Mojorule Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 What larks, Pip. Clearly PM loves the Beatles like the vast majority of kids who grew up in the UK during the 70s and 80s. PM loves a gramophonic wind-up though - even more than the Beatles. It is true what he says about there always being a few dissenting voices (my best friend at school never 'got' them, found them cliché, even though I pointed out incessantly that they invented the things that became clichés, and that his idol Bowie would have been nowt without the Fabs). But most of us lived and breathed their music in a time when most exposure to music was via vinyl, dodgy cassettes and the radio. And it does have to be said that there is a difference between US reception and UK reception that I perceive often on this forum. Perhaps it's also generational. The Beatles broke up before I was born, but not a particularly long time before I was born. Clearly I didn't live through Beatlemania any more than PM did. I don't think we're that far away from what they did in terms of cultural and musical history or geography though. Harold Wilson was PM (the other sort) when I was born, just as he was when Harrison wrote Taxman. I heard and loved the Beatles long before I was seriously aware of any 1980s musicians. Still I sort of fail to see why so many American brethren who are a decade or two older saw the Sullivan appearance as such a major revolution in music. I'm with Lennon that they didn't really get moving till Rubber Soul. Writing, production, instrumentation: all are so much harder, sharper and more experimental on that album than on anything before. That's almost certainly why so many critics and polls rate it as one of the most significant/best Beatles albums along with Revolver, Pepper and Abbey Road. Sure Hard Day's Night put Roger McGuinn onto the Ricky 12-string, but McGuinn doesn't really constitute a massive paradigm shift in music of the sort that really resonates for decades. Love the Byrds too, but in the end the Ricky 12 thing was one sound from one and a bit Beatles albums, not enough to constitute a musical revolution. And neither Harrison's nor McGuinn's use of said guitar really revolutionized songwriting - the structure of Hard Day's Night or Can't Do That is pretty well that of a load of Beatles songs from the first few albums, while the truly innovative but never really equalled 8 Miles High excepted, McGuinn mainly did a good job of covering other people's folk tunes. If you want to find a musical revolution in the choice of a single guitar, then Clapton's Beano is the place to look. If you want a revolution from the Byrds, you have to look in the direction of Gram Parsons. The additional treble that George Martin got out of the equipment on Rubber Soul did make a serious difference to production though, and the songwriting on that album was more sophisticated (the first real Dylan influences - Lennon and McCartney reacting rather than covering like McGuinn). Anyway, perhaps some of you gents who have waxed lyrical about the Sullivan appearance in the past can explain just why it was such a tremor for you. I Wanna Hold Your Hand is quite nice early Beatles, but I really can't see how it could seem like a revolution in music when you already had Chuck Berry. (I'm accepting that Muddy Waters was probably off limits for much of the white population in 1964.) The Beatles in 1964 were still doing nice cover versions of Chuck and Chet. You had the real thing. Berry was so much harder than Harrison, and Atkins was so much better with his fingers. Next to the real American rock and country that they wanted so much to play, the Beatles of 1964 and earlier really do sound like pre-fab-ricated pop boys. And let's not even think about **** Dale and Link Wray. Man, even Heartbreak Hotel makes the early Beatles sound wet, and Elvis was as commercial as they come. I can understand why British girls got their knickers in a twist for the chaps in 1962. Till then, the most risqué stuff that most UK teens had heard was Doris Day and Cliff Richard. But in the States? Even given segregation. What were you all listening to before the Beatles? Crumbs, even the Beatles were listening to better, harder, more advanced music from the US. Interested also that Del and EMin7 seem to be channelling something of the traditional US view of the Beatles, given that one is in Ireland and the other has Euroots. I don't mean the veneration. I mean the sense that the early stuff is radical. (I like it, think it's good, but despite the feedback on I Feel Fine, don't see its groundbreaking quality.) Is there a different Irish history of Beatles reception? The European one, I'll warrant is different, and from what I've seen of it, depends on your country of origin. Interested, not seeking arguments! Don't knock the taste of 11 year-olds, though, Del. I was much more into the Beatles as an 11 year-old. I actually thought that I am the Walrus was genius then. I've read a lot of surrealist poetry since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 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 Well my 9 year-old has a very keen eye for fashion, and certainly has developed her own style, so is not easily swayed by the media. We also took her to see the Magic Flute on Sunday, and she was quite able to criticize the