Graycap23 said:

Empress said:

In all honesty Gray, I don't think anything we could say would change your mind. I think you've made the decision not to like the Beatles, and therefore, you never will.

I have all of their material...............I have not made up my mind, but I've been listening 2 the material and it never "hits" me.

Fair enough. It is what it is. Maybe someday it will hit you. Have you ever watched the Beatles Anthology miniseries that was on tv in the 90's?

There are plenty of artists I don't get that others think are great and vice/versa.

Empress said:

Graycap23 said:

I have all of their material...............I have not made up my mind, but I've been listening 2 the material and it never "hits" me.

Fair enough. It is what it is. Maybe someday it will hit you. Have you ever watched the Beatles Anthology miniseries that was on tv in the 90's?

There are plenty of artists I don't get that others think are great and vice/versa.

I know. I didn't get Hendrix until a couple of years ago.

I still don't get Miles Davis that folks always seem 2 make a big fuss about.

I guess it comes down 2 the fact that u simply can't like every one.

Graycap23 said:

Empress said:

Fair enough. It is what it is. Maybe someday it will hit you. Have you ever watched the Beatles Anthology miniseries that was on tv in the 90's?

There are plenty of artists I don't get that others think are great and vice/versa.

I know. I didn't get Hendrix until a couple of years ago.

I still don't get Miles Davis that folks always seem 2 make a big fuss about.

I guess it comes down 2 the fact that u simply can't like every one.

Exactly! And, we all hear things differently too. Music to my ears might be fingernails down a chaulk board to you.

Empress said:

Graycap23 said:

I know. I didn't get Hendrix until a couple of years ago.

I still don't get Miles Davis that folks always seem 2 make a big fuss about.

I guess it comes down 2 the fact that u simply can't like every one.

Exactly! And, we all hear things differently too. Music to my ears might be fingernails down a chaulk board to you.

4 sho.

Graycap23 said:

The Beatles love just baffles my mind.

I love music......all types of music the the music that I love the most if music that I can feel.

There isn't a single Beatles song performed by them that I can feel.

Not a single one yet covers by folks like Donnie Hathaway send chills down my spine.

I just don't get the Beatles love.

Can anyone please explain it 2 me.

I'm not talking about the writing of lyrics, about talking about their performance of their own material.

I don't don't just get.

I'm right there with you Gray.

Also LOL at the hate for expressing an preference. Some people really can't take it when someone expresses something that doesn't fit in to their nice cosy preconceived worldview.

I actually agree with Van Morrison. Whose music I actually dig.

During a recent sitdown with The New Yorker, Morrison waxed nostaglic on the music he grew up on. When skiffle pioneer Lonnie Donegan and 'other practioners of pre-Beatles rock 'n' roll' came up, Morrison took issue with the term.

"That's a cliché," he said. "I don't think 'pre-Beatles' means anything, because there was stuff before them. Over here, you have a different slant. You measure things in terms of The Beatles. We don't think music started there. Rolling Stone magazine does, because it's their mythology.

"The Beatles were peripheral. If you had more knowledge about music, it didn't really mean anything. To me, it was meaningless."

Militant said:

What does van Morrison's opinion of the beatles influence on him have to do with a shitty MJ cover of a great song.

Are the beatles the be all and end all...no. They usually werent even the first to employ the unusual techniques in recording and writing(usually prompted by george m.). They did afford their fame to bring their uniqueness to the fore of pop music at a time when risk was taboo in pop music. Time signature changes, major tempo changes, bizzare and/or outdated instrumentation. Hell they were recording 4 track when the US was recording 16...out of ignorance. They only recorded together for like 6-8 years. By no means r they gods....but by no means is that shitty cover of Come Together worthy of neing passed through a speaker again.
[Edited 7/11/13 16:42pm]

During a recent sitdown with The New Yorker, Morrison waxed nostaglic on the music he grew up on. When skiffle pioneer Lonnie Donegan and 'other practioners of pre-Beatles rock 'n' roll' came up, Morrison took issue with the term.

"That's a cliché," he said. "I don't think 'pre-Beatles' means anything, because there was stuff before them. Over here, you have a different slant. You measure things in terms of The Beatles. We don't think music started there. Rolling Stone magazine does, because it's their mythology.

