Aint No Right

Six7Six7 wrote:

Pandemonium wrote:

Six7Six7 wrote:Yeah those Beatles guys really need to update their equipment.

Then they'd just be U2.

Dear god, I don't even want to know what it would sound like if those hippies had access to digital delay.

Not bad at all, actually. At least not Lennon:

Fucking Tame Impala.

Six7Six7 wrote:Fucking Tame Impala.

I liked their first album, it got pretty boring pretty fast after that

Mescal wrote:

Six7Six7 wrote:Fucking Tame Impala.

I liked their first album, it got pretty boring pretty fast after that

That's because they aren't called "Wild Impala".

The Beatles: A pretty big deal back in the day, but nowadays people are listening to their music and a lot of them are wondering what the big deal is? How are / were people so passionate about music which is maybe great in places, but pretty weak a lot of the rest of the time?

Well, maybe it's not actually that much about the music itself? Maybe it's about that band, at that moment in time and the cultural impact they had? Maybe it could have been any one of a number of bands doing what they were doing at the time, but they were the four guys who found themselves in right place, at the right time and what they did, with what (maybe somewhat limited) talent they had, just struck a chord with the kids at the right moment.

Listening to the music on its own, without the context in which it arose, is maybe ultimately futile? You'll never "get" the Beatles unless you lived through that period in history, and experienced what the Beatles brought against a backdrop of what was available on the radio and in the record stores before they brought it?

Maybe some or all of the above also applies to Jane's Addiction? (oops, sorry to bring things back 'on topic')?

panicparty wrote:The Beatles: A pretty big deal back in the day, but nowadays people are listening to their music and a lot of them are wondering what the big deal is? How are / were people so passionate about music which is maybe great in places, but pretty weak a lot of the rest of the time?

Well, maybe it's not actually that much about the music itself? Maybe it's about that band, at that moment in time and the cultural impact they had? Maybe it could have been any one of a number of bands doing what they were doing at the time, but they were the four guys who found themselves in right place, at the right time and what they did, with what (maybe somewhat limited) talent they had, just struck a chord with the kids at the right moment.

Listening to the music on its own, without the context in which it arose, is maybe ultimately futile? You'll never "get" the Beatles unless you lived through that period in history, and experienced what the Beatles brought against a backdrop of what was available on the radio and in the record stores before they brought it?

Maybe some or all of the above also applies to Jane's Addiction? (oops, sorry to bring things back 'on topic')?

The difference is that "Beatlemania" was a worldwide obsession for over a decade, and their effect on pop culture is massive. Jane's Addiction is a pop culture footnote, even if Lollapalooza survives another five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatle ... ar_culture

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/musi ... mbers.html

Popularity doesn't imply musical talent, of course. But these claims about not being able to "get" something unless you lived through it are probably overstated. Lots of people, including myself, "got" Jane's Addiction a decade after they broke up the first time... Lots of people get Elvis or the Beatles or Schumann or Mozart or whoever. The fact that some people are ignorant and literally don't know the history of these people AND they also happen not to think they're great doesn't matter. As KV likes to say: taste is taste. But this isn't about taste, it's about objective things, like novelty, ingenuity, impact, etc. And the facts just don't support denying those things to the Beatles.

Ok, so maybe the Beatles had the impact, and were the right guys at the right time.

But they made some great songs. No denying that.

A few years ago I had their '1' compilation album, and without being a Beatles fan, I could sing along to all the songs on that album.

Then later I bought some of their albums and liked other, less popular songs.

They touched many bases and paved the way for many bands to come. That's why they're still so popular.

Like KV (or panda) said. One half of the White Album is really great (dear Prudence, blackbird, Julia, Guitar gently weeps, happiness warm gun, etc, etc) the other half is horrible (obla di, obla da - and all the others)

And Hey Jude most be one of their cheesiest and most horrible songs.

So yeah, can't really dislike the Beatles, but they're not my favourite band

I like Hey Jude because it was a lullaby for me -- it's treacly, and it's a simple vocal, but it's a pretty complex composition as far as pop songs go. The Simpsons made fun of this baby-music thing later (the Boomers were my generation's parents, so of course Beatles, Zeppelin, Rolling Stones would become lullabies...), literally answering the question "Who are the Beatles?" as "They wrote all those songs on Maggie's baby-albums."

This is like, if Bob Dylan could sing:

Adurentibus Spina wrote: As KV likes to say: taste is taste. But this isn't about taste, it's about objective things, like novelty, ingenuity, impact, etc. And the facts just don't support denying those things to the Beatles.

Amen...writing off the Beatles as some other generations thing is like doing the same to Shakespeare

Massively uninformed

kv wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote: As KV likes to say: taste is taste. But this isn't about taste, it's about objective things, like novelty, ingenuity, impact, etc. And the facts just don't support denying those things to the Beatles.

Amen...writing off the Beatles as some other generations thing is like doing the same to Shakespeare

Massively uninformed

I hope my kids don't write off Oasis.

Oasis is fucking awesome

Pretty sure the relevant comparison would be Nirvana... But yeah...

I don't find Nirvana to be all that great.

kv wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote: As KV likes to say: taste is taste. But this isn't about taste, it's about objective things, like novelty, ingenuity, impact, etc. And the facts just don't support denying those things to the Beatles.

Agreed. But the point is, they are not EXCLUSIVE to the Beatles. Huge difference.

That's absurd...thats like discrediting Henry Ford because now there are tons of other auto makers

No it isn't. Because he was only the second person to start the motor car process. Music involving novelty, ingenuity and impact didn't start in the 1960's.

All I can do is laugh

Fair enough. Probably because you haven't got an answer.

Fair enough. Probably because you haven't got an answer.

We shouldn't be confusing music taste with objective influence, I think. Bandit doesn't like the Beatles, and that's a matter of taste. I do like them quite a bit, and there are some people who adore absolutely everything they did, including their shittiest songs. There's loads of levels there.

And another thing altogether is their influence, their significance for popular music in general. Let me go through a small list just for Sgt. Pepper's:

* Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band: Introduces the 'storyline' for the album, in what is the first widely recognized 'conceptual' record (this was, obviously, taken to new heights by several other bands in later years.) Let's not forget that up to this point in history, LPs were essentially a collection of songs and it was not expected for the songs to have any connection between each other.

* With a Little Help from My Friends: The seamless transition between these two songs was also a novelty, an interesting effect that would become widely used in the coming years, especially in conceptual albums. I'm not sure if drug references were a novelty then, but this song has them.

* Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds: This song has a 'signature' Lennon distorted voice (which was a recording novelty) and Harrison introduces the tambura to Western pop music. Of course, the dream-like quality of this song has been also hugely influential.

* Getting Better: Once again we see the tambura; in this song, the drum pattern is very unconventional and we must remember that this is a *pop* song; so when you get out of the norm, I think it's noteworthy. The bass line is also quite striking and influential. I think this song also has congas, which like the tambura are introduced in a context that's nothing like their native musical environments.

* Fixing a Hole: This is an odd one. Not sure what I can say about this song. Drug references?

* She's Leaving Home: Again, we have here a pop song that's nothing like a pop song. There are only strings and sort of choral voices, and it's not done in jest. This is one of those songs that as a musician or aspiring musician make you go "oh, so you can do that."

* Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite: This song plays with recording techniques, speeding up tapes, inverting tapes, chopping them up and pasting them back together, etc. It also goes along with the 'theme' of the album.

* Within You Without You: This song introduces popular music to a wide arrangement of instruments from India, which interact with a Western string section. The lyrics attempt to be deep and profoundly philosophical, which -again- is a novelty for pop music. There are odd signatures and odd keys, and the only Beatle to feature in any shape or form here is Harrison.

* When I'm Sixty-Four: This song features a more old-time jazz feel to it, with clarinets and a drummer that I'm 99% sure isn't Ringo (regardless of what the credits say).

* Lovely Rita: Can't say a lot about this one.

* Good Morning Good Morning: Odd time signature and -most importantly- double bass drum. In a pop song, and a horrible one at that. They also pull off a nice trick by 'transforming' a cock's noise into a guitar lick in the transition to the next song.

* Sgt. Pepper's (Reprise): I'm not sure if these 'reprise' versions were normal back then, but I'm assuming they weren't. Here, the band announces that the album is ending and sort of bring the theme to a close, with a tune that's familiar.

* A Day in the Life: A multi-section pop epic, which include a couple of special effects (novelty as well) and a final crescendo with a big-ass orchestra. And after the song, they created a small track that (since this was a vinyl LP) would loop infinitely as the needle reached the inner track.

They experimented with so, so many things, and they managed to create hits out of them. They influenced virtually every musician that came after them, and even those who were contemporary. In all of this, their producer was essential, obviously. He made sure they released good products and not just a mismatch of shit. At least not until #9, which doesn't count.

Larry, as a matter of interest, what would be your reason for them for them doing such a conceptual album? Drugs? Ulterior influences? Bored of writing teenage pop songs? A mixture of all three? I understand all the points you raised in your previous post. And yes, you're right, I don't like them. But as I've said quite a number of times before, I wholly accept what they have done for popular music and how they have influenced countless respectable artists. I just sometimes feel people are blinkered withthe whole Beatlemania thing. Had they not previously been so successful, would a conceptual album like Sgt. Peppers have been brushed under the carpet? Kind of like the Tom Dissevelt track I posted after Hype's Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite. That was written in the late 50's. You play that on the radio back in the day and people would go 'what the fuck is this?'

Bandit72 wrote:

This is terrible. It's Kenny G in an aquarium.

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Bandit72 wrote:

This is terrible. It's Kenny G in an aquarium.

Yeh, I'm not a big fan. BUT IT'S NOVEL THOUGH ISN'T IT.

Bandit72 wrote:

Adurentibus Spina wrote:

Bandit72 wrote:

This is terrible. It's Kenny G in an aquarium.

Yeh, I'm not a big fan. BUT IT'S NOVEL THOUGH ISN'T IT.

No.