sets, costumes and acting, and work out that the Queen of the Night was flat on a few notes. She does listen to a lot of fabricated pop (anything post-Miley Cyrus from the Disney Channel, plus High School Musical), and she likes Moves Like Jagger more than Jagger himself (echoing the Who in Kids are Alright, her father is probably relieved that she'd rather encounter Maroon 5 than a bunch of harrowed old lesbians whose former bass player has a history of seducing under-age girls, despite despairing of the musical implications). That said, her favourite songs are Forget You by Cee-Lo Green (so appreciation for Motownesque sounds), Stray Cat Strut and the Weight. She'd probably fit in well here with you old fogies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I still don't feel like having regained power to go back into the dialog Mojo. If you don't see what the band did to the world, you don't see it - and in my opinion never looked hard enough. That's not my desk – I'm sitting somewhere else (and I guarantee we are plenty over here). Having not been there yourself guys, maybe you just don't get the aura around the group. Believe me when I tell you they generated an atmosphere beyond measure – which influenced every corner of society – positively, , , , and if not so, of course the opposite. Regarding Ed Sullivan, they were there 4 times (1964-65) plus later video appearances. P.S. - Your 9 year old daughter wild about Jagger - Now that's a scene of flabbergasting, but beautiful fun - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PM - You can think. Beware you don't think everything to smithereens - or yourself into the position of your avatar. In fact too late. You have already rated any signed band a boy band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I still don't feel like having regained power to go back into the dialog Mojo. If you don't see what the band did to the world, you don't see it - and in my opinion never looked hard enough. That's not my desk – I'm sitting somewhere else (and I guarantee we are plenty over here). Having not been there yourself guys, maybe you just don't get the aura around the group. Believe me when I tell you they generated an atmosphere beyond measure – which influenced every corner of society – positively, , , , and if not so, of course the opposite. Regarding Ed Sullivan, they were there 4 times (1964-65) plus later video appearances. P.S. - Your 9 year old daughter wild about Jagger - Now that's a scene of flabbergasting, but beautiful fun - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PM - You can think. Beware you don't think everything to smithereens - or yourself into the position of your avatar. In fact too late. You have already rated any signed band a boy band. But I'd have thought from my post that it's obvious that I do see what the band did to the world. You couldn't grow up in Britain in the 1970s and not see it. The naysayers also usually see it, they just think it's collective hysteria. I'm far from being a naysayer. My point is that before Rubber Soul, there is something in the collective hysteria argument. I've always loved early Beatles, but never really got why they were quite so big then. In the UK and Europe yes, but postwar Europe was much more innocent than postwar US culturally. To see how they were not really cutting edge till 1965, all you have to do is compare them to their influences. I don't think it's fair to say I've not looked hard enough, since I've spent years listening to and learning Beatles songs from all eras. I could just as unfairly accuse you of not looking hard enough at the way in which Chuck Berry or Elvis changed the world, because you overrate the earliest Beatles material, and thus don't really understand why the Beatles themselves were so electrified by those performers. But that would be churlish, as I'm sure you appreciate said performers and their historical significance too. The Fabs were always a very good band, but until 1965 they were hyped beyond what they'd really achieved. The real impact of artistic value is from the experimentalism that they managed once they'd got beyond the media-induced mania, and especially once they stopped touring. If you like once Lennon could say caustically as a dismissal of the mania that they were bigger than Jesus. That's when they transcended Chuck and Elvis. But before that, I don't think they had caught up with their influences in terms of real innovation, however great a band they were. I just wonder at the raw power of pre-Beatles American rock, blues, country and folk, and sometimes wonder at the way in which it seems to have passed a generation of Americans by until the British invasion made them take note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 PM - You can think. Beware you don't think everything to smithereens - or yourself into the position of your avatar. In fact too late. You have already rated any signed band a boy band. The avatar is brilliant, eh? You could practically feel the smoke coming out of his ears when I posted it. The response was a work of twisted but overly punctuated beauty. The mind is a fragile thing. As for the rest, the term boyband need only be as negative as you want it to be, I don't feel threatened by it nor bitter towards its successes. I'll never buy any of it, but if it's a