tunes for their time.

I thought the word popular in this context means widely available and consumed by the masses rather than commissioned by, and primarily performed for the court or the church or wealthy patrons. The word popular in this context may need some scholarly definition.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Mozart, Bach, Strauss, et al , all wrote "Pop" tunes for their time.

I thought the word popular in this context means widely available and consumed by the masses rather than commissioned by, and primarily performed for the court or the church or wealthy patrons. The word popular in this context may need some scholarly definition.

The sheet music was published. It was also played in Opera Houses, theaters, parlors and player piano rolls.
C. Ives Lacks Critical stick fiddling Thinking
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Mozart, Bach, Strauss, et al , all wrote "Pop" tunes for their time.

I thought the word popular in this context means widely available and consumed by the masses rather than commissioned by, and primarily performed for the court or the church or wealthy patrons. The word popular in this context may need some scholarly definition.

Mozart's operas were widely available and consumed by the masses.

Bach wrote mainly for the church where he was employed (and also wrote for the "masses" . . . get it? Masses? :lol: )

Strauss . . . Well. Which Strauss? I'm going to assume Johan Jr.? Yes, while you could say he was writing for the upper class, his waltzes were certainly geared toward the masses as well.

So yes, I'd agree with Mozart and Strauss. Maybe not so much with Bach.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
maurvir posted:
Pithecanthropus posted:
Look, you want to say that their catalog of songs isn't 100% great, that's fine. Find me a band or artist whose catalog is 100% great.

You want to say, "they don't appeal to my musical taste," that's fine, too. Taste is subjective.

You want to say, "the Beatles suck because I don't like them," you're going to get into a flame war that you won't win.


I don't think anyone is saying the Beatles sucked, because they didn't. There are quite a few Beatle's songs that I really like, and they even have songs that are still getting airplay. However, I do feel that they were overrated.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Led Zeppelin was overrated (and overplayed) too. But that's because they were awesome.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
I see what you did there
I think the big thing about The Beatles is that they were an extremely tight live band. The vast majority of artists today sound like ass live.
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
avkills posted:
I think the big thing about The Beatles is that they were an extremely tight live band. The vast majority of artists today sound like ass live.


the best beatles music came after they stopped touring

Thanks to Sir George Martin
TOS
User avatar
a staggering list of hit songs and records, basically made stadium concerts a thing, emphasized whimsy and fun

it's okay if you don't like them ... but it's ridiculous to deny their talent and cultural impact
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
'We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out.' – Decca Recording Company when turning down the Beatles in 1962.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
'We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out.' – Decca Recording Company when turning down the Beatles in 1962.

The were right; just early to that conclusion. :goth:
TOS
User avatar
i think the beatles broke up before its members turned 30

let that sink in a minute
ukimalefu Rebel? resistance? why not both?
User avatar
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

50 years ago ...

Page: 1, 2