New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Why the Beatles worked As for anyone that didnt live through that time of the 60's like i didnt, we can never truly know what it felt like to experience that mania. I have heard comparisons in years past, like with MJ with New Kids on the Block or Nsync, but judging from going through those 3 artist's crazes, it doesnt seem like it was on the level of the hysteria of the Beatles.
But a bigger question has been, often of the org. why the Beatles? Well good question, they werent amazing at their instruments, nor stellar voices, but they were molded together well, like a puzzle. You had John, the rock guy, rebleious, You had Paul who could write a love song in a second, You had George who at times could do both and brought mystery to the group, and alas Ringo, the perfect drummer, not meaning a great player, he just knew his place in this puzzle and thats why things worked. And at the head of it, George Martin, someone who knew how to mold this together, and how to produce, to take their ideas and grow them, and at the same time The beatles influenced Martin to be better at his own craft. The difference with what the Beatles did then, was the fact that it was new, but at the same time is was all an experiment, after 1964 and their MANIA wore off you had possibly the greatest album run/growth of any artists of any time period, from Rubber Soul- Abbey Road in that short period of 5 years is mind blowing just for the output and the diversity. And also the lack of having the things available to them to create. That is very important and why i have huge issues with todays so-called producers, todays producers do-less with more available as opposed to George Martin who did more with almost nothing available to them. Regardless of what we all think of the Beatles, i think Paul said it best when he said "we were just a good little rock n roll band that could communicate to people" and thats very important at the end of the day, the Beatles didnt talk down to people nor talk about the negativity around them, they were always a very positive force. So the term "best ever" i dont like to use on anyone, but you will never have a combination like theres between the 4 and producer that worked as well. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
My opinion on the Beatles is the same as Elvis. They were basically copying off of American black music, specifically Chuck Berry. Why they took off so big I don't know. The music wasn't new or original (like Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix later on). I'll never understand the appeal (girls were pissing themselves). Was SGT. Pepper as good as everyone says? IMO, no. Same with the white album. The songs are well written, but that musical style just doesn't appeal to me that much. Lennon/McCartney were DECENT lyricists at best (Jagger/Richards is 10x better to me.) but they weren't virtuosos at their instruments. The Beatles just don't strike me as a band that deserves the hype they get. Maybe we can go to the movies and cry together | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You know with Jimi there's no history lesson required. Someone who doesn't have a clue hears him and that's that. You can put on records from other artists of the Beatle era and get the same positive response without an explanation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
hi moonbeam   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Volitan said: My opinion on the Beatles is the same as Elvis. They were basically copying off of American black music, specifically Chuck Berry. Why they took off so big I don't know. The music wasn't new or original (like Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix later on). I'll never understand the appeal (girls were pissing themselves). Was SGT. Pepper as good as everyone says? IMO, no. Same with the white album. The songs are well written, but that musical style just doesn't appeal to me that much. Lennon/McCartney were DECENT lyricists at best (Jagger/Richards is 10x better to me.) but they weren't virtuosos at their instruments. The Beatles just don't strike me as a band that deserves the hype they get.
