The Beatles

[Insel affe]

Given that music appreciation and taste are completely subjective I am always a little confused when people feel the need to passionately share their dislike of stuff
I am in a few music appreciation groups online and am staggered by the consistency of people wanting to share their dislike of bands.

It is of course similar on here and for some reason it seems to centre around similar bands. The Beatles, Oasis and Radiohead (pre or post Kid A).

When something is so subjective, what is the point?

Don't like it, don't listen to it. But why get so cross when other people like stuff?

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

I’m not cross, I’m baffled why they are so revered.

Oh, and I am well aware my preferred musical genres are not popular and can appreciate and understand why, the trouble is fans of beatles won’t have a bad word said against them, and there is the misnomer that before them, there was nothing, and they were leading lights in modern popular music, no they weren’t, they were a manufactured boy band, well managed, and the music industry including the press bought into that, to sell, sell, sell, safe, safe, safe….

Oh there I go on another rant

Sorry, blame my music teacher…
Today we are going to play, another bloody beatles song, oh deep joy….
I began to realise, the reason we always learnt beatles songs was because there’s nothing to them, there so bloody easy…

Oh I’ve gone again…

 

[Icy Gull]

I’m not cross, I’m baffled why they are so revered.

Oh, and I am well aware my preferred musical genres are not popular and can appreciate and understand why, the trouble is fans of beatles won’t have a bad word said against them, and there is the misnomer that before them, there was nothing, and they were leading lights in modern popular music, no they weren’t, they were a manufactured boy band, well managed, and the music industry including the press bought into that, to sell, sell, sell, safe, safe, safe….

Oh there I go on another rant

Sorry, blame my music teacher…
Today we are going to play, another bloody beatles song, oh deep joy….
I began to realise, the reason we always learnt beatles songs was because there’s nothing to them, there so bloody easy…

Oh I’ve gone again…

I was only young BUT to me they WERE groundbreaking in popular music to most people brought up on the pap from the fifties and rock and rollers like Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis etc. It was a massive change in music and I bloody loved them, even if I ended up preferring the Stones, Kinks, Byrds etc

I guess you did have to grow up with them making music to get it

 

[GT49er]

Utter, Utter self indulgent shite….

https://youtu.be/fIzK1VYW1PU

Some lovely guitar in that. First (and only) verse - a bit vague and waffly, like it's meant to be poetry - could have been penned by Ray Davies. The (presumanably) Mahareshi inspired 'chorus' - give it a rest!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't want to start a religious debate, but if you don't believe, then the arts and sport are perhaps your only sources of the transcendent. I've never experienced it, but I appreciate that one of the things that the religious get from their belief is a personal understanding of the world that goes beyond the intellectual and physical. By its nature, it can't really be rationalised, but it's hold is so powerful that humans have spent thousands of years trying to understand or define it.

That's music for me. It produces powerful reactions that communicate on another plane and are too nebulous to stand up to analysis. However, the urge to try to understand something so highly cherished is hard to resist, even though we know deep down that its probably insoluble. The religious have been at it for millennia.

Apologies for going a bit into the mystic. I've got Astral Weeks on at the moment, and Van doesn't help.

I was taling to an Irish student of ours on Teams today. She likes her alt.music and her alt.Irish music. I asked her if she liked Thin Lizzy. Never heard of them.

The times they have, er, changinged. Daddy-o.

 

[BadFish]

I’m not cross, I’m baffled why they are so revered.

Oh, and I am well aware my preferred musical genres are not popular and can appreciate and understand why, the trouble is fans of beatles won’t have a bad word said against them, and there is the misnomer that before them, there was nothing, and they were leading lights in modern popular music, no they weren’t, they were a manufactured boy band, well managed, and the music industry including the press bought into that, to sell, sell, sell, safe, safe, safe….

Oh there I go on another rant [emoji38]ol:

Sorry, blame my music teacher…
Today we are going to play, another bloody beatles song, oh deep joy….
I began to realise, the reason we always learnt beatles songs was because there’s nothing to them, there so bloody easy…

Oh I’ve gone again…

[emoji38]ol:

You sound a bit cross

Surely there is so much written and said about them that is is hard to not know why people like them so much?

As much as I like them I agree that they are over hyped and mythologised. This would be annoying of you don't like them.

I guess with Peter Jackson's thing coming out soon it is going to get worse.

Sent from my M2010J19CG using Tapatalk

 

[Icy Gull]

I was taling to an Irish student of ours on Teams today. She likes her alt.music and her alt.Irish music. I asked her if she liked Thin Lizzy. Never heard of them.

The times they have, er, changinged. Daddy-o.

I was in a bar in Ibiza just after Chuck Berry died, the barman had never heard of him. I was genuinely shocked but he was only about 25, Italian and he loved his music

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I was only young BUT to me they WERE groundbreaking in popular music to most people brought up on the pap from the fifties and rock and rollers like Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis etc. It was a massive change in music and I bloody loved them, even if I ended up preferring the Stones, Kinks, Byrds etc

I guess you did have to grow up with them making music to get it

I'm amused you found 50s music 'pap'. My mate Bob who's late 70s in age now told me about how his sister picked up an import from one of the merchant seamen in Liverpool (no, not the clap) and put it on her Dansette, and changed Bob's life. 1956. Heartbreak Hotel.

I apreciate that the sound of the new at a certain age can have great impact. I am still in touch with the music of my youth, but we mustn't be held in the past and must embrace the new too. Keep the lug holes open. I'm listening to some Portwave at the moment. And jolly good it is, too. I shall post it on todays best track thread, now.

 

[Insel affe]

I was only young BUT to me they WERE groundbreaking in popular music to most people brought up on the pap from the fifties and rock and rollers like Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis etc. It was a massive change in music

Was it though, not really their first album was littered with covers, by the late 50s rock’n’roll was dead, most of the main artists encouraged by their record labels, turned to safe ballads, basically pop. Early beatles songs sound very similar to a lot of American artists at the time, heavily influenced by Buddy Holly, with great melodies that even mum & pops would like. The beatles have benefited by being in the right place at the right time, while the stones were looking back to where rock’n’roll came from the blues, and experimenting, coming up with a new edgy twist to the blues. The beatles went to America and basically smartened up, to sell to the masses, adopted a silly haircut and sold American teenage girls exactly what they already had, but with a different accent.
The beatles then continued to ride on the back of every new craze, fashion or style, how… because they had probably the best management, who constantly were on the look out for new styles and sounds that the band could adopt and jump on the latest band wagon…

The perfect manufactured boy band

 

[Icy Gull]

I'm amused you found 50s music 'pap'. My mate Bob who's late 70s in age now told me about how his sister picked up an import from one of the merchant seamen in Liverpool (no, not the clap) and put it on her Dansette, and changed Bob's life. 1956. Heartbreak Hotel.

I apreciate that the sound of the new at a certain age can have great impact. I am still in touch with the music of my youth, but we mustn't be held in the past and must embrace the new too. Keep the lug holes open. I'm listening to some Portwave at the moment. And jolly good it is, too. I shall post it on todays best track thread, now.

Agreed, I now like music I disdained at 15. I also bloody love Sinatra especially his stuff with Nelson Riddle, no interest at all until my mid twenties

 

[Icy Gull]

Was it though, not really their first album was littered with covers, by the late 50s rock’n’roll was dead, most of the main artists encouraged by their record labels, turned to safe ballads, basically pop. Early beatles songs sound very similar to a lot of American artists at the time, heavily influenced by Buddy Holly, with great melodies that even mum & pops would like. The beatles have benefited by being in the right place at the right time, while the stones were looking back to where rock’n’roll came from the blues, and experimenting, coming up with a new edgy twist to the blues. The beatles went to America and basically smartened up, to sell to the masses, adopted a silly haircut and sold American teenage girls exactly what they already had, but with a different accent.
The beatles then continued to ride on the back of every new craze, fashion or style, how… because they had probably the best management, who constantly were on the look out for new styles and sounds that the band could adopt and jump on the latest band wagon…

The perfect manufactured boy band

In the mainstream they led, Rubber Soul, Revolver, The White Album were all fantastic albums imo. I also liked the early stuff which did feature songs not written by them. However I do not underestimate the influence of George Martin.

Manufactured boy bands don’t write their own songs imo, all about opinions I guess

You really are doing them a disservice imo, you weren’t there at the time though were you?

 

[GT49er]

Was it though, not really their first album was littered with covers, by the late 50s rock’n’roll was dead, most of the main artists encouraged by their record labels, turned to safe ballads, basically pop. Early beatles songs sound very similar to a lot of American artists at the time, heavily influenced by Buddy Holly, with great melodies that even mum & pops would like. The beatles have benefited by being in the right place at the right time, while the stones were looking back to where rock’n’roll came from the blues, and experimenting, coming up with a new edgy twist to the blues. The beatles went to America and basically smartened up, to sell to the masses, adopted a silly haircut and sold American teenage girls exactly what they already had, but with a different accent.
The beatles then continued to ride on the back of every new craze, fashion or style, how… because they had probably the best management, who constantly were on the look out for new styles and sounds that the band could adopt and jump on the latest band wagon…

The perfect manufactured boy band

The best management? Brian Epstein? Dearie me, you really haven't read up on Eppy, have you!


P.S. You're almost starting to sound like Stato on The Beatles - just saying, friendly like .......

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Was it though, not really their first album was littered with covers, by the late 50s rock’n’roll was dead, most of the main artists encouraged by their record labels, turned to safe ballads, basically pop. Early beatles songs sound very similar to a lot of American artists at the time, heavily influenced by Buddy Holly, with great melodies that even mum & pops would like. The beatles have benefited by being in the right place at the right time, while the stones were looking back to where rock’n’roll came from the blues, and experimenting, coming up with a new edgy twist to the blues. The beatles went to America and basically smartened up, to sell to the masses, adopted a silly haircut and sold American teenage girls exactly what they already had, but with a different accent.
The beatles then continued to ride on the back of every new craze, fashion or style, how… because they had probably the best management, who constantly were on the look out for new styles and sounds that the band could adopt and jump on the latest band wagon…

The perfect manufactured boy band

I am not a Beatles (or Stones) fan but that's a bit harsh.

I was in a pub in Arundel in around 1980 and they played a whole side of a Beatles LP, dunno what, had long and winding road on it, maybe, and it was fantastic. Across the Universe, tremendous. My mate Bob saw them live more than 20 times in the Cavern and around Liverpool and New Brighton (once supporting Little Richard) and he still says they were the most impactful band he's seen. Rose tinted specs perhaps. But they were no Bay City Rollers. No way, sir. No sir. And, as I said, I'm not a fan.

Dissecting the cultural and personal context from the actual music is impossible. Look at you with all your psychobilly (some great tunes posted, by the way!) And look at me with all my '****ing autistic' music (as it has been described in an uncharitable moment, by a person not so fond of some of it). I think the Beatles were better than some will allow, but nowhere near as good as most people think, but none of it matters. Enjoy what you can, and share what you feel others may like (even if its only a tiny number of others, as it probably is in my sharey case )

 

[Insel affe]

you weren’t there at the time though were you?

No, thank god.

 

[Insel affe]

The best management? Brian Epstein? Dearie me, you really haven't read up on Eppy, have you?

Yes, I have indeed, what I meant was they were constantly in the press, and in peoples minds, the media darlings so to speak, and done/ manipulated very well.

P.S. You're almost starting to sound like Stato on The Beatles - just saying, friendly like .......

No worries, I’m aware of my over zealous attack on the fab four
I have just typed fab four and predictive text wants to change it to capital F as in Fab Four, try and type in beatles and it wants it to change to a capital B…. Subliminal, things like this about the beatles annoy me. Why the insistence of capital letters by someone in the clouds? Why ? a bloody beatles fan programmed that no doubt…

I think I’ve nearly run my course on this subject for now though.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Some lovely guitar in that. First (and only) verse - a bit vague and waffly, like it's meant to be poetry - could have been penned by Ray Davies. The (presumanably) Mahareshi inspired 'chorus' - give it a rest!

The song wasn't written by either Harrison or Starr, and was presumably left unreleased at least in part because it simply isn't good.

I'm pretty sure from my first listen that there's a mistake in the solo around the 1:05 mark in the video, not that it matters much. They presumably extended it as long as possible so they could spend more time away from Paul.

 

[GT49er]

The song wasn't written by either Harrison or Starr, and was presumably left unreleased at least in part because it simply isn't good.

I'm pretty sure from my first listen that there's a mistake in the solo around the 1:05 mark in the video, not that it matters much. They presumably extended it as long as possible so they could spend more time away from Paul.

Did I say it was good? There was some lovely lyrical guitar playing, that's all.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Did I say it was good? There was some lovely lyrical guitar playing, that's all.

My point is that criticism of the "song" part of the song is a bit unnecessary, since it was written by for to all intents and purposes "some guy" (actually Suresh Joshi, who I'm not going to claim to have heard of).

I don't think much of the guitar part, other than that it's pretty and reminds me of much better solos in a similar vein that Clapton played around his Derek and the Dominoes time. Which now that I'm thinking about it is a vaguely interesting connection to make since it would have been recorded roughly around the same time as While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

 

[GT49er]

My point is that criticism of the "song" part of the song is a bit unnecessary, since it was written by for to all intents and purposes "some guy" (actually Suresh Joshi, who I'm not going to claim to have heard of).

I don't think much of the guitar part, other than that it's pretty and reminds me of much better solos in a similar vein that Clapton played around his Derek and the Dominoes time. Which now that I'm thinking about it is a vaguely interesting connection to make since it would have been recorded roughly around the same time as While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

Sounds more Harrison than Clapton to me. Admittedly a subjective view though, I admit. Absolute zero interest in the 'song' part!

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

Sounds more Harrison than Clapton to me. Admittedly a subjective view though, I admit. Absolute zero interest in the 'song' part!

The actual sound is very Harrison. I was thinking of the quieter twiddly bits at the end of Why Does Love Got To Be So Sad, like this from about 12:30 on:



Which probably isn't particularly Claptonesque either, or at least nothing like the sort of thing he played in the 60s. Neither is the solo on Guitar Gently Weeps for that matter, which raises the question of why Harrison decided he was clearly the man to play on it.

 

[GT49er]

The actual sound is very Harrison. I was thinking of the quieter twiddly bits at the end of Why Does Love Got To Be So Sad, like this from about 12:30 on:



Which probably isn't particularly Claptonesque either, or at least nothing like the sort of thing he played in the 60s. Neither is the solo on Guitar Gently Weeps for that matter, which raises the question of why Harrison decided he was clearly the man to play on it.

See what you mean. Still, that was the sixties - so quite possibly it was really Beck or Page anyway!