Page 3 of 5

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 21:39
by jimboo
Of what , reinventing the wheel?

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 21:44
by The Modernist
Of introducing sounds and song constructions that hadn't been heard in that way in pop music before.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 21:48
by Matt Wilson
The Modernist wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:
The Modernist wrote:
All innovators and originators (I'm less sure about Muddy Waters though, but I don't have a great blues knowledge), but none were more original than The Beatles were.


Only a person with no knowledge of pre-rock music would say that Geraint.


Not at all, I'm quite secure in my knowledge when I say that. Because they were involved in the early stages of some American genres you might have more respect for them, but that doesn't mean they were more artistically original than The Beatles.


Of course it does, as those genres predate rock 'n' roll by decades. You're talking about sound effects on a rock record in 1966, I'm talking about starting entirely new genres of music that thousands of other musicians carried on with. It has nothing to do with what nationality the musicians are.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 21:52
by wannabee enfant terrible
George and Ringo were essential to The Beatles success.

George - The Beatles soul.

He had to wait a while to get his space but his trademark plangent drone (both voice and playing) were there from the start. Yes he wasn’t a guitar master, he got better as they went on and that meant that his playing matured in a ‘service of the song’ way rather than a “check this!” one. He was exactly good enough.

Just as important was his age. As the youngest he was the one that adolescents could identify with, “that’s me!”. They grew with him through it all.

Someone else can do Ringo.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 21:52
by jimboo
Like Buddy Holly using strings or Chuck zapping his guitar and playing fast or Meek introducing new production techniques and sounds , maybe using a broken bottle top to make a new sound from a guitar.Using an amplifier to alter the natural sound of the electric guitar, creating the language of rock and roll , outrageous live performance or wearing matching uniforms, that sort of never seen before type of stuff?

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:00
by Goat Boy
It's not just production and some funny sounds on records. That's incredibly reductionist. It's the originality of their melodies that changed so much too. It's the way they constructed songs, the odd things they did, the unusual influences (music hall, indian, classical, avant garde) that they integrated into their work. And it's not just the obvious stuff like Strawberry Fields either. I think there's a originality and otherness to, say She Loves You as well. Who the hell else ever sounded like that?

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:01
by Matt Wilson
Here's some British perspective, G.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/ ... udy-claims

Turns out it's hip hop, all along!

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:02
by The Modernist
Matt Wilson wrote:
Of course it does, as those genres predate rock 'n' roll by decades. You're talking about sound effects on a rock record in 1966, I'm talking about starting entirely new genres of music that thousands of other musicians carried on with. It has nothing to do with what nationality the musicians are.


But none of those people invented those genres single-handedly Matt. They were all massively important in the development of those genres, just as The Beatles were massively important in the development of pop music. All this shows is you place a higher cultural worth to artists that work within a single genre.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:04
by jimboo
It takes on average about two posts on the Beatles with BCB before the jihad gene kicks in.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:07
by jimboo
Goat Boy wrote:It's not just production and some funny sounds on records. That's incredibly reductionist. It's the originality of their melodies that changed so much too. It's the way they constructed songs, the odd things they did, the unusual influences (music hall, indian, classical, avant garde) that they integrated into their work. And it's not just the obvious stuff like Strawberry Fields either. I think there's a originality and otherness to, say She Loves You as well. Who the hell else ever sounded like that?


Well you know , put rave on against she loves you and what you got?

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:08
by The Modernist
jimboo wrote:It takes on average about two posts on the Beatles with BCB before the jihad gene kicks in.


Or you can try and be objective. You're letting your own antipathy towards them colour your reasoning.
I'm no Hank Williams fan, but I wouldn't try and devalue his importance to country music.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:10
by Diamond Dog
Diamond Dog wrote:
OCT wrote:Say something you’ve never said (here) about them before.



They would have been equally successful without Harrison or Starr - indeed, musically, they may have actually been better.


I guess this needs emphasising... the original post doesn't state you actually have to believe in the statement. :roll:

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:10
by WG Kaspar
I think they were pretty good. I like them.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:10
by Goat Boy
jimboo wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:It's not just production and some funny sounds on records. That's incredibly reductionist. It's the originality of their melodies that changed so much too. It's the way they constructed songs, the odd things they did, the unusual influences (music hall, indian, classical, avant garde) that they integrated into their work. And it's not just the obvious stuff like Strawberry Fields either. I think there's a originality and otherness to, say She Loves You as well. Who the hell else ever sounded like that?


Well you know , put rave on against she loves you and what you got?


Not She Loves You.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:16
by jimboo
No Moddie , you don't have a clue as to how I feel when I listen to the Beatles. Being objective starts with the very idea that they are not the alpha and omega of rock music.You may waste your time scrutinizing every record in your collection and concluding that the boys didn't just find the dna strand they actually made it , I hear a fucking good band , oh yeah. But for thrills , chills and truly 'fuck me' moments,they are surpassed over and over again.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:19
by The Modernist
Matt Wilson wrote:Here's some British perspective, G.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/ ... udy-claims

Turns out it's hip hop, all along!


A great example of why scientists shouldn't get involved in any form of cultural analysis.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:25
by The Modernist
jimboo wrote:No Moddie , you don't have a clue as to how I feel when I listen to the Beatles. Being objective starts with the very idea that they are not the alpha and omega of rock music.You may waste your time scrutinizing every record in your collection and concluding that the boys didn't just find the dna strand they actually made it , I hear a fucking good band , oh yeah. But for thrills , chills and truly 'fuck me' moments,they are surpassed over and over again.


In your opinion and that's fine..but that's just an expression of your subjective taste again.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:29
by jimboo
Now you're just beginning to sound like a nut.

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:30
by wannabee enfant terrible
I Am the Walnut

Re: Beatles

Posted: 07 Feb 2018, 22:32
by jimboo
I buried Paul.