gateway for young nippers to get into music and be creative rather than wilting away in front of consoles and LCD telly's, more power to them. Mojo has elevated the conversation to the next stage though, the Ed Sullivan affair, I ask why too, I must confess that more than a talent evaluation at that point it was simply that they were the hottest ticket in town at the minute. Perhaps that's just cynical though, but I'd be awfully surprised if the US was thinking great body of work, have to make stars out of these boys, or was it "cute little foreigners with funny accents, cheeky quips and matching haircuts", add in the head-shake, the Woooo, the screams and the urination, how could it fail? it was English marketing at its global best at the time. If I'd been a TV producer I'd be telling the booking agents to get me the group that makes people scream then pee too. I'll stick my neck out and say while the early records are charming and wonderfully dated in a unique way compared to so much other stuff of the same time, the Beatles only started to become The Beatles we refer to today from Rubber Soul onwards. Talking about them now embraces the entirety so it's difficult to discard the overall wow factor of the later work when dissecting stuff like the Ed Sullivan era, i.e. when they were a boy band. They became a global success by selling pop, they remained a global phenomenon by dropping pop and moving to weightier compositions without losing too much pop sensibility. Don't you know that you can count me out...... in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I don't think it's fair to say I've not looked hard enough, since I've spent years listening to and learning Beatles songs from all eras.. But that would be churlish, as I'm Yeah Yeah Yeah, I try to focus on the pre-65 years as I realize your angle. But you have to think more than music into it. Rock, , , or pop culture is more than the actual tunes. That's where I believe you fail to see the impact of the monster. Can I introduce a little experiment – Next time you see a movie from the late 50's or early 60's, place imaginary Beatles items in the scenes – a record here, a fan magazine there, a poster on the wall, a song in the air. Then you'll get a sense of how fresh and strong these 4 lads came across. Also compared to the 50's singers before them, who of course did have almost similar effect when they first broke through. We cannot underestimate Berry, L. Richard, G. Vincent, Presley and all the others. But the rocket from Liverpool took things one star higher/wilder and, , , , made every young guy on the western side of planet wanna be in a group ! The business had grown into shape, mass-media was more ready than ever , , , and the youngsters of any gender now had a coin or even a bill extra in the wallet. It all summed to some tsunami-like out burst from which the world is still dripping. And luckily the persons in the center proved to have real talent – The Fabs, Dylan, The Who, Stones, you know most of the rest. When that talent was shared between them, it made the wave even bigger. And that was the incredible 1965. I was regularly in London from the mid70's and forward and naturally looked out for Beatles vibes on the beat-scene, bars, record shops, market places etc. It was absolutely there, , , but let me pass another witness account. Very much happened on the musical scene in the 70's and the Beatles – though still loved and embraced - was more has beens than in any other decade I've seen, , , , eeeeeh 'cept maybe for the 80's. . . . Yeah Yeah Yeah - Can you imagine how much this mantra alone expressed. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Regarding Ed Sullivan, they were there 4 times (1964-65) plus later video appearances. This turns out to be a bit complicated. Had to check and found this site. Look it up if interested. http://www.neatorama.com/2011/06/21/the-beatles-on-the-ed-sullivan-show/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 This turns out to be a bit complicated. Had to check and found this site. Look it up if interested. http://www.neatorama.com/2011/06/21/the-beatles-on-the-ed-sullivan-show/ They also sold out Shea Stadium (60 thousand was a large crowd in 1965) at one of the most historic rock concerts ever. Although it was the managers and promoters who developed it, the rresult was a whole new venue. Prior to that, concerts were in smaller auditoriums. They were "The Perfect Storm"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 They also sold out Shea Stadium (60 thousand was a large crowd in 1965) at one of the most historic rock concerts ever. Although it was the managers and promoters who developed it, the rresult was a whole new venue. Prior to that, concerts were in smaller auditoriums. They were "The Perfect Storm"! It didn't matter that you couldn't hear them at these big venues: you were THERE!!!! As an historical footnote, I believe our own DanvillRob (Bob Birdwell) and his group Peter Wheat and the Breadmen were originally scheduled to open for the Fab Four in their last big concert--Candlestick Park, in San Franciso--in 1966. Maybe DRob will fill us in on THAT story at some point. Fame is a fickle mistress..... I remember when the group I worked with in 1971 moved from the college coffee house circuit--with "crowds" of maybe 25-100 per night--to