Everyone raves about John Lennon but....
Discussion
, on their own they were never as good as they were togetherRickApple said:
scared but happy said:
Sorry I always prefered John as the TRUE beatle...
Paul just hangs on the memory and milks it for all its worth
reworded to put my point across
>> Edited by scared but happy on Sunday 12th June 18:32
Maybe John would have done too had he not exited early!
Perhaps if John was still alive people wouldn't be getting so misty-eyed over The Beatles in the first place.
Same with Elvis Presley and Tupac Shakur (and to a lesser extent B.I.G).
>> Edited by DanBoy on Sunday 12th June 21:22
Not a massive fan of the Beatles (wasn't there at the time though I get the idea I'd be more of a 'Stones man), though I agree - John Lennon is vastly overrated, mainly because he got shot.
'Imagine' is a communist dirge. With all his other stuff, him and his band just took drugs and did whatever came into their heads, and from my POV, it shows, badly. Listening to Lennon's solo stuff is like having a conversation with a stoned person.
I prefer the Beatles later work they did together - Revolver being probably their best. Of all the Beatles, I'd say George Harrison was probably the most lyrically and musically talented, and massively under-rated.
>> Edited by Twincam16 on Sunday 12th June 21:50
'Imagine' is a communist dirge. With all his other stuff, him and his band just took drugs and did whatever came into their heads, and from my POV, it shows, badly. Listening to Lennon's solo stuff is like having a conversation with a stoned person.
I prefer the Beatles later work they did together - Revolver being probably their best. Of all the Beatles, I'd say George Harrison was probably the most lyrically and musically talented, and massively under-rated.
>> Edited by Twincam16 on Sunday 12th June 21:50
He's a musical abomination but pretty much the birth of the music industry as we know it.
If you want proper music, try:-
www.harrystoneham.co.uk I am listening to his hammond trio version of "Do you know the way to San Jose?" right now. Pure musical fatness, an arse swinging samba you can really shake your moustache to. 2 HAMMOND ORGANS!!!!
If you want proper music, try:-
www.harrystoneham.co.uk I am listening to his hammond trio version of "Do you know the way to San Jose?" right now. Pure musical fatness, an arse swinging samba you can really shake your moustache to. 2 HAMMOND ORGANS!!!!
Like quite a few of the "great events" of the 1960s, many people who were either too young at the time, or were'nt even born, can be quite dismissive of their significance (think the Apollo moon landings). The same goes for The Beatles. To undersatnd what The Beatles meant to pop and rock music is to understand how pop and rock music was judged before The Beatles. Prior to 1963, it was assumed by the music industry that pop and rock was a passing fad and would soon fade away to be replaced by something else - maybe a return of the big bands or crooners. Even The Beatles thought that they would be lucky to be popular for two or three years.
What The Beatles did was elevate the status of pop and rock music to a level where it was taken as a serious musical art form. I have no doubt that other musicians and bands might have done this sooner or later - people like The Beach Boys and Burt Bacharach were already deviating from simple pop ballads by the mid 1960s. But it was The Beatles who made the breakthrough first.
And The Beatles would not have existed without John Lennon. He was the soul and inspiration behind the group.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 13th June 09:31
What The Beatles did was elevate the status of pop and rock music to a level where it was taken as a serious musical art form. I have no doubt that other musicians and bands might have done this sooner or later - people like The Beach Boys and Burt Bacharach were already deviating from simple pop ballads by the mid 1960s. But it was The Beatles who made the breakthrough first.
And The Beatles would not have existed without John Lennon. He was the soul and inspiration behind the group.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 13th June 09:31
Anyone read 'Revolution In The Head' by Ian MacDonald?
Great book even if you're not the biggest fan.
He attempts to put the bands creation, evolution and their songs in some sort of cultural/social perspective.
Having listened to their albums, I honestly don't think they would have surviced without the apparently symbiotic relationship between Lennon and McCartney; you had the commonly held public perception that one was the transcendent visionary while the other was the workmanlike, but fun loving craftsman. I do feel they both had an equal knack for writing good songs and tunes even if they were both working to a formula many times over; Lennon's linear, but melodic style and McCartney's extravagent use of harmonic development. Fortunately most of the time the operated within some sort of usable parameters and gave the albums a varied but tasteful feel, but now and again they would stray too far on their own and Lennon in particular didn't have the musical wherewithal to reign an idea back in and McCartney had the annoying trait of glibness that you hear at least once on every album (only that he sometimes left Ringo to take immediate responsibiltiy for those
).
Taken to their extremes, operating individually, you get 'the white album' which, let's face it wouldn't have been that highly acclaimed if it had appeared earlier on in the careers. Although a brilliant album (and I'm not one ofg those that think it shoul've been abridged to a single album, I like it's wildness and indulgence), it must have been accepted due to the experimentation of Zappa and Beefheart. But then again, that's what The Beatles were good at, taking a musical idea, i.e. Rock and Roll, Chuck Berry, Booker T, The Mar Keys, Stax, Sam Cooke etc and doing something with it that we loved. And let's not forget that they would have sounded very different (better? simpler? rawer?) if it hadn't have been for George Martin and his team.
Great book even if you're not the biggest fan.
He attempts to put the bands creation, evolution and their songs in some sort of cultural/social perspective.
Having listened to their albums, I honestly don't think they would have surviced without the apparently symbiotic relationship between Lennon and McCartney; you had the commonly held public perception that one was the transcendent visionary while the other was the workmanlike, but fun loving craftsman. I do feel they both had an equal knack for writing good songs and tunes even if they were both working to a formula many times over; Lennon's linear, but melodic style and McCartney's extravagent use of harmonic development. Fortunately most of the time the operated within some sort of usable parameters and gave the albums a varied but tasteful feel, but now and again they would stray too far on their own and Lennon in particular didn't have the musical wherewithal to reign an idea back in and McCartney had the annoying trait of glibness that you hear at least once on every album (only that he sometimes left Ringo to take immediate responsibiltiy for those
). Taken to their extremes, operating individually, you get 'the white album' which, let's face it wouldn't have been that highly acclaimed if it had appeared earlier on in the careers. Although a brilliant album (and I'm not one ofg those that think it shoul've been abridged to a single album, I like it's wildness and indulgence), it must have been accepted due to the experimentation of Zappa and Beefheart. But then again, that's what The Beatles were good at, taking a musical idea, i.e. Rock and Roll, Chuck Berry, Booker T, The Mar Keys, Stax, Sam Cooke etc and doing something with it that we loved. And let's not forget that they would have sounded very different (better? simpler? rawer?) if it hadn't have been for George Martin and his team.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff