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!
"TOS ain’t havin no horserace round here. “Policies” is the coin of the realm." -- iDaemon
Metacell wrote: 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.
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).
And Proteus brought the upright beast into the garden and chained him to a tree and the children did make sport of him.
Metacell wrote: 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.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
Metacell wrote: 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.
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.
maurvir wrote: 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?
"The older i get, the less i care about what people think of me. therefore the older i get, the more i enjoy life."
"Life is so constructed, that the event does not, cannot, will not, match the expectation."
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)
That is, they didn't have as many teen girls flinging panties at them.
Elvis
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
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
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." -Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Pithecanthropus wrote: 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.
DukeofNuke wrote: 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 wrote: 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.
intellectual/hipster/nihilist
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts." -Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
DukeofNuke wrote: 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? )
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.
All skill is in vain when an angel wastes down the barrel of your rifle.
Pithecanthropus wrote: 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.
Remember, people, to forgive is divine. In other words, it ain't human.
avkills wrote: 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
)
