Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What was so different about the beatles?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    MoominPapa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭MoominPapa


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>McCartney- I think he was a good songwriter, but not as good a musician as others.
    Jack Bruce:
    Ask him who he regards as the best bass players in pop and rock history and he answers at once: “If you’re talking electric bass, it’s very, very simple: James Jamerson, Paul McCartney, Jaco Pastorius, me.”
    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4025183.ece

    Jack Bruce on McCartney:
    Where to begin? I Feel Fine, Paperback Writer, The Word, Rain, Taxman, Dear Prudence, Come Together? Or, following the Beatles, Listen to What the Man Said, Coming Up, Take It Away? Even on relatively minor Beatles songs, McCartney wrung beauty out of his bass where most of his contemporaries (and successors) would have made do with the root notes. A genius.
    http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4025232.ece

    But then what would he know compared to you?


  • Options
    #93
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    MoominPapa wrote: »
    But then what would he know compared to you?

    ==>Yeah, all those Wings albums, his new stuff that he flogs off in starbucks; not to mention ebony and ivory with Stevie wonder. You call it genius- I have my own word for it, 'sh1te'.


  • Options
    #94
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Glassheart wrote: »
    If you believe Idioteque is better than I am the Walrus then you don't deserve ears.That's an awful song.
    Idioteque is Radiohead's best song. GTFO! In fact, out of the list Bubs101 gave, only Paranoid Android and Idioteque would be really "great" IMO.

    It's odd that you'd be a big fan of I am the Walrus and hate Idioteque; they're both pretty abstract.

    Anyway, the Beatles are like the soundtrack to a massively interesting and unique period of time. They were probably the first popular band to ever create songs trying to emulate an acid trip, and based it on real experiences rather than trying to make something "trippy" based on what's commonly perceived as "trippy" (because a common perception of "trippiness" did not exist at the time).


  • Options
    #95
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    I think you're confusing 'successful' with 'controversial' - if anything, Punk was more 'successful' in the US given its ready adoption by a more liberal media.

    ==>So you think the media in America are more liberal?[/QUOTE]

    Guess you didn't take the time to read my reply properly - unsurprising.


  • Options
    #96
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>Yeah, all those Wings albums, his new stuff that he flogs off in starbucks; not to mention ebony and ivory with Stevie wonder. You call it genius- I have my own word for it, 'sh1te'.

    Actually, Jack Bruce called it genius.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>Pink Floyd. Better Musicians, better albums, better lyircs- they did what the Beatles tried to do, but the Beatles didn't have the talent, the Beatles were too busy making sure everything had a catchy chorus.

    Please stop posting, you have NO idea what you're talking about.


  • Options
    #98
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Actually, Jack Bruce called it genius.

    ==>and you posted it.


  • Options
    #99
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Guess you didn't take the time to read my reply properly - unsurprising.[/quote]

    ==>I did read it- but you didn't explain yourself properly. You're to busy making pompous remarks.


  • Options
    #100
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Please stop posting, you have NO idea what you're talking about.


    ==>At least I don't have to rely on quotes from other people to back up what I know is right.


  • Options
    #101
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    Anyway, the Beatles are like the soundtrack to a massively interesting and unique period of time. They were probably the first popular band to ever create songs trying to emulate an acid trip, and based it on real experiences rather than trying to make something "trippy" based on what's commonly perceived as "trippy" (because a common perception of "trippiness" did not exist at the time).[/quote]

    ==>Lots of Jazz musicians did a similar thing years before when they transformed their drug experiences in to music pieces.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    McCartney did write some ****e songs ,mary had a lil lamb springs to mind along with some good stuff like, listen to what the man said ,band on the run ,another day 'silly love songs * great brass section on that one *
    ZakAttak wrote: »
    Anyway, the Beatles are like the soundtrack to a massively interesting and unique period of time. They were probably the first popular band to ever create songs trying to emulate an acid trip, and based it on real experiences rather than trying to make something "trippy" based on what's commonly perceived as "trippy" (because a common perception of "trippiness" did not exist at the time).
    QUOTE]

    Dr Robert, strawberry fields ,rain ,penny lane and the whole sgt pepper album are all very trippy .


