flyfisher

Seconded!

[quote name='Oopsdabassist' timestamp='1360672315' post='1974242'] You never gonna beat the Bonzos, sorry guys FF nailed it! [/quote] You're too kind. But yes, a very under-rated band.

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1360690943' post='1974815'] As to your claim on the measurability of "quality of compositions", I can only say that I do not know what exactly you know about this stuff, but I do know that people who are not formally educated in composition or musicology, do tend to under-rate (haha) how much of a composition is measurable and rateable. Music psychology is part of analysis, and we know quite much about how music works and why. [/quote] I certainly wouldn't want to suggest I have any special musical knowledge and am more than happy to be pointed towards a methodology for quantitatively analysing music in order to measure its artistic merit. I can imagine there has been loads of work on the psychology of music, but psychology itself isn't the most quantitative science. I've no doubt musical composition can be analysed in all sorts of ways but if the essence of a 'good' song that would be enjoyed by millions of people really could be measured then there would be a computer programme somewhere churning out hit after hit and making a fortune for the record companies. I'd suggest that this doesn't happen because it's simply not possible.

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1360688551' post='1974738'] Simple example (not actually drawn from specific posts) of the interpretation bit: "The Beatles are over-rated" (OK, that resembles Bilbo, but from here on it's constructed) Now to me this immediately means the following: "There's a discrepancy between the quality of their compositions, musicologically speaking, and the adolation they've received for those compositions." To others it seems to mean: "I am a genius, and The Beatles certainly were far from as influential on music as art form as people think they were." Whilst others seem to think it means: "The Beatles certainly were far from as influential on popular culture as people think they were." Who is to say whose interpretation is correct if one doesn't ask the right questions? [/quote] My contention is that none of those statements are correct because they are all based on the false premise that things such as "quality of compositions" can be measured. If there is no quantitative way to measure (or 'rate') something, then it cannot be said to be over-rated, or under-rated for that matter.

Forums and the written word can be a tricky medium and it's easy to read something the wrong way if we happen to be in a bad mood. I wouldn't rush to change your user name homer

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360676398' post='1974357'] Aaah, ...... you mean like Sid Vicious? [/quote] Could be, though I was thinking of Adam Clayton. Same principle though. But we'd best not digress or we'll be arguing about Mustang Sally or Brown Eyed Girl again. In fact, perhaps the mods should consider adding the Beatles and Mustang Sally to politics, religion and sexism as topics to be avoided lest it all descends into name calling.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360676519' post='1974363'] This is a semantic argument now. [/quote] Yep, I'd go with that - assuming you're referring to my point about it being impossible to over-rate an artist.

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360668509' post='1974155'] [color=#222222]An individual measures 'artistic value' in a subjective way – but if you say that is invalid then you are dismissing a whole tradition of artistic criticism going back many centuries![/color] [/quote] But I'm not saying that. Nor am I saying that an individual's subjective assessment of 'artistic value' is not valid - of course it is, [u]to them[/u]. [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360668509' post='1974155'] [color=#222222]I would suggest that even though they have a genuine musical legacy, it is nowhere as good as popularly accepted nor does it justify the incredible hype that surrounds the Beatles – therefore they are 'over-rated' in purely musical terms![/color] [/quote] This is the bit I dispute. You cannot define 'how good' their accepted musical legacy and influence is [u]without[/u] taking into account their massive, possibly unparallelled, popularity. THAT is what defines their legacy, influence and 'artistic value'. In this context, how [u]can[/u] an artist be 'over rated'? It's a pointless statement. [quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360668509' post='1974155'] [color=#222222]Of course, this view is subjective, but still worthy of debate and should not be dismissed out of hand due to a blind devotion to a pop group of fifty years ago. I am a big Led Zep fan, but I don’t consider them to be above criticism and neither are the Beatles…![/color] [/quote] Exactly. I most certainly don't consider The Beatles to be above criticism and I'm not particularly interested if people like them or not. I'm arguing that an artist cannot be 'over-rated'. That's when these sorts of debates spill over into ridiculousness and become worthless. It's like when someone says something like "xyz is a crap bassist" even though they are part of a globally popular and successful band - their global success and popularity is the very thing that gives them artistic merit. They can't be "over-rated" because there is no definitive scale against which to rate them in the first place.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360666664' post='1974122'] Awful to admit it, FF, but PC is not one of my heroes. I chose him because it would have a market! Oh, the shame of it! [/quote] So if someone not particularly interested in The Beatles hops onto a Beatles bus tour around Liverpool and stops outside Macca's childhood home then that's OK because they are not a big Beatles fan, just curious?

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360666464' post='1974118'] I think that we are arguing at cross purposes here! When someone suggests that the Beatles may possibly be over-rated, they are not denying their global influence when as you it is there for all to see. What they are saying is that their musical legacy, huge and influential as it may be, does not justify the even bigger hype surrounding it. Simon Cowell is indeed a hugely influential figure in the current music / entertainment business – are you really trying to equate his artistic value with that of the Beatles?? [/quote] What I'm saying is that there is no way to measure the 'value' of these artist's output without reference to their popularity. If, as you seem to accept, their musical legacy is huge and influential, how can it then be argued that it is over- hyped? How would you suggest we measure 'artistic value' ?