"The Beatles were peripheral. If you had more knowledge about music, it didn't really mean anything. To me, it was meaningless."

I guess George agrees at 0:35:

Militant said:

Graycap23 said:

The Beatles love just baffles my mind.

I love music......all types of music the the music that I love the most if music that I can feel.

There isn't a single Beatles song performed by them that I can feel.

Not a single one yet covers by folks like Donnie Hathaway send chills down my spine.

I just don't get the Beatles love.

Can anyone please explain it 2 me.

I'm not talking about the writing of lyrics, about talking about their performance of their own material.

I don't don't just get.

I'm right there with you Gray.

Also LOL at the hate for expressing an preference. Some people really can't take it when someone expresses something that doesn't fit in to their nice cosy preconceived worldview.

I actually agree with Van Morrison. Whose music I actually dig.

During a recent sitdown with The New Yorker, Morrison waxed nostaglic on the music he grew up on. When skiffle pioneer Lonnie Donegan and 'other practioners of pre-Beatles rock 'n' roll' came up, Morrison took issue with the term.

"That's a cliché," he said. "I don't think 'pre-Beatles' means anything, because there was stuff before them. Over here, you have a different slant. You measure things in terms of The Beatles. We don't think music started there. Rolling Stone magazine does, because it's their mythology.

"The Beatles were peripheral. If you had more knowledge about music, it didn't really mean anything. To me, it was meaningless."

I think I saw Morrison saying something similar in another article--possibly in Rolling Stone. When you read someone say something like that, though--well, it's obviously true. Of any performer. Music didn't "start there," no matter which band/performer you're talking about. And if the person speaking is a contemporary of the band in question, who shared at least some of the same influences (or at least predecessors)--well, it's a sticky situation. So, A, let's talk about pre-B performers--clearly everything changed there. Huh? says A. Um, where does that leave me? But he's right that Rolling Stone (actually, probably most of America, or, as he puts it "over here") does seem to think that music--at least pop music outside of America--mostly starts with the Beatles. They're the first thing not from "over here" that mattered to us. So, until the Beatles really figured out how to rock (so goes the story) whatever they were doing over there has to be thought of as "pre-Beatles." And anyone who was doing something over there at the same time, but that wasn't doing exactly the same things as the Beatles, is, by implication, peripheral--exactly what he decides to call the Beatles in this quote. By saying that there was music history before and that it wasn't all heading toward the inevitable flowering of THE BEATLES, he's also suggesting there's musical history after that isn't just in the tradition of THE BEATLES. I can certainly understand the desire to make sure people don't forget that--no musician would want to feel that there work could be described as "pre-SOMEONE WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU" or "post-SOMEBODY WHO REALLY DID EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS BEFORE YOU EVER THOUGHT OF IT."

Militant said:

Also LOL at the hate for expressing an preference. Some people really can't take it when someone expresses something that doesn't fit in to their nice cosy preconceived worldview.

I think this has more to do with you turning this thread into the "Look at meee, Im Militant" thread.

EddieC said:

Militant said:

I think I saw Morrison saying something similar in another article--possibly in Rolling Stone. When you read someone say something like that, though--well, it's obviously true. Of any performer. Music didn't "start there," no matter which band/performer you're talking about. And if the person speaking is a contemporary of the band in question, who shared at least some of the same influences (or at least predecessors)--well, it's a sticky situation. So, A, let's talk about pre-B performers--clearly everything changed there. Huh? says A. Um, where does that leave me? But he's right that Rolling Stone (actually, probably most of America, or, as he puts it "over here") does seem to think that music--at least pop music outside of America--mostly starts with the Beatles. They're the first thing not from "over here" that mattered to us. So, until the Beatles really figured out how to rock (so goes the story) whatever they were doing over there has to be thought of as "pre-Beatles." And anyone who was doing something over there at the same time, but that wasn't doing exactly the same things as the Beatles, is, by implication, peripheral--exactly what he decides to call the Beatles in this quote. By saying that there was music history before and that it wasn't all heading toward the inevitable flowering of THE BEATLES, he's also suggesting there's musical history after that isn't just in the tradition of THE BEATLES. I can certainly understand the desire to make sure people don't forget that--no musician would want to feel that there work could be described as "pre-SOMEONE WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU" or "post-SOMEBODY WHO REALLY DID EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS BEFORE YOU EVER THOUGHT OF IT."