  • Options
    #103
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>and you posted it.

    See, you couldn't even get THAT right.


  • Options
    #104
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    Guess you didn't take the time to read my reply properly - unsurprising.

    ==>I did read it- but you didn't explain yourself properly. You're to busy making pompous remarks.[/QUOTE]

    I guess I gave you too much credit in assuming you'd appreciate the differenece between 'was' and 'is'.


  • Options
    #105
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>At least I don't have to rely on quotes from other people to back up what I know is right.

    That's generally how an argument works. I think you're trolling at this stage. Best leave.


  • Options
    #106
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    TelePaul wrote: »
    That's generally how an argument works. I think you're trolling at this stage. Best leave.

    ==>If you don't want debate what are you doing here. I think it would be better if you left, I was talking about music until you turned it in to a personal attack- which is what people do when they dont have a decent argument.


  • Options
    #107
    pinksoir
    Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>If you don't want debate what are you doing here. I think it would be better if you left, I was talking about music until you turned it in to a personal attack- which is what people do when they dont have a decent argument.
    To be honest, you can't really debate if one side is just arguing opinion with baseless assertions.

    The evidence (ie all the innovative basslines throughout the Beatles work) shows that Paul was a fine bass player, if not the best of his generation. The basslines are both technically well played and extremely creative. Penny lane has even been used as an example by classical music professors because it is so theoretically advanced. It changes key about four times before the chorus but never sounds 'out'. For a pop musician that's quite an achievement.

    You have accused Telepaul a couple of times now times of not having a decent argument, but have failed to provide any yourself. At least he ha offered examples that support his position (not least the example of Jack Bruce, largely considered the best bass player around, calling McCartney a genius and ranking him in the top four bass players in the world) whereas you time and again have merely stated your opinion (it's sh1te!!lolz) and when asked to back it up with any reason the best you have done is say

    "At least I don't have to rely on quotes from other people to back up what I know is right."

    Pathetic. You sound like a child arguing with an adult about something you have no clue about.

    Stop using that arrow crap too.


  • Options
    #108
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>At least I don't have to rely on quotes from other people to back up what I know is right.

    very childish thing to say , using others quotes which we all do is a mark of respect and acknolwledgement of others view points .


  • Options
    #109
    ZakAttak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭ZakAttak


    pinksoir wrote: »
    To be honest, you can't really debate if one side is just arguing opinion with baseless assertions.

    The evidence (ie all the innovative basslines throughout the Beatles work) shows that Paul was a fine bass player, if not the best of his generation. The basslines are both technically well played and extremely creative. Penny lane has even been used as an example by classical music professors because it is so theoretically advanced. It changes key about four times before the chorus but never sounds 'out'. For a pop musician that's quite an achievement.

    You have accused Telepaul a couple of times now times of not having a decent argument, but have failed to provide any yourself. At least he ha offered examples that support his position (not least the example of Jack Bruce, largely considered the best bass player around, calling McCartney a genius and ranking him in the top four bass players in the world) whereas you time and again have merely stated your opinion (it's sh1te!!lolz) and when asked to back it up with any reason the best you have done is say

    "At least I don't have to rely on quotes from other people to back up what I know is right."

    Pathetic. You sound like a child arguing with an adult about something you have no clue about.

    Stop using that arrow crap too.


    ==>You're only saying all this because I don't agree with you. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're pathetic or don't know anything.


  • Options
    #110
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    ZakAttak wrote: »
    ==>If you don't want debate what are you doing here. I think it would be better if you left, I was talking about music until you turned it in to a personal attack- which is what people do when they dont have a decent argument.

    Actually, you've talked quite a great deal about society and politics and very little about music. What you have said about music has proven at times categorically untrue, and perhaps that's why you can't cite sources for your arguments (well, opinions).

    I do want to debate this - I want to debate what was so different about the Beatles - but with your deployment of the straw-man argument, the fact you attribute other members quotes to me and the fact that you imply that I've made arguments which I categorically have not made has made this very difficult.

    Bottom line is that I don't care very much for your thoughts on Pink Floyd, and you probably don't care for my thoughts on punk; but can we PLEASE get back to the topic at hand?


  • Options
    #111
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    TelePaul wrote: »
    Bottom line is that I don't care very much for your thoughts on Pink Floyd, and you probably don't care for my thoughts on punk; but can we PLEASE get back to the topic at hand?


    Back on topic .


    You do not even have to like the beatles to acknowledge the fact that there may be better singer/ songwriters / bands around during and after the 10 year chart period of theres but as far as mid 20th century popular music is concerned ,they will continue to be the reference point of that era in the same way that Mozart and Beethoven are for the periods in which they wrote classical music .

    You may now have reached the Bottom line


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Declan A Walsh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Declan A Walsh


    What was so different about the Beatles? Well:

    They wrote their own songs, after honing their craft with other rock and roll songs in their early gig days. No pop band was writting their own stuff. John Lennon and Paul McCartney showed a flair for crafting catchy and sophisticated pop tunes. As time went on, George Harrison was to get better and better in that department. Also, as time went on, the Lennon-McCartney songs became more sophisticated and complex. The early days saw simple love songs. By the late '60s, they had moved on to much more complex imagery. By the way, Lennon was not the lyricist and McCartney the music writer. Initially, the lead vocalist was the principal writer, with a little bit of help from the other. From about the mid-60s, whoever sung it wrote it - full stop. It was nice of them to share the writting royalties. They didn't have to. Ringo Starr contributed writting credits to a handful of songs, but they were pleasant. My final word on the Beatles songwritting. Frank Sinatra is supposed to have said that his favourite Lennon-McCartney song was "Something". Guess what - it was written by Harrison!

    The Beatles were good musicians. McCartney in particular was a talented multi-instrumentalist - not content with being a gifted bassist. Indeed, he was a fantastic piano player. John Lennon proved well adept at the harmonica and piano, as well as his usual rhythm guitar role. George, like his songwritting, just got better and better over time with his guitar solos. Ringo had a consistent drumming style - not too controversial, like say Keith Moon, but extremely able.

    Another feature of the Beatles was the way they shared vocals - certainly unusual at the time for a pop band that played instruments. All of them could sing well, although Ringo's vocal range was a little more limitted. John and Paul used to give songs to George and Ringo to sing. This became unnecessary in the case of George from "Rubber Soul" on, because of the songs he began to churn out. The Beatles did great vocal harmonies - particularly John, Paul and George.

    Let's remember that the Beatles tried out a no. of new ideas in the studio, with the help of their able producer George Martin. He was another reason that made the Beatles different. The Sergeant Pepper album in particular had a lot of things going on, never undertaken by a popular act before. Indeed, it is often cited as the first concept rock album.

    Still today, the Beatles are considered one of the most influential popular acts ever. Many of their songs have been covered by other acts over the years. Esentially, the Beatles revolutionised pop music, and, indeed, rock music. I would be the first to agree that the solo stuff was not always brilliant, but they could still wipe the floor with many other acts, even with mediocre efforts. Some of the solo stuff by John and Paul (including Wings - it really was his band) was excellent. That said, I think the lads, and George too, missed that competitive rivalry which was the secret ingredient in their great songwritting.
    https://forumofgames.com/




  • Options
    #113
    markesmith
    Registered Users Posts: 1,752 ✭✭✭markesmith


    Obvious plug for our blog here, but this post did kind of inspire me: The Beatles song 'Tomorrow Never Knows' was song of the day on thishereboogie.com on Tuesday. This is my favourite Beatles tune, and I think this answers the OP's question in the most original way possible.

    I thank you.


  • Options
    #114
    chalad07
    Closed Accounts Posts: 260 ✭✭chalad07


    Someone along the line said that McCartney was talentless? Come on??!! Without even getting into his song writing abilities he was a gifted musician, and could pick up any instrument. He even played drums on some songs (Back in the USSR), when it was felt Ringo wasn’t able. George Martin regarded McCartney as technically a better drummer than Ringo,

    And if we do get into his song writing - you dont write a song like Hey Jude without having talent!


Advertisement