On the same theme, I wonder if Ringo has ever regretted not setting a string of hair dressing salons? : lol:

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1360663060' post='1974050'] I don't think I have ever gone on a pilgrimage to see anything, I have only seen stuff by being there anyway. Kind of 'oooh look! York Minster Cathedral' when I was in York for a conference. Would I travel anywhere to see something like Paul Chambers' bass? Well, I haven't to date so I guess not. Cult of Personality stuff has always made me uncomfortable . . . . [/quote] Says the man who went to the trouble of writing a whole book about one of his musical heroes

It's not people's individual opinions of The Beatles that is really the issue here, it's the denial of their global influence when it's there for all to see. It's like hating football because it's a daft game played by over-paid prima donna half-wits (which seems a fair summary to me) and then denying the national influence of the game that millions of people watch and enjoy each week ( which would be plain stupid wheat he evidence is clear). That's all. YMM indeed V . . . . so let's all acknowledge that it does - sometimes for billions of people. Let's face it, Simon Cowell is also a hugely influential music figure for that very reason.

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360662279' post='1974033'] When you go to see where Paul McCartney lived 50 years ago you get to see a very ordinary house exactly like a lot of other very ordinary houses. You do not get to see Paul McCartney. There appears to be no real merits to it. I can understand wanting to go to the Cavern or the Star Club and see where the Beatles cut their teeth, just. Or hanging around outside where Macca lives now to get a glimpse of him (and shout "Frog Chorus" thanks Skol). Just about.... But looking at an ordinary terraced house maketh no sense to me at all. [/quote] It may make no sense to you (nor me actually) but you can't deny that many people think differently and do go along. Just as they do to Abbey Road studios to see where they recorded. Other people hunt down 'blue plaques' marking where their particular heroes lived. It takes all sorts. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't have merit for loads of other people. And if it has merit for billions of people then, by definition, it is influential - whether you like it or not.

Yep, there have always been a group of people who will dislike something simply because it is popular, despite its merits. As you rightly pointed out, teenagers are renowned for such forms of rebelliousness, though most grow out of it.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1360620011' post='1973652'] In all seriousness though, The Beatles do pretty much nada for me. Not that there's any dislike for them from my corner. None at all. They were a staple favourite among many people when I was a teenager, and for precisely that reason I made a conscious effort to buck the trend and ignore them - I mean, that's what teenagers do, right? [/quote] Not just teenagers, it seems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DUEAG5eO6c

[quote name='JellyKnees' timestamp='1360603588' post='1973179'] Just because lots of people do a particular thing doesn't necessarily give it any validity (the iphone being the perfect example) ...it just proves that people are capable of unthinking herd like behaviour. [/quote] For anything as subjective as music, how would you define 'validity' ? Could it not be that its validity stems largely from the very popularity you seem to decry? The iPhone is, indeed, another example. It's popularity is undeniable, yet many people try to dismiss it out of hand as 'over-hyped' instead of just saying they don't like it (or, perhaps more accurately, they don't like its success ).

Some probably would, but that's fan-dom for you and it happens with all sorts of things from people queueing up to see the Mona Lisa to camping outside an Apple store to buy the latest iPhone. It's hardly a phenomenon unique to The Beatles, though it is more apparent because there are so may people who like them. THAT'S the point.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360595882' post='1972978'] Really? Maybe you lack the imagination to be able to do that. I don't. [/quote] To be fair, I have absolutely no doubt that, given unlimited studio time and financial patronage, you'd be able to turn out a series of albums that YOU would consider every bit as creative and innovative as The Beatles. The trick is to convince a few billion other people.

Really? Have you never travelled anywhere to marvel at a work of art, or a historic building, or any other sensory experience? What about people who travel hundreds of miles to a gig - why is any band 'worthy' of playing to 100,000 fans? Or is it only playing to a few dozen people in a grubby club the only thing that's really 'worthy' (which, incidentally, was pretty much what The Beatles started off doing anyway). This is the same line of reasoning that seems to make certain people dislike Microsoft, Tesco and other successful entities and/or people who have built up a world wide influence. The dislike is fine, it's all subjective after all, but denying the quite obvious influence and impact on millions/billions of lives is, to coin a phrase, nonsense.

I don't see any particular problem about gigging at your own wedding . . . . . but it might be wise to steer clear of the groupies.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1360589548' post='1972794'] But give me and 3 of my musically inclined friends virtually unlimited studio time in a state of the art facility. Give us a sympathetic producer and a team of engineers ready to pander to our every sonic whim. Feed us a diet of previously unheard music and the occasional mind-altering drugs, and then outside of the studio surround us with the cream of innovative artists spanning the whole spectrum of creative endeavour, and I'm sure that we could come up with a series of albums every bit as varied and interesting as anything the Beatles did. [/quote] I doubt it, for one simple reason. I don't believe that in the last 50 years there has not been a single bunch of musically-inclined lads (or lasses, of course) who didn't have rich enough parents to indulge their little darlings in enough studio time to churn out a series of albums to world acclaim. The very fact that it hasn't happened is proof that The Beatles - for whatever reasons - were a unique phenomenon. Alternatively, perhaps you could argue that an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time would eventually come up with something to rival The Beatles catalogue?

Could have been a dry joint, though I tend to be a bit suspicious of such diagnoses unless the equipment is fairly new because, in my experience, dry joints tend to manifest themselves at the young end of a product's lifetime. But, I had a similar problem with a power resistor in my Ampeg combo. It's a large component and was only secured to the PCB by its soldered legs. The soldering was fine but years of vibration had resulted in the PCB track developing a small crack allowing the soldered lead to move about in the PCB hole, resulting in an intermittent connection. A b*gger to find, but very easy to fix by cleaning the PCB trace and soldering some tinned-copper wire across the hairline fracture. Of course, simply re-flowing such a joint would probably fix the fault but probably wouldn't be as robust a fix as it could be if there is underlying PCB damage. Might be worth bearing such things in mind when dealing with ageing amps.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360592176' post='1972889'] Sorry, but I think that post is almost on a par with:[i] I could play "Stairway To Heaven" when I was 12. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was 22. I think that says quite a lot.[/i] [/quote]