FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Controversial and sensitive I know, but...
Controversial and sensitive I know, but...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"Were the Beatles really all that? "
They did so many firsts. They changed the face of popular music and culture.
They were the first band to really use the studio as an instrument and pushed the very limited ( by today’s standards) equipment to places not thought possible.
There has been many, many very good bands since but none shall give to music what those 4 lads did.
194 songs in seven years and all before they hit 30.
Not everyone’s cup of tea but there’s a reason they are widely regarded as the best of all time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *kibirdWoman 15 weeks ago
Gillingham ( Dorset, not Kent) |
I think you have to see them in context of what music was like at the time and how they started a whole genre of their own. By today’s standards, no theyre probably not anything too amazing but they were groundbreaking at the time and brought something new to the scene |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you have to see them in context of what music was like at the time and how they started a whole genre of their own. By today’s standards, no theyre probably not anything too amazing but they were groundbreaking at the time and brought something new to the scene "
I thought Chuck Berry did that for them?
I need educating here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available. "
Many do think that, but they in fact were very accomplished musicians just not in a classical sense. They didn’t have the discipline of say a member of an orchestra but that’s also where their creativity was born. They weren’t bound by arbitrary rules.
They were adept at changing time signatures and mixing different scales in single compositions, things that technically shouldn’t have worked but created timeless classics.
I’m obviously a fan but I can understand why people don’t particularly rate them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There's a cute movie called 'yesterday' where the existence of the Beatles disappears due to some anomaly.
If you want to channel your dismay or allegiance.. have a watch. It's canny "
Have seen it. It's a good film, nothing too deep but very enjoyable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available.
Many do think that, but they in fact were very accomplished musicians just not in a classical sense. They didn’t have the discipline of say a member of an orchestra but that’s also where their creativity was born. They weren’t bound by arbitrary rules.
They were adept at changing time signatures and mixing different scales in single compositions, things that technically shouldn’t have worked but created timeless classics.
I’m obviously a fan but I can understand why people don’t particularly rate them.
"
I'm ambivalent, not judging them. George Martin had a lot to do with the above though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think you have to see them in context of what music was like at the time and how they started a whole genre of their own. By today’s standards, no theyre probably not anything too amazing but they were groundbreaking at the time and brought something new to the scene
I thought Chuck Berry did that for them?
I need educating here. "
Bill Haley - Rock Around the Clock is usually considered the advent of Rock n Roll I think.
The Beatles took inspiration from Rock n Roll, as well as some weird genres like Skiffle.
The Beatles were not hot-shot musicians. But they did everything they needed to do to serve the song.
And in comparison to the Spotify top 10 these days, Beatles music uses chord progressions/melodies/harmony in ways you simply don't find commonly in chart topping music anymore.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I liked the early beatles when they sounded all "tinny" but nothing after about 1968"
The tinny sound was likely due to most of their albums being recorded in mono. Stereo recording of music albums only really started in the late 1960s. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Were the Beatles really all that? "
Argh well,I use the theory that Kraftwerk are more important to music development and history than the Beatles,after all did John Lennon invent the piano or Paul McCartney the guitar? No.
Now Kraftwerk we're instrumental (pun intended) with the development of electronic instruments like the drum machine and synthesiser |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Were the Beatles really all that?
Argh well,I use the theory that Kraftwerk are more important to music development and history than the Beatles,after all did John Lennon invent the piano or Paul McCartney the guitar? No.
Now Kraftwerk we're instrumental (pun intended) with the development of electronic instruments like the drum machine and synthesiser "
I'm not arguing with this. It's a good point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think if you appreciate music then you have to consider that the Beatles, outwith the well known tracks, actually did things totally different from what the norm was at the time.
You only need to deep dive sgt peppers to see that, with the changes in some of the songs that really wouldn’t be apart of the same song…..then you can bring in stuff from the white album, which is a lot more prog.
Not trying to be disrespectful, but I have found that people who claim the Beatles are overrated have only really listened to the ‘hits’
Might be a controversial option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available. "
Obviously a very stupid school. All were very good musicians! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available.
Many do think that, but they in fact were very accomplished musicians just not in a classical sense. They didn’t have the discipline of say a member of an orchestra but that’s also where their creativity was born. They weren’t bound by arbitrary rules.