I think the more u know about music the more you realize everyone is peripheral to someone else. Prince created the minneapolis sound but in the end he was part of a much bigger movment, which included synthpop, electrofunk, post-punk and new wave as well as early electro hip-hop, and in the end this had started before him and would have happened without him (even though the "Prince clones" phenomenon probably wouldn't have sounded the same), and also when u listen to a lot you get to realize that Prince borrowed a lot from his predecessors (who doesn't?). It's the same with every artist, they don't pop-up outta nowhere and create something outta nothing.

Look at Tricky or Björk in the 90's: the first time I heard "Debut" and "Maxinquaye" I was like "shit, no one ever did anything like that" and it was true in a way but when I got deeper into early to mid-90's trip-hop and electronica, I came to realize that they were just the most visible artists of a much larger musical movement, and that they were highly inspired by their contemporaries and, of course, their predecessors.

I don't know shit about 60's rock but I'm quite sure that specialists would be able to dig many bands and artists contemporary to, or just a bit before the Beatles, that more or less did what they did and influenced them. The Beatles just became the most visible and probably also among the most talented artists of their generation but they didn't shit gold from eating rocks...

databank said:

EddieC said:

I think I saw Morrison saying something similar in another article--possibly in Rolling Stone. When you read someone say something like that, though--well, it's obviously true. Of any performer. Music didn't "start there," no matter which band/performer you're talking about. And if the person speaking is a contemporary of the band in question, who shared at least some of the same influences (or at least predecessors)--well, it's a sticky situation. So, A, let's talk about pre-B performers--clearly everything changed there. Huh? says A. Um, where does that leave me? But he's right that Rolling Stone (actually, probably most of America, or, as he puts it "over here") does seem to think that music--at least pop music outside of America--mostly starts with the Beatles. They're the first thing not from "over here" that mattered to us. So, until the Beatles really figured out how to rock (so goes the story) whatever they were doing over there has to be thought of as "pre-Beatles." And anyone who was doing something over there at the same time, but that wasn't doing exactly the same things as the Beatles, is, by implication, peripheral--exactly what he decides to call the Beatles in this quote. By saying that there was music history before and that it wasn't all heading toward the inevitable flowering of THE BEATLES, he's also suggesting there's musical history after that isn't just in the tradition of THE BEATLES. I can certainly understand the desire to make sure people don't forget that--no musician would want to feel that there work could be described as "pre-SOMEONE WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU" or "post-SOMEBODY WHO REALLY DID EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS BEFORE YOU EVER THOUGHT OF IT."

I think the more u know about music the more you realize everyone is peripheral to someone else. Prince created the minneapolis sound but in the end he was part of a much bigger movment, which included synthpop, electrofunk, post-punk and new wave as well as early electro hip-hop, and in the end this had started before him and would have happened without him (even though the "Prince clones" phenomenon probably wouldn't have sounded the same), and also when u listen to a lot you get to realize that Prince borrowed a lot from his predecessors (who doesn't?). It's the same with every artist, they don't pop-up outta nowhere and create something outta nothing.

Look at Tricky or Björk in the 90's: the first time I heard "Debut" and "Maxinquaye" I was like "shit, no one ever did anything like that" and it was true in a way but when I got deeper into early to mid-90's trip-hop and electronica, I came to realize that they were just the most visible artists of a much larger musical movement, and that they were highly inspired by their contemporaries and, of course, their predecessors.

I don't know shit about 60's rock but I'm quite sure that specialists would be able to dig many bands and artists contemporary to, or just a bit before the Beatles, that more or less did what they did and influenced them. The Beatles just became the most visible and probably also among the most talented artists of their generation but they didn't shit gold from eating rocks...

Agreed--and that's Morrison's point. It actually is relevant to him (and so is personal)--but it's also just plain true. Peripheral just means, really, that it's not what I'm looking at right now--it's off to the side of what I'm focussed on. But to have someone else talking to you, as a musician, and have them just assume (probably subconsciously) that people who are your contemporaries (and of comparable status, honestly) are the natural focus of any conversation--as if "well, of course the Beatles define music, so what do you have to say about that?"

