The Beatles why does every one think they were so great?
Discussion
KB_S1 said:
Dickster said:
The production is understandably very poor, the mix is rubbish
Are you joking?Seriously, are you joking?
When you think it's been nearly 40 years since they last recorded, you think some progress would be made.
P.S. thanks to this thread i'm now listening to Abbey Rd, unfortunately a remastered version
GetCarter said:
So to some, it just sounds the same. To others, it was just a bloody noise (my dad).
I do hope you're not suggesting I am as old as your Dad!!No, I just think the OP has made a good point... they could play instruments and write their songs but I will never understand the level they reached... maybe it was more to do with moment and timing and there was very little else around then?? who knows... obviously they had some kind of broad 'mass market' appeal - in the same way Eastenders and McDonalds do.
parakitaMol said:
they could play instruments
Nope. They were crap at that. Ringo hadn't the first clue what he was doing, Paul was vaguely competent, George was almost OK and John had a bit of talent. None of them would have earned a penny as session musicians. (I employ session musicians for a living and have done for 30 years).They were right place right time, looked right, and wrote great songs. The fact that the songs will still be being played in 100 years time when Kylie, Robbie and that c**t Hucknall will all be long forgotten will be testament to the writing, not the playing.
All IMHO of course
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 10th April 18:08
GetCarter said:
parakitaMol said:
.they could play instruments
Nope. They were crap at that. Ringo hadn't the first clue what he was doing, Paul was vaguely competent, George was almost OK and John had a bit of talent. None of them would have earned a penny as session musicians. (I employ session musicians for a living and have done for 30 years).They were right place right time, looked right, and wrote great songs. The fact that the songs will still be being played in 100 years time when Kylie, Robbie and that c**t Hucknall will all be long forgotten will be testament to the writing, not the playing.
All IMHO of course
This is the same reason thousands of people bought Visage, Fade to Grey and Soft Cell, Tainted Love in the early 80's.
I like my Beatles/McDonalds analogy... it works for me.
That
Hucknall on the other hand, would be Onion flavoured Monster Munch. 
otolith said:
...there's a fair chance that you like a Lennon or McCartney song done by someone else - Helter Skelter/Aerosmith
Is that a Lennon/McCartney song?LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
...there's a fair chance that you like a Lennon or McCartney song done by someone else - Helter Skelter/Aerosmith
Is that a Lennon/McCartney song?Edited by otolith on Friday 10th April 19:09
otolith said:
LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
...there's a fair chance that you like a Lennon or McCartney song done by someone else - Helter Skelter/Aerosmith
Is that a Lennon/McCartney song?Blimey, the best they managed with me until now was a very occasional all right-ish. But here's a Beatles song I can regard as good!
Needed Aerosmith to make it a great song though
I'm with the OP. I just don't get the Beatles at all. Sometime I just about like them (Strawberry Fields), but then there's a horrible 'folksiness' to a lot of their catalogue, e.g. Penny Lane, that just makes me want to retch.
I also question the validity of saying something is good because it was good in the 60s, and inspired lots of (better) music later. For the same reason it doesn't matter whether it's your generation's music or not. I can think of plenty of 60s music (The Animals, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, etc.) that I like, but the Beatles I do not.
I also question the validity of saying something is good because it was good in the 60s, and inspired lots of (better) music later. For the same reason it doesn't matter whether it's your generation's music or not. I can think of plenty of 60s music (The Animals, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, etc.) that I like, but the Beatles I do not.
LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
...there's a fair chance that you like a Lennon or McCartney song done by someone else - Helter Skelter/Aerosmith
Is that a Lennon/McCartney song?Blimey, the best they managed with me until now was a very occasional all right-ish. But here's a Beatles song I can regard as good!
Needed Aerosmith to make it a great song though
Johnny - It's a generational thing. You had to be there to know what a seismic shift it was. All the bands you mention got gigs on the back of the Beatles. Don't get me wrong, I FAR prefer Zep... then and now, but just like Lotus or Fender, there are those that pave the way. Lennon/McCartney were those people.
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 10th April 19:44
Johnnytheboy said:
I'm with the OP. I just don't get the Beatles at all. Sometime I just about like them (Strawberry Fields), but then there's a horrible 'folksiness' to a lot of their catalogue, e.g. Penny Lane, that just makes me want to retch.