They were adept at changing time signatures and mixing different scales in single compositions, things that technically shouldn’t have worked but created timeless classics.
I’m obviously a fan but I can understand why people don’t particularly rate them.
I'm ambivalent, not judging them. George Martin had a lot to do with the above though.
"
Without a doubt George Martin helped them realise some of their ideas and as producers go he was just as ground breaking as the band.
If they didn’t have George in the booth I believe they couldn’t have done a lot of what they did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available.
Obviously a very stupid school. All were very good musicians!"
They were good at what they did...
None of them were particularly accomplished on their chosen instrument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The only live footage available seems to be them playing their earlier stuff. Could they actually play the music the Martin helped them make? The popular conception is that they stopped performing because the teenage girls' screaming made it impossible. Some say that's a cop out. I guess we'll never know. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The only live footage available seems to be them playing their earlier stuff. Could they actually play the music the Martin helped them make? The popular conception is that they stopped performing because the teenage girls' screaming made it impossible. Some say that's a cop out. I guess we'll never know. "
Things like Sgt Peppers was created without the intention of being played/recreated live...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
They stuff they made in the studio from 66 onwards was possible live in those days.
They tired of touring after years of jetting round the world and only seeing inside hotel rooms.
The venues they played weren’t music venues at the end and the music was played through stadium PA systems, that coupled with the hysteria made playing almost impossible.
The Che stadium gig you can see John Lennon playing keyboard with his elbows because he couldn’t hear a thing
If you look up some early gigs they were extremely tight after years in Hamburg playing 8 hours a night |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
They tired of touring after years of jetting round the world and only seeing inside hotel rooms.
"
Their tours are listed on Wiki (not the bastion of truth & accuracy, I know). They didn't seem to tour anywhere near as much as some bands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available.
Obviously a very stupid school. All were very good musicians!
They were good at what they did...
None of them were particularly accomplished on their chosen instrument."
I take the point that there isn’t 5 min guitar solos etc….but they were definitely accomplished on their instruments.
Early days playing 3 chords with a drum beat I can understand….but by the time it was almost over that cannot be a truthful claim
BTW….im not even a Beatles fan tbh, but you have to appreciate what they did. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"There's a cute movie called 'yesterday' where the existence of the Beatles disappears due to some anomaly.
If you want to channel your dismay or allegiance.. have a watch. It's canny "
Yep - that is a lovely little film.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
Maybe not but they tired of it and they had the luxury of being able to be a studio band.
When they ceased touring and started experimenting is when things really changed.
Are they all that? I think so and music wouldn’t be the same without them that’s for sure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
They had a lot of hits / good songs, and a fair amount of dross too, but to anyone who doesn’t rate them I’d say go listen to While My Guitar Gently Weeps…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available.
Obviously a very stupid school. All were very good musicians!
They were good at what they did...
None of them were particularly accomplished on their chosen instrument.
I take the point that there isn’t 5 min guitar solos etc….but they were definitely accomplished on their instruments.
Early days playing 3 chords with a drum beat I can understand….but by the time it was almost over that cannot be a truthful claim
BTW….im not even a Beatles fan tbh, but you have to appreciate what they did."
Compare them to Oscar Peterson or Buddy Rich or Robert Fripp or Ruth Underwood...
As I said, they were good at what they did... And they were good.
But none of them were wildy impressive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So, to conclude, great together but nothing notable apart, average artists pulled together by a good manager and great producer. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts?
Pretty much the Wimbledon FC of the '60s music scene. Fair assumption?
That seems to be what everyone is saying? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, to conclude, great together but nothing notable apart, average artists pulled together by a good manager and great producer. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts?
Pretty much the Wimbledon FC of the '60s music scene. Fair assumption?
That seems to be what everyone is saying? "
I would agree with that summation yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, to conclude, great together but nothing notable apart, average artists pulled together by a good manager and great producer. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts?
Pretty much the Wimbledon FC of the '60s music scene. Fair assumption?
That seems to be what everyone is saying?
I would agree with that summation yes."
I don't think Wimbledon were very good live either. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The more I listen and learn, the more I appreciate atie. Experimental, broke new grounds, did things not even though of, trail blazers, immense back catalogue, culture changing. Some of thier records would like they could have been written today. The fact they are so talked about 60 years later is a phenomenon. Never see it again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"So, to conclude, great together but nothing notable apart, average artists pulled together by a good manager and great producer. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts?
