ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 For a start look at the Hamburg period... no one forcing them there my friend... 5 young ( didn't harrison get deported for being under age at one point ) Liverpool lads ( which changed along the way ) playing the red light district of a hip dangerous city. Night after night.. 8 hour shows.. True, but remarkably different from covering blues tracks in leathers to staged interviews in suits & ties only a very little time later.... compromise. I see no great svengali influence ... just a love of music and a desire to earn a crust and play music. Watch Anthology regarding the entrance of Epstien and the fairly swift turnaround and repackaging of the band. We could go on and on into this.... that haircut the mop top ..was first done by the German artist lassi and taken up by the other members.. no image manipulation there. They wanted to play to bigger arenas..and of course they played the game ...and that's different to today's market in what way? please expand... To seriously attempt to say; they are basically what the music industry pumps out now, is bloody LUDICROUS !!!!!! Take That ?????? N Sync ????? What they hell are you talki8ng about ? hahaha A bunch of young fellas aimed squarely at a female market, tapped into what was commercially popular at the time, yes I am totally wrong, this was nothing like the Beatles at all... hilarious! Do you think Morrisy...Ian brown... Noel bloody Gallagher would have got past the first audition of XFACTOR.... for gods sake PM Do YOU think the Beatles or Stones would have? I certainly don't... The Beatles changed music ...FOREVER... Glad we can agree on something They main thing you are missing PM... is those ACTS you mention have no freekin TALENT Dangerously close to personal taste there, Del, as I stated earlier, no matter how much I agree with you on this point, argue it with an 11 year old girl, who's right? We can't make absolutes from perceptive and subjective topics. That would be a gross mistake. they are purley ACTS... that look good in the medium... and just because some bird looks good with a guitar and has a video on you tube doesn't make her relevant to anything but Simon Cowells arse. I'm not sure what that means, sounds angry though, get a quick cuppa tea down you Del and regather..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 An E-minor7 guide to Beatles things happening before Rubber Soul (in case Lennon has forgotten) : 1 - The screaming peak of the Twist and Shout dynamo - She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah. . . any further explanation needed. . . 2 - The cover for With The Beatles - The fact all 4 of them sing. 3 - The entire A Hard Days Night concept - The film (which gave direct birth to The Byrds and imagine how many other groups) - The record - The 12 string electric guitar - The song itself - The solo in the song - The opening chord. 4 - The gatefold cover for Beatles For Sale - Their tired expression - Their anything but tired version of Rock and Roll Music - The intro for I Feel Fine - The untamable mania reaching even the smallest town in the western world. 5 - Yesterday using only acoustic guitar and string quartet, thus anticipating rock cultures ever 'disturbing' flirt with the establishment by integrating part of their world in the beat-signal - The 22 or 23 year old rocker showing genius as a composer (and nailing the song in take 2) - The A Hard Days Night song being played instrumentally by Indian instruments in the Help movie. Might be the first sign of oriental music/sitar in rock at all - Ringo's red ring in that same movie, which to this day makes me dizzy. The lads receiving the MBE for playing electric guitars and drums, , , and btw. turning the world upside down. This was shots from the hip. I'm sure others would add just as important points. Feel free to go ahead. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 2 - The cover for With The Beatles - The fact all 4 of them sing. Haha, really, ringo's singing? C'mon… please… you're weakening your own argument with that one. 3 - The entire A Hard Days Night concept - The film (which gave direct birth to The Byrds and imagine how many other groups) - The record - The 12 string electric guitar - The song itself - The solo in the song - The opening chord. This is no way paved the way for every other global boyband? Spice girls film? Things done by the first global boyband phenomenon (The Beatles) have long since been copied by other global phenomenon's no matter how short lived they were. 4 - The gatefold cover for Beatles For Sale - Their tired expression - Their anything but tired version of Rock and Roll Music - The intro for I Feel Fine - The untamable mania reaching even the smallest town in the western world. A gatefold sleeve??? You're killing your own argument here… 5 - Yesterday using only acoustic string quartet, thus anticipating rock cultures ever 'disturbing' flirt with the establishment by integrating part of their world in the beat-signal - The 22 or 23 year old rocker showing genius as a composer (and nailing the song in take 2) - The A Hard Days Night song being played instrumentally by Indian instruments in the Help movie. Might be the first sign of oriental music/sitar in rock at all - Ringo's red ring in that same movie, which to this day makes me dizzy. The lads receiving the MBE for playing electric guitars and drums, , , and btw. turning the world upside down. Unlike every other teen phenomenon who none of which have ever used traditional instruments to rearrange an existing tune or present a new one, damn those beatles and their exclusive use of strings and acoustic guitar :D Why we so hung up on the execution, don't you think that Beatles would have loved to get their hands on synths and the like, from their own mouths "We could have done Tomorrow never knows live if we had synths" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 An E-minor7 guide to Beatles things happening before Rubber Soul (in case Lennon has forgotten) : 1 - The screaming peak of the Twist and Shout dynamo - She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah. . . any further explanation needed. . . 2 - The cover for With The Beatles - The fact all 4 of them sing. 3 - The entire A Hard Days Night concept - The film (which gave direct birth to The Byrds and imagine how many other groups) - The record - The 12 string electric guitar - The song itself - The solo in the song - The opening chord. 4 - The gatefold cover for Beatles For Sale - Their tired expression - Their anything but tired version of Rock and Roll Music - The intro for I Feel Fine - The untamable mania reaching even the smallest town in the western world. 5 - Yesterday using only acoustic string quartet, thus anticipating rock cultures ever 'disturbing' flirt with the establishment by integrating part of their world in the beat-signal - The 22 or 23 year old rocker showing genius as a composer (and nailing the song in take 2) - The A Hard Days Night song being played instrumentally by Indian instruments in the Help movie. Might be the first sign of oriental music/sitar in rock at all - Ringo's red ring in that same movie, which to this day makes me dizzy. The lads receiving the MBE for playing electric guitars and drums, , , and btw. turning the world upside down. This was from the hip. I'm sure others would add just as important points. Feel free to go ahead. . . BRILLIANT Em7 To even have to attempt to state why The Beatles are what they are...well do we REALLY need to ? Come on PM i pulled you up on your claims that The Beatles are no more than the boy bands of today That is clearly ridiculous...and i think you can see you where talkin out of your arse I feel no need to attempt to clarify why if you can't see it well... there is nothing i could say to help you But What 11 yr old girl knows anything except what the media pumps into her 11 yr old brain..telling her to buy? Why would I ask one about talent? It has nothing to do with personal taste PM When someone makes a piece of art that proves to have longevity ...that is truly unique and changes peoples lives... I call That ......Talent ! People will be listening to The Beatles in 400 fckin years if the planet is still around.... I say no more.. ( and yes Simon Souless Coward Cowell,, can get my blood up... so to mention One Divrection with the British invasion.... you have truly gone down in my estimation PM.. I am sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Go have a look at "Your mother should know" video on youtube... adult Beatles, Beatles who'd written mind-blowing tunes, doing a wee dance routine in a staged staircase type scenario. factor in the era differences, not so much different to any other staged video set really is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 PM i pulled you up on your claims that The Beatles are no more than the boy bands of today That is clearly ridiculous...and i think you can see you where talkin out of your arse aw Del, have I made you angry, you're swearing at me..... I feel no need to attempt to clarify why That's a shame, how are we supposed conclude if you don't play? if you can't see it well... there is nothing i could say to help you I think I can see it very well, as well as being an era defining group and massive contributors to the music world who will forever be enjoyed, the Beatles also happened to have invented the global boyband phenomenon. I think that's quite simple to see and understand, I also think your failure to see the bigger picture makes you looka smaller thinker than I had given you credit for. What 11 yr old girl knows anything except what the media pumps into her 11 yr old brain..telling her to buy? because their cash is as valid as yours, because every market will have acts pitched at it (just as the beatles were picthed at young girls initially). Surely you're not suggesting music should be Del approved or are you? In a world of free expression (that's what music is , is it not?) that seems very constraining, Del. Why would I ask one about talent? It has nothing to do with personal taste PM Oh but it does Del, talent is perceptive, one man's talent is another man's waste of time, Del. When someone makes a piece of art that proves to have longevity ...that is truly unique and changes peoples lives... I call That ......Talent ! When a detective solves a cold case because of his persistence and thinking capacity when others couldn't, is that a talent? When a man can make & sell paintings using his own excrement for many thousands of dollars a piece, when most men couldn't stomach the smell for two seconds, is that a talent? When a man takes a bunch of young wannabe's and fashions them, pitches them the right way, manages to sell an awful load of music and merchandise from his basic concept idea, is that not a talent? (focus on the business here Delboy) Talent comes in many forms, From the Ceaser Milan's of the world, to the Sammy Davis Jr's to the Taylor swifts. Like all guitar forums so many people get awfully angry about other people selling records, tut tut...... People will be listening to The Beatles in 400 fckin years if the planet is still around I haven't claimed they wouldn't, it wouldn't stop them from having been a boyband at their commercial conception though. to mention One Divrection with the British invasion.... you have truly gone down in my estimation PM.. I am sorry To have such blinkered vision and see it tinged with a touch of bitterness too in some posts does come as a slight disappointment to me too, never mind I still love you Del and I think we can work through this... Lets hug it out ya wee shite! xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Another thing you have wrong PM, is your idea that the group addressed girls and girls only. It is common and sealed knowledge they had universal appeal (as it's so often called). The fact that you seem to have missed that, worries me – and frankly sets you in a rather dim light regarding this subject in general. I mean – how much did you in reality see then. . . . Not trying to bring you down – but I'm sincerely anxious your jigsaw puzzle misses pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Another thing you have wrong PM, is your idea that the group addressed girls and girls only. It is common and sealed knowledge they had universal appeal (as it's so often called). The fact that you seem to have missed that, worries me – and frankly sets you in a rather dim light regarding this subject in general. I mean – how much did you in reality see then. . . . Not trying to bring you down – but I'm sincerely anxious your jigsaw puzzle misses pieces. Sorry big fella, shall I explain the difference between "pitched at" and "actualities" we might as well rope in some English lessons while we're at it... In short I'm fully aware of their universal* appeal until they upset a lot of bible bashers and the KKK. * Universal should be taken lightly, the Beatles have always had detractors, even in their 60's heyday, so universal while applicable in generic conversational terms would be factually incorrect. However I do understand the point you're making. Thanks for typing my name in bold by the way, I'm sensing you're getting frustrated. It's an internet conversation, lets not get too worked up about it, you can't be right all the time Em7 :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Thanks for typing my name in bold by the way, I'm sensing you're getting frustrated. It's an internet conversation, lets not get too worked up about it, you can't be right all the time Em7 :D :D Just habbit. I often type member names or signatures in bold to catch their attention - look back and you'll notice. Not frustrated, made my points and am out of steam. I can't be right all the time - you're absolutely right. But you have also dug yourself in a WW1ish hole that is as far from the Fab sphere as possible. Enjoy it there - and let's meet over other topics further up the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 But you have also dug yourself in a WW1ish hole that is as far from the Fab realm as possible. Enjoy it there - and let's meet over other topics further up the road. How come? Are people so offended by the words boyband, surely that's elitism and snobbery? If you're saying I'm all out here alone are you really saying that everyone else is confessing to elitism and snobbery on a forum scale? Have I ever suggested Beiber, Taylor Swift, Take That, NSync etc etc were as musically appealing or would have the same longevity of post career musical respect? If I have please can you quote me? I'd be keen to re-read that... What I said was that it was then and still to this day demonstrates what a little manufacturing can do, Del brought talent into it, talent is what turned it into the Beatles instead of a 6 month / 1 album of other peoples songs type populist phenomenon. They are wildly separate things. I still maintain at their commercial root was a manufactured pop band. As were the Stones.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 My earlier comment ... "At least The Monkees" we're legit" appears to have been taken seriously. I apologize, sarcasm was never my strong suit. Let me try again. "At least The Wiggles were legitimate." Seriously, while del nip and em7 have many valid points and are obviously serious students of The Fab 4 (maybe associate professors even) I do not see how anyone can deny the fact that their underlying talent was leveraged by the commercial side of the industry. Had it not been so - they never would have been booked on Ed Sullivan and the demand created for their records in the US. It will always be thus! Look at Frank Sinatra. Same model, just a generation or so earlier. Different technology. He wasn't a writer, but the commercialization part of the process which enabled his success as one of the most successful commodities and most talented artists of all time. When we here look down our noses at the developing musical taste of 11 year old girls, we are looking down our noses at ourselves 20 or 30 years ago. I have only two students. One a 14 y/o girl who loves the Beiber. The other a 12 y/o boy who has no singer he likes. I can assure you the girl is 100% more focused and motivated. I have gotten her to expand to "really like" Taylor Swift. An earlier foray into "Yesterday" went nowhere. One day her appreciation will have developed to the point she "really likes" The Beatles. The difference is for many of us here, our musical taste was developing at the same time and the same pace as The Beatles talent was being developed. They were smart enough to get music lessons, even after their first hits. So, if this were a contest like "The Voice", or "The Presidential Debates " (sarcasm)I'd have to pick PM as having won this week. Is their an 888 phone number, or a code I text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 My earlier comment ... "At least The Monkees" we're legit" appears to have been taken seriously. I apologize, sarcasm was never my strong suit. Let me try again. "At least The Wiggles were legitimate." Seriously, while del nip and em7 have many valid points and are obviously serious students of The Fab 4 (maybe associate professors even) I do not see how anyone can deny the fact that their underlying talent was leveraged by the commercial side of the industry. This is/was almost always the case on the "commercial" (read: big bucks) side of the music industry. I only spent one year full-time in the music business (in NY), but it was an eye-opener. It would take a long article just to recount all that I saw along these lines. Fortunately, I always had a journalist's eye, and was trying to figure out the answer to that eternal riddle for anyone trying to make it in the industry: why do some groups succeed spectacularly, and others of similar talent go nowhere? There is no single path to success here, but the music marketing industry (as Joni would say, the "star-making machinery") is about as cut-throat as it gets. I saw people of enormous talent beceme big successes--rarely overnight--but saw the same thing with mediocre talent as well. I saw a lot of good talent go nowhere due to a lack of marketing vision. And the beat goes on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 To draw a distinct line between the Beatles "boy band" and the likes of any of today's version of a "boy band", does anyone here believe that the musical contributions of Beiber et al will stand the test of time like those of the Beatles? Or the Stones? Or The Animals? Or anyone of a dozen other bands from that era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 When we here look down our noses at the developing musical taste of 11 year old girls, we are looking down our noses at ourselves 20 or 30 years ago. Exactly and very well put. The difference is for many of us here, our musical taste was developing at the same time and the same pace as The Beatles talent was being developed. They were smart enough to get music lessons, even after their first hits. Again, very well presented. It's true most people can't separate the moptpos from the mammoth back catalogue from when after the Beatles grew up and became very cool instead of a sugary pop band. (which is not to say I don't appreciate the musical worth of the early hits too) So, if this were a contest like "The Voice", or "The Presidential Debates " (sarcasm)I'd have to pick PM as having won this week. Is their an 888 phone number, or a code I text? Vote PM! Down with Del... Boo to Del, Extradite him, Hang him... lets work up some fever pitch here! :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 To draw a distinct line between the Beatles "boy band" and the likes of any of today's version of a "boy band", does anyone here believe that the musical contributions of Beiber et al will stand the test of time like those of the Beatles? Or the Stones? Or The Animals? Or anyone of a dozen other bands from that era? Buc you're missing the point, several times it's been mentioned here that nobody (and certainly not I) would equate musical output between Beiber and The Beatles, to do so would be a futile exercise. To recap, it was started by a response I made on page 1 basically saying it's easier to be a naysayer than anything constructive, especially where it's pop concerned, yet this pop artist is probably further along the road of a music career than the majority of us will get, a subtle but not too subtle moan at the moaners for slightly bitter quips. Bringing in a Goliath such as the Beatles was a "cynical" move to make my point, a fair point I may add... they were repackaged & re-branded in order to be sold, it's not so different to today after all. They licensed no shortage of merchandise either, let's be honest.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 . In fact the entire Brit invasion of the 60's was no different to One Direction or Mr Beiber today, So just to set my record straight. There is no debate here, I was pulling PM up on the above remark. I made no disrespectful remarks to the artist in the original post, nor did I allude to " look down my nose at 11 yr olds ". I know members enjoy myself and PM's exchanges sometimes, but this one really does not warrant much effort. The above remark, which started the exchange is hogwash, as simple as that. I am no student of The Beatles, it's just common knowledge. I am interested in youth cultures though, and have in fact written a number of articles for leading magazines ( The Face and ID ) in my younger days. I still maintain at their commercial root was a manufactured pop band. As were the Stones.. A manufactured pop act usually consists of members that don't know each other, have in fact never met. They are