That's the Nursery Rhyme-itis thing.Mind you... there's one artist who I love.. Lee 'Scratch' Perry who used all sorts of weird noises, themes and samples... one or two tracks contain bits of actual Nursery Rhymes and I simply cannot listen to them.... even more annoying as I really like the tracks when the ditty stops and it gets going.. Half A Pound of Tuppeny Rice... what the f**k!! I have to skip tracks... and NOW it's in my head again and it's all your fault.
parakitaMol. said:
LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
LikesBikes said:
otolith said:
...there's a fair chance that you like a Lennon or McCartney song done by someone else - Helter Skelter/Aerosmith
Is that a Lennon/McCartney song?Blimey, the best they managed with me until now was a very occasional all right-ish. But here's a Beatles song I can regard as good!
Needed Aerosmith to make it a great song though
Edit: No not as good as Aerosmith. Motley Crue version not at all bad though! Is there anyone who has failed to cover this song?
Edited by LikesBikes on Friday 10th April 20:03
GetCarter said:
Johnny - It's a generational thing. You had to be there to know what a seismic shift it was. All the bands you mention got gigs on the back of the Beatles. Don't get me wrong, I FAR prefer Zep... then and now, but just like Lotus or Fender, there are those that pave the way. Lennon/McCartney were those people.
Yes, but as I said, IMO something being better than what preceded it doesn't make it good forever. The other dynamics that operate are around mass marketing/media/branding....
The Beatles are a brand as much as a band. Cult or culture with each decade has significant ideologies connected with 'teen identity' an important phase in self-identity/socialisation.... hence why whatever age you are you deem your parents incapable of understanding.. part of this is true because of the 'sub text' which operates in a peer group.
They (Beatles et al) represent (to those who identify strongly with them) more subtext and associations than simply music, a time dated stamp if you like.... this is slightly diffrerent to those who just like the music (perhaps from later generations)...
Look how strong 'The Who' or 'Lambretta'... are as brands nowadays. It's evocative, a retro association which usually recycles after 30 or so years (now I see that Ladybird books) are on sale again in boxed sets.
Anyway... probably I am being too analytical again.
It might explain why ttting puffball skirts and pegged jeans are back on shelves! still doesn't make anyone wearing them look great though!
The Beatles are a brand as much as a band. Cult or culture with each decade has significant ideologies connected with 'teen identity' an important phase in self-identity/socialisation.... hence why whatever age you are you deem your parents incapable of understanding.. part of this is true because of the 'sub text' which operates in a peer group.
They (Beatles et al) represent (to those who identify strongly with them) more subtext and associations than simply music, a time dated stamp if you like.... this is slightly diffrerent to those who just like the music (perhaps from later generations)...
Look how strong 'The Who' or 'Lambretta'... are as brands nowadays. It's evocative, a retro association which usually recycles after 30 or so years (now I see that Ladybird books) are on sale again in boxed sets.
Anyway... probably I am being too analytical again.
It might explain why t
tting puffball skirts and pegged jeans are back on shelves! still doesn't make anyone wearing them look great though!
Funk Odyssey said:
Adam B said:
OP - imagine if all the music you ever heard up until this point was The Beatles, day in day out.
And then today you hear "NWA - fk the police"
that must have been the kind of impact the beatles had on the nation (I was alive during the 60s)
find it very odd that a music lover can't find half a dozen Beatles songs they think are great
unfortunately it never takes long for someone's taste to be called into question!And then today you hear "NWA - f
k the police"that must have been the kind of impact the beatles had on the nation (I was alive during the 60s)
find it very odd that a music lover can't find half a dozen Beatles songs they think are great
Given some of the posts I stand corrected.
KB_S1 said:
Dickster said:
The production is understandably very poor, the mix is rubbish
Are you joking?Seriously, are you joking?
As a drummer in a Beatles Tribute I have to listen to them to learn the songs. Most of the time I don't even know if there any drums in it as all I can hear is a tambour-bloody-rine!!
Then again when I do finally hear any drums I realise Ringo just stops playing his bass drum every now and then, or if he doesn't then it's not in the mix.
But as I said this is how I hear most of the stuff from that era and maybe I'm listening more to the drums than owt else?
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff