Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

I don't really think the beatles catalogue is a POS

JuanCarlosVejar

By JuanCarlosVejar
in Gibson Acoustic

Recommended Posts

merseybeat1963

merseybeat1963

Posted
Posted

The big difference between then and now is that today everything is neatly placed in a category. Radio stations play only this and that kind of music. Shows feature bands all cut from the same cloth. Back then you could tune in Cousin Brucie on your AM dial and hear the Temptations followed by Johnny Cash followed by the Beatles followed by Louie Armstrong. You would go to concerts and see Woody Herman on the same bill as Led Zeppelin.

 

It has always been fashionable to say there were better bands than the Beatles back in the early 1960s - the Searchers and Most Blues Wailing Yardbirds are often mentioned. And maybe it was just a matter of the Beatles being better packaged than the others. But John Lennon remains the best voice in rock and roll and Ringo had the best back beat in the business. And they were just what we needed at the time. Crap, what a break from the onslaught of Bobbys (Vee, Vinton, Rydell) who appeared in the wake of Buddy Holly's death.

 

I was repulsed to seein the mid 70's a major award show..maybe it was a Grammys... Best BLACK song of the year..Best BLACK album of the year...Best BLACK artist of the year..

And theres Prince...Lionel Richie ..etc all...clapping and smiling.

What a freakin backwards society...and those musicians should have been INSULTED by the segregation.

In 1969..70 there was no seperate category...was there. The money masters who arranged that are a disgrace to humanity.

 

1500 TV stations..9000 Radio Stations...are owned by only 3 Corporations.(Off Julian Lennons Site)

 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=528467510508765&set=a.312286055460246.76583.307551552600363&type=1&relevant_count=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gruffchris

Gruffchris

Posted
Posted

The big difference between then and now is that today everything is neatly placed in a category. You would go to concerts and see Woody Herman on the same bill as Led Zeppelin.

 

 

 

As a kid in the 90's, I won backstage passes to the V festival, the head liners were The Verve, Robbie Williams and someone else? Anyway whilst Robbie was doing his thing, James Brown was in one of the other tents, so I got funky for an hour.

 

But I agree things are better packaged now and music is much more accessible than it was in the 60's. Songs, books, films are all just a click away.

 

Personally I have been turned on to a few styles of music over the last year from this site.

 

Back to the OP's statement. So what if you think the Beatles back catalogue is a POS, if people were offended by your statement then tough, we're all grown ups and like what we like.

 

My opinion on the subject is that both the Beatles and Aaron Lewis are rubbish, well if I had to be sat in a room listening to them, then I'd go for the Beatles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ParlourMan

ParlourMan

Posted
Posted

.Back to the OP's statement. So what if you think the Beatles back catalogue is a POS, if people were offended by your statement then tough, we're all grown ups and like what we like.

 

That's it in a nutshell, we can itellectualise the Beatles, analyze their contribution to music, ponder over their influence on trends of the time... but either you like the music or you don't, there's little to be debated when looking at it as simply as that. While I love certain portions of their career, I can see past it and look at what else was happening then, as well as what's happening now. Even timeless compositions face tough competition from what defines the era we live in now, there's something very energetic about the right record at the right time. In that sense the Beatles have had their day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gruffchris

Gruffchris

Posted
Posted

Ok, so maybe that last post was a bit tongue in cheek [tongue]

 

If I had to be honest 2 Beatles songs are in my top 5. Yellow Submarine? for some reason when in a school play at 7, we had to sing this? So the few times I here it now make me feel good.

 

The other is Strawberry fields, again nothing to do with the Beatles but Candy flip, I'd just hit high school and for me that's when I started to buy my own music and at 12/13 drugs were cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
j45nick

j45nick

Posted
Posted

Ok, so maybe that last post was a bit tongue in cheek [tongue]

 

If I had to be honest 2 Beatles songs are in my top 5. Yellow Submarine? for some reason when in a school play at 7, we had to sing this? So the few times I here it now make me feel good.

 

The other is Strawberry fields, again nothing to do with the Beatles but Candy flip, I'd just hit high school and for me that's when I started to buy my own music and at 12/13 drugs were cool.

 

 

I think you're getting the point now. The music we remember and appreciate is the music we connect to specific events in our lives, some good, and some bad. For people of my age (66) it's inevitable that Dylan, the Stones, and the Beatles were a big part of the soundtrack of our lives.

 

It didn't really matter how good the music was....but it was good. Still is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
geeterpicker

geeterpicker

Posted
Posted

In 40+ years, will musicians and songwriters around the world be influenced by and still purchasing the music of Aaron Lewis? Will people say his name anywhere on the planet where you can guarantee persons of any age will instantly know who he is? Maybe, but I don't know. Time will tell. But being having lived close to 60 years tells me one thing - rare is the artist who has such reach and influence. I don't think we will ever again see anyone reach the same level The Beatles attained.

 

I think many of these debates stem from the fact that The Beatles were such a rarity. Subsequent generations have nothing to compare to it. So each generation that comes along has its own music and the natural inclination is to think of it as superior. But reality is that nobody from the 70s, 80s, 90s or so far in the 21st century has come close. Michael Jackson? Mmmm, more like Elvis. A brilliant entertainer. Still, what did Michael do? Buy The Beatles catalogue. Not Elvis', not the Stones. Why? Because he knew people would still be buying it 100 years from now. They might now be buying Billie Jean.

 

When The Beatles hit, the comparisons were to Elvis. It was a more valid comparison, though, in that people are also still buying and listening to Elvis' music. But you didn't see The Beatles in Vegas wearing sequins. And maybe John and Paul knew the industry would treat them more as a novelty and want them to run around the world doing the old stuff. And perhaps they were not sure if they had anything left in the tank that would shake the world again. So better to leave the legacy as it stood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stein

stein

Posted
Posted

I don't think one has to defend not liking the Beatles so much, but they did have a contribution to music as it is now.

 

I wasn't around when they hit it big, but from what I can see, they were very much in the right place at the right time. There would have been still very much of a racial line between "Black" and "White" artist and music, and what their first formula or appeal was, they made Rock and Roll accesable to a young, white audience. Much the same as Elvis did.

 

It for sure, didn't have the same edge and additude...more toned down for kids. If you look at that early impact, that's who the audience was, and they played their versions of Rock with more of a bubblegum type of deal. I would dare to call them the first "Boy Band".

 

As they matured, as music and pop matured, they became less "Rock" and more "Folk" oriented, and crafted some great songs that way. I think nearly everyone has at least one or two songs by them they really love, which to me is the mark or a great songwriter- and they can be very different songs for different poeple.

 

I take exception to calling them a great "Rock" band, as opposed to a great "band". I don't think they created what I would call Rock and Roll, and definitely didn't carry the edge from the Blues that a true Rock and Roll band would. They more of had a role in making Rock more "pop", and made "folk" more acceptable to a Rock audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
j45nick

j45nick

Posted
Posted

 

When The Beatles hit, the comparisons were to Elvis. It was a more valid comparison, though, in that people are also still buying and listening to Elvis' music. But you didn't see The Beatles in Vegas wearing sequins. And maybe John and Paul knew the industry would treat them more as a novelty and want them to run around the world doing the old stuff. And perhaps they were not sure if they had anything left in the tank that would shake the world again. So better to leave the legacy as it stood.

 

 

Elvis was a great entertainer. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't remember many songs he wrote, can you? And I think the guitars were primarily accessories.

 

But the Beatles did go through their own equivalent of the Elvis sequin stage. Think of the cover of Sgt. Pepper. At the end of the day, however, it was the music they wrote and perforemd--and their incredible musical evolution over a short period of time--that we remember.

 

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Elvis, and even Michael Jackson, not to mention scores of other musicians of the last 100 years (not that I was there for all of it). But some of the Beatles stuff is, and will ever be, pretty special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
E-minor7

E-minor7

Posted
Posted

To avoid any misunderstandings, I'd like to flash that I fully accept any kind of not liking The Fab.

I can even see why it would be tempting to drive a little anti-campaign.

Meanwhile I'll pick up the 1963 and give a bow to I'll Follow The Sun.

 

Btw. I think young R G P & J were as crazed by Presley as I was by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aster1

Aster1

Posted
Posted

I got busy & never answered the OP's question about The Beatles Cat. To start off, the Beatles were my favs growing up, moved to the Acid Rock & others, then most of that "sound" grew stale for me. For the last maybe 10 yrs or so The Beatles returned as my favorite sound, not the only sound, but my favorite. Too many groups catalogs, IMHO, sound same old same old. When you mixed 3 great Beatles John George & Paul's different styles into a single album, even though J&P got way more than the lions share, the album really was a different sound between the tracks. I've come back to liking the 1966 and older Beatles work the best. Sgt. Pepper forward 2nd. I have to admit, when they worked & did a hundred takes, I LOVED the Ringo singing songs too. Just loved them. May have been like pulling teeth for the other boys, but dang they are great songs.

 

Again, IMHO, Drugs & Women did work that and many groups over. Also, when you ran the schedule the boys did any 4 groups would have burned out. What is it 24 albums in about 6 yrs? Lordy, how did they do that alone? Then be touring non-stop almost FOR YEARS. Criminitly , and I think I work long hard hours. Then to have what 26-27 #1 songs. Weeeehehehellll. How you do that?

 

Beatles vs. Stone, said before not even close. For me THE BEATLES by a London Mile. [biggrin]

 

Aster

Link to comment
Share on other sites
merseybeat1963

merseybeat1963

Posted
Posted

Elvis was a great entertainer. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't remember many songs he wrote, can you? And I think the guitars were primarily accessories.

 

But the Beatles did go through their own equivalent of the Elvis sequin stage. Think of the cover of Sgt. Pepper. At the end of the day, however, it was the music they wrote and perforemd--and their incredible musical evolution over a short period of time--that we remember.

 

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Elvis, and even Michael Jackson, not to mention scores of other musicians of the last 100 years (not that I was there for all of it). But some of the Beatles stuff is, and will ever be, pretty special.

 

He was a great translator..

Before they put him into the army Elvis Presley was like a wild animal.

They gave him a song and he put it on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...