People try to define music as if it were a river, or a group of rivers--there are tributaries that lead to the larger, main flow, and so they see influences heading toward the main thing and then after that, but with pretty stable boundaries for the main flow. It's more like the ocean, where there's all these currents that show general trends and are mostly separate, but that do exchange water and change their precise direction over time--except that we can imagine the finger of God coming down and stirring things up in certain areas every once in a while, so that genres mix in a certain way, or an artist from one genre is influenced (by chance) by another in another genre, and then that mixing spreads.

[Edited 7/12/13 11:43am]

callimnate said:

Militant said:

Also LOL at the hate for expressing an preference. Some people really can't take it when someone expresses something that doesn't fit in to their nice cosy preconceived worldview.

I think this has more to do with you turning this thread into the "Look at meee, Im Militant" thread.

He can't help himself.

Graycap23 said:

The Beatles love just baffles my mind.

I love music......all types of music the the music that I love the most if music that I can feel.

There isn't a single Beatles song performed by them that I can feel.

Not a single one yet covers by folks like Donnie Hathaway send chills down my spine.

I just don't get the Beatles love.

Can anyone please explain it 2 me.

I'm not talking about the writing of lyrics, about talking about their performance of their own material.

I don't don't just get.

Well I think either we get it or don't. No one can show you. If you ain't feeling it you just ain't feeling it. Just like in 1994, for me it was all about bad haircuts, Jodeci, Warren G but I ain't feeling it anymore.

It has something to do with songs that reach the masses. Being at the right place at the right time. Comminality in the sound, though some may confuse them The Monkees! Kind of like JayZ, Eminem, I don't really listen to his music but I know it's them.

Majority of these "phenomenons" I never really got. Like MJ, Bon Jovi, Nickelback or Coldplay. I never really got it but they somehow reached the masses.

They Beatles are alright but generally I'm more into the Stones.

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Graycap23 said:

The Beatles love just baffles my mind.

I love music......all types of music the the music that I love the most if music that I can feel.

There isn't a single Beatles song performed by them that I can feel.

Not a single one yet covers by folks like Donnie Hathaway send chills down my spine.

I just don't get the Beatles love.

Can anyone please explain it 2 me.

I'm not talking about the writing of lyrics, about talking about their performance of their own material.

I don't don't just get.

Well I think either we get it or don't. No one can show you. If you ain't feeling it you just ain't feeling it. Just like in 1994, for me it was all about bad haircuts, Jodeci, Warren G but I ain't feeling it anymore.

It has something to do with songs that reach the masses. Being at the right place at the right time. Comminality in the sound, though some may confuse them The Monkees! Kind of like JayZ, Eminem, I don't really listen to his music but I know it's them.

Majority of these "phenomenons" I never really got. Like MJ, Bon Jovi, Nickelback or Coldplay. I never really got it but they somehow reached the masses.

They Beatles are alright but generally I'm more into the Stones.

Now that I just don't get.

2freaky4church1 said:

He did the album, it's called Around the World in a Day.

pretty much that album is Prince's (unoffficial) tribute to the Beatles

Empress said:

There are plenty of artists I don't get that others think are great and vice/versa.

Alot of people love Joni Mitchell (hell,Prince practically worships her,lol),but I could never get into her music.As for the Beatles,I think they are the ultimate.We'll never see another band like them ever again.

Graycap23 said:

The Beatles love just baffles my mind.

I love music......all types of music the the music that I love the most if music that I can feel.

There isn't a single Beatles song performed by them that I can feel.

Not a single one yet covers by folks like Donnie Hathaway send chills down my spine.

I just don't get the Beatles love.

Can anyone please explain it 2 me.

I'm not talking about the writing of lyrics, about talking about their performance of their own material.

I don't don't just get.

I'm the biggest Beatles fan there is, but what you're saying makes perfect sense to me. Their songs were the most important thing. I mean the songwriting, not the performances. That is why everyone and their mother has covered them and even made their own classics out of them. But their instrumental performances are a little stiff, esp the early stuff.

But they also got some credit because they were a self-contained band. Look at Motown and Stax. Stevie aside, most of them used professional backing bands. Also rock bands like Beach Boys, for example. The Beatles did it themselves, so it sounds a little less than amazing sometimes

But the songs are fairly undeniable.

[Edited 7/15/13 21:00pm]

[Edited 7/15/13 21:02pm]

TheDigitalGardener said:

[Edited 7/15/13 19:17pm]