Pretty much the Wimbledon FC of the '60s music scene. Fair assumption?
That seems to be what everyone is saying? "
That’s fair, greater than the sum of its parts is the perfect way to describe it for me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So, to conclude, great together but nothing notable apart, average artists pulled together by a good manager and great producer. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts?
Pretty much the Wimbledon FC of the '60s music scene. Fair assumption?
That seems to be what everyone is saying?
I would agree with that summation yes.
I don't think Wimbledon were very good live either. "
I don't know... I don't watch Tennis, and if they're a band I've never heard of them 😂 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Saw Paul in concert 10 years ago when he was in his 70s, three hours non stop hits, no break. Unreal."
I saw him some years ago when Linda was still alive. He was terrible, as we're the reviews for the gig. Maybe an off night. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Beatles are one of several artists without whom music could be very different today, hugely important and influencial, but there are other artists who you can make the same argument for.
Whether or not you think they were good is a matter of individual taste. I like them, particularly from Rubber Soul onwards.
They were all good musicians, but none of them virtuosos, but personally I'd rather listen to a good rhythm guitarist play good tunes than a Joe Satriani style guitar noodlist showing off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *vaRoseWoman 15 weeks ago
Ankh-Morpork |
Without trying to step on toes and knowing full well this will cause people to get upset
I’ve always thought they were a bit shit. As writers, great… but as a band? Nah.
I recognise all of their achievements and I don’t need a list of what they’ve done… I grew up in a Beatles household. I still think they’re overrated, and a bit shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lynJMan 15 weeks ago
Morden |
"The only live footage available seems to be them playing their earlier stuff. Could they actually play the music the Martin helped them make? The popular conception is that they stopped performing because the teenage girls' screaming made it impossible. Some say that's a cop out. I guess we'll never know. "
There is footage on YouTube of the rooftop concert they performed in January 1969. Footage is also used in the film "Let It Be", and other documentaries. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
I still think they are underrated. There's really no one in the whole of popular music that comes close to them for innovation and quality, especially over such a concentrated period. In 7 years as a recording group they took music and culture in new directions multiple times, while releasing album after album of quite brilliant songs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ost SockMan 15 weeks ago
West Wales and Cardiff |
I don’t listen to them often, but they were brilliant.
They weren’t flashy musicians, but they used their instruments to craft some of the most special songs in popular music.
If you understand how songs are constructed, particulary their use of interesting harmonies, they were way ahead of everyone except Brian Wilson, Burt Bacharah, Jimmy Webb etc.
There are so many little moments of compostional genius in their songs. An example would be the chorus of Penny Lane modulating down a semitone, yet it sounds exultant. Who modulates down to get that effect?! The wonderdul modulations of Here, There and Everywhere is another example.
McCartney was also a beast of a bass player and don’t believe the nonsense about Ringo Starr. Have a look on YouTube at the drummers who rate him.
None of that means people have to like them, and there’s plenty of their stuff that passes me by. They were pretty extraordinary songwriters in their field, though.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
I also think there's a big difference between not liking or enjoying their music, and saying they were 'shit'. I imagine many people have been bored silly watching Shakespeare, but it really doesn't mean his writing is shit.🤣 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I can appreciate the change that they created in the whkle music industry. The shift in musical style, Beatlemania all of that. It was a phenominon unseen before especially in the UK.
But I'm not overly keen on the music. Some, sure but generally, not really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I also think there's a big difference between not liking or enjoying their music, and saying they were 'shit'. I imagine many people have been bored silly watching Shakespeare, but it really doesn't mean his writing is shit.🤣"
Yeah, but folk like to be 'edgy' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
"Accept all that but there's a school of thought that says they weren't very good musicians, thus there's not lot in the way of live recordings available. "
Not sure which school that is but I hope Ofsted have been informed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
People will always have opinions but it's like Taylor swift she's not for me at all but you can't argue that millions of people love her stuff clearly these people are very famous for a reason |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 15 weeks ago
|
They where in their moment in time, especially early pop songs. But not to be worshipped now. They started a phase of music with their success, but then music evolves. Still better than Oasis though by a huge margin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