a "concert" tour in the midwest (high school and college auditoriums) with "crowds" of 1000-1500 after their first (and only) record was released on Mercury. The change was positively electric, just because of the energy of the crowd. It seems pretty laughable in hindsight, but it was a big deal for us back then. Unfortunately, that was pretty much the group's peak, although they continued to tour for a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Are people really climbing on to the "I was there" when referring to nothing more than a year in time? So the reality is The Beatles, a band loads of them (The majority of the entire country) have never seen live, perhaps seen on TV, whip up a bit of a storm, sell a lot of records & merchandise and people take the argument stance of "I was there"? What an incredibly slim stance to take. I find that rather hilarious. From a US 1964 perspective I can understand a load of people jumping on a scene if it made loads of people want to start groups avoid real work, take some drugs and get laid, but fever aside they're two separated things loosely joined by a bit of journalistic frenzy. Just being alive at the same time does not equate to being there. I was alive during the Ethiopian famine that spurned the whole Feed the World movement in the 80's does that mean I was there? The famine was in a different country on the other side of the world of course and the benefit concert was about 650 miles away from where I lived... but hey... details...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 ParlourMan, you brave young old recusant – you paint the grass green, revolt against the rebels. And got it all wrong. It is E A D G B E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 ParlourMan, you brave young old recusant – you paint the grass green, revolt against the rebels. And got it all wrong. It is E A D G B E Is there a translate option for that? State your case speaker...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 aww man , if you werent there you just doon ttt uunndersstand maannn !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Im not getting into this colourful debate, but do you recall how you remembered initially the E A D G B E string names when starting ? I had a music teadher in the early 90's when I first took lesson and he told me this way: E -every A - a..hole D- does G- get B- better E - eventually It stuck ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Eddie Ate Dynamite Good Bye Eddie :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well well, what a rabbit hole this is turning out to be! This did not start as a critique of The Beatles ... it started with In fact the entire Brit invasion of the 60's was no different to One Direction or Mr Beiber today, This statement is pure B0LL0X and if you don't see why then you are truly lost my friends. The reason I felt compelled to pull PM up on this, is because people DO actually believe it. They think that the crap being pumped out by the likes of XFactor and Souless Cowell is worthy of million selling albums and mass media domination. They think theses puppetts have actually got TALENT TALLENT is not subjective PM.... taste is. I still maintain at their commercial root was a manufactured pop band. As were the Stones.. PM was alluding to such in our last little debate concerning The Stones..... It is WRONG I gave an example of what a manufactured band is... I can think of no manufactured band that does not fit it ( I have not wasted too much time thinking about it tho ) every manufactured band PM mentions fits this model. The Beatles and The Stones are/ where not BLOODY MANUFACTURED POP BANDS for Gods sake !!!!!!!!! The case being that the mold for making bands came from them..is not debated or relevant to this debate. What larks, Pip. Clearly PM loves the Beatles like the vast majority of kids who grew up in the UK during the 70s and 80s. PM loves a gramophonic wind-up though - even more than the Beatles. It is true what he says about there always being a few dissenting voices (my best friend at school never 'got' them, found them cliché, even though I pointed out incessantly that they invented the things that became clichés, and that his idol Bowie would have been nowt without the Fabs). But most of us lived and breathed their music in a time when most exposure to music was via vinyl, dodgy cassettes and the radio. And it does have to be said that there is a difference between US reception and UK reception that I perceive often on this forum. Perhaps it's also generational. Interested also that Del and EMin7 seem to be channelling something of the traditional US view of the Beatles, given that one is in Ireland and the other has Euroots. Don't knock the taste of 11 year-olds, though, Del. I was much more into the Beatles as an 11 year-old. I actually thought that I am the Walrus was genius then. I've read a lot of surrealist poetry since. mojo you posted an interestting read but at no time have I attempted to say early Beatles work was ground breaking... I am not doing a critique of The Beatles or post war popular culture here. I am English.... I am giving no traditional US view of anything Again i am simply stating that the view that there is no difference between One Direction .. Justin beiber The Beatles and the Rolling Stones is literally