Well Zeppelin was by far "new" considering they were taking from the blues greats. Queen would be a better reference on that. Beatle wise, everything after the mania was new, no one was doing songs like For No one or Norwegian Wood, Love You to, Tomorrow never knows etc...Sgt Pepper was just different, and even with Beatle fans is not considered their best album, that is always voted "Abbey Road". The Beatles werent great players at their instruments but at the same time every knew their part, you dont have to be the best players to get the best results, ive seen many bands with better musicians just plain suck because they dont how to do anything but play a good lick. I also think Lennon and McCartney were better than average at Lyrics and ideas, considering they didnt really write together anyway, but also Harrison who never gets spoken of probably is one of the best Number 3's in a group there has ever been, the stuff he brought to the band was new, who the hell was using Ravi shankar in the 60's in popular music? The question will always be whos better or best, and its impossible cause everyone isnt playing the same song. As for ROOTS, well everyone has them, thats why they wanna play to begin with, they were all influenced by someone and taking from someone. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Beatles were great; the vast majority of people can hear that. "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
IMO, why did The Beatles work? Elvis Presley. Elvis was the pop idol, the king, and you don't stay at the top of the pop music world forever, and they (kids) were looking for something new and different, and the Beatles fit that bill. Styles and fads has ruled pop music for years, as for copying Black music, that's been going on for centuries, Motown was supposed to have ruled the 60s, but...you know. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Volitan said: My opinion on the Beatles is the same as Elvis. They were basically copying off of American black music, specifically Chuck Berry. Why they took off so big I don't know. The music wasn't new or original (like Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix later on). I'll never understand the appeal (girls were pissing themselves). Was SGT. Pepper as good as everyone says? IMO, no. Same with the white album. The songs are well written, but that musical style just doesn't appeal to me that much. Lennon/McCartney were DECENT lyricists at best (Jagger/Richards is 10x better to me.) but they weren't virtuosos at their instruments. The Beatles just don't strike me as a band that deserves the hype they get.
Well Zeppelin was by far "new" considering they were taking from the blues greats. Queen would be a better reference on that. Beatle wise, everything after the mania was new, no one was doing songs like For No one or Norwegian Wood, Love You to, Tomorrow never knows etc...Sgt Pepper was just different, and even with Beatle fans is not considered their best album, that is always voted "Abbey Road". The Beatles werent great players at their instruments but at the same time every knew their part, you dont have to be the best players to get the best results, ive seen many bands with better musicians just plain suck because they dont how to do anything but play a good lick. I also think Lennon and McCartney were better than average at Lyrics and ideas, considering they didnt really write together anyway, but also Harrison who never gets spoken of probably is one of the best Number 3's in a group there has ever been, the stuff he brought to the band was new, who the hell was using Ravi shankar in the 60's in popular music? The question will always be whos better or best, and its impossible cause everyone isnt playing the same song. As for ROOTS, well everyone has them, thats why they wanna play to begin with, they were all influenced by someone and taking from someone. But Led Zeppelin DID put a new spin on their influnences, by making it loud, and "metal-izing it". The beatles were playing covers with no new spin on it..... Maybe we can go to the movies and cry together | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Volitan said: lastdecember said: Well Zeppelin was by far "new" considering they were taking from the blues greats. Queen would be a better reference on that. Beatle wise, everything after the mania was new, no one was doing songs like For No one or Norwegian Wood, Love You to, Tomorrow never knows etc...Sgt Pepper was just different, and even with Beatle fans is not considered their best album, that is always voted "Abbey Road". The Beatles werent great players at their instruments but at the same time every knew their part, you dont have to be the best players to get the best results, ive seen many bands with better musicians just plain suck because they dont how to do anything but play a good lick. I also think Lennon and McCartney were better than average at Lyrics and ideas, considering they didnt really write together anyway, but also Harrison who never gets spoken of probably is one of the best Number 3's in a group there has ever been, the stuff he brought to the band was new, who the hell was using Ravi shankar in the 60's in popular music? The question will always be whos better or best, and its impossible cause everyone isnt playing the same song. As for ROOTS, well everyone has them, thats why they wanna play to begin with, they were all influenced by someone and taking from someone. But Led Zeppelin DID put a new spin on their influnences, by making it loud, and "metal-izing it". The beatles were playing covers with no new spin on it..... So what songs were they covering, with the exception of the first 2-3 albums where there was a mix of songs written by them and others, everything from Rubber Soul was original, sorry, like them or not, no one was doing stuff like that. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i think the beatles succeeded in taking sounds that were exotic and avant garde at the time, and processing those sounds into their music in a way that was acceptable to mainstream audiences. they were okay musicians. they were great songwriters. i think they were brilliant tastemakers. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: Volitan said: But Led Zeppelin DID put a new spin on their influnences, by making it loud, and "metal-izing it". The beatles were playing covers with no new spin on it..... So what songs were they covering, with the exception of the first 2-3 albums where there was a mix of songs written by them and others, everything from Rubber Soul was original, sorry, like them or not, no one was doing stuff like that. It could be argued that the Beatles' image is what made them famous in the early years, and absolutely, their early albums were definitely pop-standards with significant influence from blues, roots and soul music, but 1965 onwards the Beatles were a driving creative force that significantly sculpted the musical landscape. Much of their music sounds ordinary now, only because its influence penetrated virtually every facet of pop and rock. It is also true that, while the Beatles were extremely creative and innovative in their own right, many other artists of the era were equally and more creative. However, what separated the Beatles and other artists, was that the Beatles were so huge, that their influence couldn't be missed. The musical stylings of groups like The Velvet Underground, or the Mothers of Invention went largely unnoticed at the time, but the Beatles were here, there and everywhere  .
Lastly, as has been mentioned, the Beatles weren't great musicians, but they were very capable, and very competent, capable of stretching their instruments to some extent, and aided by excellent producers, studio work, and occasional studio musicians. So we have a supergroup propelled to the front of the industry thanks to their early image, combined with artistic creativity influenced by many others but also distinctly theirs, and solid musicianship to drive their sound, makes them.... the biggest musical group of all time. "Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: i think the beatles succeeded in taking sounds that were exotic and avant garde at the time, and processing those sounds into their music in a way that was acceptable to mainstream audiences. they were okay musicians. they were great songwriters. i think they were brilliant tastemakers.
... 
tA  Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No one comes close to the Beatles, yet> If none of the great artists of the 60's or the 70's could do it, I don't see how anyone today could. Why they worked? They simply 'got it'. They understood what music was and was creative and proficient enough to carry it out on their musical rendezvous. The best of the best, at best simply understood one part of one thing the beatles did well.
Back to music itself; Others take it too serious, others not serious enough.Others may use the wrong instrument to play a note, some may have piss poor lyrics. What ever, the point is no one understood pop music like the beatles and carried it out. A band like Queen comes the closest. They're right behind the BEatles to me (you can put Zeppelin in the same category as Queen, Hendrix as well but right now I'm preferring Queen). They understood that the studio and a live performance where two different things. That's why I rank them higher than a band like Led Zeppelin. Most people just want to rock out, make music and I'm not saying Queen didn't want to do that but they understood that live performances and creating new music were two different entitites. I don't know another band who figured that part out. You get bands who are great live performers but make shitty albums or uncreative music (AC/DC anyone) or bands who are studio wonders and can concot decent albums (i.e. the Beatles) so in that regard Queen is the greatest band of all time. But I'm talking about the music itself when I say the beatles are the best. They made better music than Queen. The vocals werent better, the instrumentation wasn't better than a band like Queen or Zeppelin but the music was better. Is that hard for people to understand. Again, Queen is the best band ever because they understood that one thing that no other band (including the Beatles) can/could put together, that recording and playing live were two different things, you have bands who excel in one but not the other and very few do both to a degree that they appear like seperate entities. The Who may come close, Led Zeppelin may have come close but I don't think it was concious on their part. They simply made good albums and put on good live shows. It was an assertive effort on Queen's part to tackle them as two seperate things. But to the point of this thread, they still didn't make music as accessible and catchy as the Beatles to put it in simplest terms. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: As for anyone that didnt live through that time of the 60's like i didnt, we can never truly know what it felt like to experience that mania. I have heard comparisons in years past, like with MJ with New Kids on the Block or Nsync, but judging from going through those 3 artist's crazes, it doesnt seem like it was on the level of the hysteria of the Beatles.
who, when and what said this? truly whoever said that didn't understand exactly what the beatles were. They were more than a "boy band"... clearly they were artists. u call anyone in bold a true artist (write, records, instrumentation) compared to them.. i'll pimp slap them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: As for anyone that didnt live through that time of the 60's like i didnt, we can never truly know what it felt like to experience that mania. I have heard comparisons in years past, like with MJ with New Kids on the Block or Nsync, but judging from going through those 3 artist's crazes, it doesnt seem like it was on the level of the hysteria of the Beatles.