picked to form a group purely for reasons that fit a formula for a specific market. Musical talent usually has no relevance to them being chosen at all. ie: if they look the part..and maybe can move around well The are manufactured purely to form an image.. then music is picked or written for them to suit that image. Real bands.. the music ALWAYS comes first.. then maybe an image is garnered from their own style and made to fit the music. I don't have to go on do I? I mean DO I ? PM you made some silly remark that holds about as much water as a broken thimble... and from then on have tried to make up for it in ways only you can. Admit your mistake and all will be forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Admit your mistake and all will be forgiven. Took ye all day to come up with that? I'm insulted Delboy.... I made no disrespectful remarks to the artist in the original post, nor did I allude to " look down my nose at 11 yr olds ". Now that's not strictly true is it Del, you never answeredthe question "who's right?" and you implied you knew better. Admit it and we can go on from here, if you can't you're crafting a story to try and win points. A manufactured pop act usually consists of members that don't know each other, have in fact never met. They are picked to form a group purely for reasons that fit a formula for a specific market. Musical talent usually has no relevance to them being chosen at all. Can you show me such a honed definition somewhere, so by manufactured it can't mean what I have very verbosely set out today? Are you saying only your definition is the correct one, Del. Just to be clear of course.... I don't have to go on do I? I mean DO I ? Well, you certainly are going on a bit, Del PM you made some silly remark that holds about as much water as a broken thimble... How broken is the thimble? pics or it didn't happen. and from then on have tried to make up for it in ways only you can. That could just as easily be a compliment Delboy, such ambiguity forces me to make a choice, after being called cynical today I'll opt for positivity and assume that it's a compliment, Cheers Del. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 In case you can't be bothered to retrace your steps Del, I've done it for you..... What 11 yr old girl knows anything except what the media pumps into her 11 yr old brain..telling her to buy? and followed by this in the same post. Why would I ask one about talent? It has nothing to do with personal taste PM Seems like a pretty solid and all embracing declaration that they are media fed and beneath your canvassing of opinion. seems like there's a nose being looked down to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 From Wikipedia "Although not a manufactured band, The Beatles set a precedent for boy bands to follow both in terms of marketing to young girls and certain aesthetic and musical conventions. The merchandising, whether it was films like A Hard Day's Night or novelty goods were possibly the first aimed at a certain demographic on a large scale for a group. This made them a proto-type for boy bands, such as The Jackson 5 and The Monkees. Musical conventions that boy bands adopted from The Beatles were mostly the catchy pop hooks, melodies and harmonies combined with their marketability. Their marketability was based on the idea that there was something for everyone, whether it was the music or the personality of John Lennon or Paul McCartney or their sex appeal." Based on the sharp turnaround within a matter of months from quotes of Hamburg era, to the staged interview responses all the way upto "I want to play the drums for the queen mum" while under the wing of Epstien I totally think the first 5 words are open to interpretation, the rest is fairly spot on..... Your turn Mr Trotter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 In case you can't be bothered to retrace your steps Del, I've done it for you..... and followed by this in the same post. Seems like a pretty solid and all embracing declaration that they are media fed and beneath your canvassing of opinion. seems like there's a nose being looked down to me.... Oh do not worry Rodney... I know exactly what i said. I was asking the question.. What 11 yr old girl knows much more than what the media tells her is good in the arts ? In fact what 40 yr old does..but that's a different matter !! I would hope though that the fine members on this forum...with some mighty fine musicians... would hold a more..shall we say elevated manner of appraisal than an average 11 yr old. I mean would you ask an 11yr old to critique a Picasso a Shakespeare sonnet a Verdi Opera ( he did do opera didn't he ? haha ) a Ballet a novel.... pah! I hear you exclaim The Beatles are a POP BAND That maybe the case but I was simply asking why i would ask an 11 yr old about talent.. Would you ask a 8 yr old ? a 6 yr old ? I was not looking down my nose at anyone... but again you have taken this so far off the issue at hand... it is useless to go on. I resign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Del, Don't resign, this is great fun, essentially I agree with what yer saying too, no you wouldn't expend a youngster to have a very nuanced critique of the finer moves in music the fab four made, nor would you expect details such as two versions of strawberry fields in slightly different time being spliced together, but none of that was happening in 62. It was D, G & C, shake the hair, make the woo sound, has half the audience urinated on themselves yet? no... OK shake the hair and do the woo sound again.... Essentially that fever pitch is the blueprint for all modern manufactured music, a la Beiber etc... very easy for us to call it disposable trash, etc etc... but a bit more adult to look at it as a product that fills a market, spurs an interest in music which will mature and see youngsters move on to music that does have some artistic value. Would you rather they ignored music further and just played 3DS games or harassed their parents for the latest gaming craze for the Wii or PS3? In (what I thought was bloody obvious) no way did I equate musical value, longevity, or artistic substance of the brit invasion to Beiber & co, I said essentially at the core it was the same thing, a scene of "artists" all imaged up, todays' market is no different. On the music side of things I couldn't agree with you more, but your getting worked up trying to build in connotations that simply weren't there. Like it or not for nippers in the 90's Take that were "the Beatles", just as Nsync, Backstreet boys, new kids were the "Beatles" of their time & geographical zone. In all likliehood a lot of them (the fans) have grown up, developed musical tastes you mightn't sneer at so much and some probably even produced music you'd have to respect on some level or other. Lots of love. Rodders xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Question: How can you tell modern bubblegum pop music from its knockoff parodies on Youtube? Answer: The parodies are better music than the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Question: How can you tell modern bubblegum pop music from its knockoff parodies on Youtube? Answer: The parodies are better music than the originals. Thing is, if you look at a lot of the youtube covers etc... sometimes you can be surprised that behind the pop stuff storming the charts there can be a reasonable enough song in there somewhere. A guitar forum can only get us so far in this discussion though given we've all got a preference for guitar music and especially in a niche forum such as the acoustic pages. We're probably a different breed, for many it's an age thing (certainly with me), for some it's always been an acoustic fetish. Taking cheap shots at pop stuff is too easy and can be a bit snobby. In general I'm really not a great 80's fan, too dressy up for me, fellas in make-up etc... not my bag at all, however now my wee acoustic combo is doing a few parties and corporate do's, we've been asked to do a lot of 80's stuff so are currently working out 2 sets of 80's stuff rearranged (read: hacked to bits) and I'm fairly taken aback that some of the songs are pretty decent. Conclusion: I'm not that into synths, hairspray and guyliner. Just as I can accept that blokes such as Ian Brown, Joy Division, The Smiths were council estate types who decided to make a go of music, easier for me to identify with, get in to and want to emulate. I suppose it's an inverted snobbery in itself. Thing is half of us here in the 30-45 age bracket are probably listening to stuff now we called "dad music" 15-20 years ago. Being honest can anybody honestly claim to expect a bunch of teenies to appreciate the value of the likes of the Beatles, Stones and all the "decent" music when all their friends are part of a scene going to see the likes of Beiber, Swift, Perry, Spears & Gaga etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 In general I'm really not a great 80's fan, too dressy up for me, fellas in make-up etc... not my bag at all, however now my wee acoustic combo is doing a few parties and corporate do's, we've been asked to do a lot of 80's stuff so are currently working out 2 sets of 80's stuff rearranged (read: hacked to bits) and I'm fairly taken aback that some of the songs are pretty decent. Conclusion: I'm not that into synths, hairspray and guyliner. Just as I can accept that blokes such as Ian Brown, Joy Division, The Smiths were council estate types who decided to make a go of music, easier for me to identify with, get in to and want to emulate. I suppose it's an inverted snobbery in itself. Hey PM, do you know which song gets consistently the strongest reaction at our gigs ? Our totally hacked up, rearreaged version of Frankie Goes To Hollywood's 'Power of Love' .... go the 80's ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Thing is half of us here in the 30-45 age bracket are probably listening to stuff now we called "dad music" 15-20 years ago. Being honest can anybody honestly claim to expect a bunch of teenies to appreciate the value of the likes of the Beatles, Stones and all the "decent" music when all their friends are part of a scene going to see the likes of Beiber, Swift, Perry, Spears & Gaga etc... You are absolutely correct. Reminds of when I first heard Elvis as a kid. My parents scoffed at it, and I did too in order to keep them happy. (Plus, I didn't really understand it at age nine) Then, I went into my bedroom, shut the door, turned on my radio, and listened to him in secret.... I'm sure I can date my fall from grace to the first time I listened to "Hound Dog" in 1956 on that old Zenith Transoceanic. We lived in a still-devastated post-war Germany then, far from the bright lights and musical explosion coming to the US. But the radio brought it all to me, thousands of miles away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.