frightening to me. That our culture has been taken to the lowest common denominator and held up to be of equal worth. PAH!!!!! Oh and congrats on having a cool 9yr old daughter I also used to think God was a dead carrot until i saw him looking up at me from my bowl of cornflakes one morning ! Now i know better.... I was alive during the Ethiopian famine that spurned the whole Feed the World movement in the 80's does that mean I was there? The famine was in a different country on the other side of the world of course and the benefit concert was about 650 miles away from where I lived... but hey... details...... ???????????? What PM? P)lease Please Me and have a good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 dont think anyone even noticed us aussie :D beatles ... bleh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatbaroque Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 dont think anyone even noticed us aussie :D beatles ... bleh EVERY BOY GETS DRUNK AT EASTER.....high to low Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 TALLENT is not subjective PM.... taste is. Ok define it then Del, lets put it in a cast-iron definition, nobody has been able to do so for over 2000 years thus far, but charge on Mr Trotter. Talent is a non-specific measure that is applied to feats, acts, happenings within and outwith taste, a term of no absolute value until now, so come on lets be hearing you Del, define Talent for us all. It is WRONG Nothing says nuanced critique like capitalisation. You must be right. I gave an example of what a manufactured band is... to your personal definition of what it means, a boyband in 2012 need not equate what a boyband (act performing music aimed at young girls) was in 1964. You're being held back by you limited capacity to separate eras here Del. Boyband seems to be really riling you, is this building up to a confession? Were you a Bros fan back in the day? Again i am simply stating that the view that there is no difference between One Direction .. Justin beiber The Beatles and the Rolling Stones is literally frightening to me. That our culture has been taken to the lowest common denominator and held up to be of equal worth. Can you show me where I musically equated them, I pointed out the hysteria, the marketing machine, the demographic was exactly the same, only the year and the tastes of the time have changed. Again I'll say it Delboy, in the 90's Take That were the Beatles to those kids involved, I don't recall there being hysteria handling phonelines being opened when the Beatles finally called it a day. There was for Take That, ridiculous? yes... do I own any Take That records? no, would I ever claim mr Barlows back catalogue could offer anything to match any track off Abbey Road, certainly not, but mass hysteria based around a pop act aimed at young girls in 1964 was the Beatles, in the 90's it was Take That. You can't argue that, just as it's Mr Beiber today, the music is of little consequence, the hysteria is.... "I always felt nobody came to hear the Beatles, they came to SEE the Beatles" Their words not mine.... so even the bloody Beatles could see themselves what you can't after 3 pages of argument, statement and statement refinement. Your argument is a one-trick pony here Del, admit defeat and we'll move on. ???????????? What PM? Did you find that fairly ridiculous Del, it was kind of the point.... much like contesting what's clearly obvious. Paul McCartney "We landed in Paris expecting all these sexy french girls instead we were followed about by homosexual looking young French boys, we weren't used to that" Checkmate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Im still yet to learn how to do this mulitquote thing ..... its quite a skill it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Maybe like Rodney here people have become a little confused with the fog of reasoning presented. . In fact the entire Brit invasion of the 60's was no different to One Direction or Mr Beiber today, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha awwwwwwww aaahahahahahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahahaahhahaahhahahahaha Long Live the Queen X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Maybe like Rodney here people have become a little confused with the fog of reasoning presented. ah, context is a fabulous thing eh, Delboy? Especially when you're playing a weak hand..... The actual quote, in context, was: Pop artist or not, she's up there doing it. Many of the great artists mentioned on these pages built their career on being a pop artist. In fact the entire Brit invasion of the 60's was no different to One Direction or Mr Beiber today, just like then some oldies are having a bit of a moan about it Feel free to respond, I'm here all day...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Long Live the Queen X Here's some manufactured pop for ya .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Here's some manufactured pop for ya .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtUH2YSFlVU I was actually saving that one.... Oh the irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Brilliant EA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz5IFl7uCis haha...My toung was firmly in cheek..just in case you thought otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.