But a bigger question has been, often of the org. why the Beatles? Well good question, they werent amazing at their instruments, nor stellar voices, but they were molded together well, like a puzzle. You had John, the rock guy, rebleious, You had Paul who could write a love song in a second, You had George who at times could do both and brought mystery to the group, and alas Ringo, the perfect drummer, not meaning a great player, he just knew his place in this puzzle and thats why things worked. And at the head of it, George Martin, someone who knew how to mold this together, and how to produce, to take their ideas and grow them, and at the same time The beatles influenced Martin to be better at his own craft. The difference with what the Beatles did then, was the fact that it was new, but at the same time is was all an experiment, after 1964 and their MANIA wore off you had possibly the greatest album run/growth of any artists of any time period, from Rubber Soul- Abbey Road in that short period of 5 years is mind blowing just for the output and the diversity. And also the lack of having the things available to them to create. That is very important and why i have huge issues with todays so-called producers, todays producers do-less with more available as opposed to George Martin who did more with almost nothing available to them. Regardless of what we all think of the Beatles, i think Paul said it best when he said "we were just a good little rock n roll band that could communicate to people" and thats very important at the end of the day, the Beatles didnt talk down to people nor talk about the negativity around them, they were always a very positive force. So the term "best ever" i dont like to use on anyone, but you will never have a combination like theres between the 4 and producer that worked as well. New Kids on the Block? *NSYNC? Come on! The people who said this had no idea what they were talking about. Now Michael Jackson, I can believe. The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson -- the biggest selling recording artists in modern popular music and entertainment. I suggest you take a class on the history of modern popular music to fully appreciate their impact on popular music and culture. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kdj997 said: No one comes close to the Beatles, yet> If none of the great artists of the 60's or the 70's could do it, I don't see how anyone today could. Why they worked? They simply 'got it'. They understood what music was and was creative and proficient enough to carry it out on their musical rendezvous. The best of the best, at best simply understood one part of one thing the beatles did well.
Back to music itself; Others take it too serious, others not serious enough.Others may use the wrong instrument to play a note, some may have piss poor lyrics. What ever, the point is no one understood pop music like the beatles and carried it out. A band like Queen comes the closest. They're right behind the BEatles to me (you can put Zeppelin in the same category as Queen, Hendrix as well but right now I'm preferring Queen). They understood that the studio and a live performance where two different things. That's why I rank them higher than a band like Led Zeppelin. Most people just want to rock out, make music and I'm not saying Queen didn't want to do that but they understood that live performances and creating new music were two different entitites. I don't know another band who figured that part out. You get bands who are great live performers but make shitty albums or uncreative music (AC/DC anyone) or bands who are studio wonders and can concot decent albums (i.e. the Beatles) so in that regard Queen is the greatest band of all time. But I'm talking about the music itself when I say the beatles are the best. They made better music than Queen. The vocals werent better, the instrumentation wasn't better than a band like Queen or Zeppelin but the music was better. Is that hard for people to understand. Again, Queen is the best band ever because they understood that one thing that no other band (including the Beatles) can/could put together, that recording and playing live were two different things, you have bands who excel in one but not the other and very few do both to a degree that they appear like seperate entities. The Who may come close, Led Zeppelin may have come close but I don't think it was concious on their part. They simply made good albums and put on good live shows. It was an assertive effort on Queen's part to tackle them as two seperate things. But to the point of this thread, they still didn't make music as accessible and catchy as the Beatles to put it in simplest terms. Well i agree 100% on Queen, i feel the same way, and also the fact that they are not held in higher regard is always disturbing. I think musician for musician there isnt a band that can match their talents, they simply had the best players. I often wonder what the Beatles could have done live after they decided to stop touring. their early tours were just screamfests as the members always said, so to them they couldnt even grow in that live forum because people wouldnt let them, the enviroment was too insane for them to even play. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The New Kids or NSync generated a huge wave of fan mania but nothing close to what MJ and the Beatles generated. Michael mania was easily as big as Beatlemania. Unlike the former, everybody was caught in Michael fever. It was global; By opposition, most blacks were into Motown when the Beatles were hot. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I never got the Beatles. Not having lived through the 60's I don't see what the fuss was about.
Sure, I can appreciate the impact that had from a historical point of view, but their music really does nothing for me. I Wanna Hold Your Hand?....errr, no thanks. The music seems too soft for me. And it always cheeses me off the amount of stick I get for saying that I don't like their music! www.filmsfilmsfilms.co.uk - The internet's best movie site! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DaveT said: I never got the Beatles. Not having lived through the 60's I don't see what the fuss was about.
That has nothing to do with it. Sure, I can appreciate the impact that had from a historical point of view, but their music really does nothing for me. I Wanna Hold Your Hand?....errr, no thanks. The music seems too soft for me. And it always cheeses me off the amount of stick I get for saying that I don't like their music!
With all due respect, my guess is that most of them just assume you're ignorant. The likelihood of not finding a Beatles song you like is very low. If "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is too soft for you, what about "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Baby You're a Rich Man"? For every "She Loves You" and "Love Me Do," there's a "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." Of course, it's cool if you don't like the Beatles; plenty of people feel the same way. It's not cool if you're one of those people who just says they don't like the Beatles (having heard little to nothing from them) just to be a contrarian. Those people are idiots.  "Whitney was purely and simply one of a kind." ~ Clive Davis | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AlexdeParis said: DaveT said: I never got the Beatles. Not having lived through the 60's I don't see what the fuss was about.
That has nothing to do with it. Sure, I can appreciate the impact that had from a historical point of view, but their music really does nothing for me. I Wanna Hold Your Hand?....errr, no thanks. The music seems too soft for me. And it always cheeses me off the amount of stick I get for saying that I don't like their music!
With all due respect, my guess is that most of them just assume you're ignorant. The likelihood of not finding a Beatles song you like is very low. If "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is too soft for you, what about "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Baby You're a Rich Man"? For every "She Loves You" and "Love Me Do," there's a "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." Of course, it's cool if you don't like the Beatles; plenty of people feel the same way. It's not cool if you're one of those people who just says they don't like the Beatles (having heard little to nothing from them) just to be a contrarian. Those people are idiots. Quite the opposite my friend, I love plenty of the big bands from that era....I love the Stones, they seem to have a harder edge to them than the Beatles. Tracks like Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter; I haven't heard a track from the Beatles that matched it for its grittiness. Pink Floyd, The Kinks, The Beach Boys and others I have a great fondness for them. And I want to like the Beatles, it just doesn't do it for me and it has nothing to do with wanting to contradict the popular opinion. The problem I have is that people think I'm saying they were crap....far from it, I have great respect for their talent, song-writing and what they achieved. There's just something about their stuff that I don't like. Its tough to put my finger on it! Odd really, but I think most music fans have one big-name musical act that they don't like despite them being held as talented and popular. www.filmsfilmsfilms.co.uk - The internet's best movie site! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
There's an orger that says that JAMIROQUAI ARE SUPERIOR to the beatles...  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I often skip the first couple of Beatles albums since its more 50's type compositions.
However, from Rubber Soul on I don't think you can argue that the song quality and qty of good songs will never be touched. Musicians today can build on the ground they laid with the harmonies and the chord structures. Led Zep ripped off their whole first album from blues standards this has been proven. Stones are cool,but more a one trick pony. Queen is fantastic but def have some songs that miss the mark. Beatles IMO nailed everything with less than one throw away track per album. Music is the best... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think some people here get it and anybody making comparisons to Chuck Berry missed it. Now the Stones and Chuck Berry, that's another story.
The music they created in the studio (that they couldn't play live) was more than exceptional, it was break-out, never before done and genius songwriting. Put that in context of the fact that they did most of it with 4 tracks! Without their work, a lot of musicians who came afterward would be in the dark. Regardless of what anybody thinks, history has been written and that's that. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Part of the reason they had such style was that they were unable to really emulate the R&B they so loved from America.
They actually tried to copy it, but it never sounded much like American rock or R&B to me. Once they accepted that and recognized themselves as creative forces in their own right, they made even better music. The addition of Dylan, Beethoven, avant garde art, showtunes, Indian music, etc to their influences made them a unique entity. They went their own direction, and like Anx said, they were able to not lose their audience when they did it. The music always stayed accessible, without pandering to the masses. My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Part of the reason they had such style was that they were unable to really emulate the R&B they so loved from America.
They actually tried to copy it, but it never sounded much like American rock or R&B to me. Once they accepted that and recognized themselves as creative forces in their own right, they made even better music. The addition of Dylan, Beethoven, avant garde art, showtunes, Indian music, etc to their influences made them a unique entity. They went their own direction, and like Anx said, they were able to not lose their audience when they did it. The music always stayed accessible, without pandering to the masses. Yep. That's why the Beatles worked, lol. They realized their limitations when they did R&B covers! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: NDRU said: Part of the reason they had such style was that they were unable to really emulate the R&B they so loved from America.
They actually tried to copy it, but it never sounded much like American rock or R&B to me. Once they accepted that and recognized themselves as creative forces in their own right, they made even better music. The addition of Dylan, Beethoven, avant garde art, showtunes, Indian music, etc to their influences made them a unique entity. They went their own direction, and like Anx said, they were able to not lose their audience when they did it. The music always stayed accessible, without pandering to the masses. Yep. That's why the Beatles worked, lol. They realized their limitations when they did R&B covers! and found their own way well enough to inspire covers from Ray, Aretha, Stevie... My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Timmy84 said: Yep. That's why the Beatles worked, lol. They realized their limitations when they did R&B covers! and found their own way well enough to inspire covers from Ray, Aretha, Stevie... Indeed, they formed a delightful source of inspiration that fed back into the very source of their origins.  test | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Timmy84 said: Yep. That's why the Beatles worked, lol. They realized their limitations when they did R&B covers! and found their own way well enough to inspire covers from Ray, Aretha, Stevie... ...Donny, Marvin, Tina, Michael, En Vogue, Blackstreet, Lakeside... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lastdecember said: As for anyone that didnt live through that time of the 60's like i didnt, we can never truly know what it felt like to experience that mania. I have heard comparisons in years past, like with MJ with New Kids on the Block or Nsync, but judging from going through those 3 artist's crazes, it doesnt seem like it was on the level of the hysteria of the Beatles.
I was around for Beatle-Mania and imo, there's no comparison. Not even MJ. tA Tribal Disorder
http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431 "Ya see, we're not interested in what you know...but what you are willing to learn. C'mon y'all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Part of the reason they had such style was that they were unable to really emulate the R&B they so loved from America.
They actually tried to copy it, but it never sounded much like American rock or R&B to me. Once they accepted that and recognized themselves as creative forces in their own right, they made even better music. The addition of Dylan, Beethoven, avant garde art, showtunes, Indian music, etc to their influences made them a unique entity. They went their own direction, and like Anx said, they were able to not lose their audience when they did it. The music always stayed accessible, without pandering to the masses. Exactly, and this is my they worked. They realized limitations that they had, and made it all work together. I mean you can put all the best musicians together and when they make something, it just aint all that, i mean we have all seen supergroups thrown together and they just dont work. The Beatles "worked" because they knew what they were doing and what they were capable of doing, they adjusted to it all. And alot of credit has to go to George Martin who was the real "5th Beatle" how Billy Preston got that title i will never know. But George Martin was someone that could reign in all of what they were willing to try and make it work so well too. I mean who was thinking of the things that they were? Tearing up pieces of tapes throwing them in the air and then picking them up off the ground and putting them together to make a track sound different. Martin was doing all of this with the least possible things, stringing tape machines together, finding instruments no one had ever used, etc.. "We went where our music was appreciated, and that was everywhere but the USA, we knew we had fans, but there is only so much of the world you can play at once" Magne F | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |