"The Beatles!"

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360677655' post='1974409']
Is that documented fact? From his contemporaries or shortly after - or something accepted by classical experts? As opposed to Beethoven, Strauss, Litsz, Wagner etc
Serious question, honest.
[/quote]

...and a very pertinent question it is, too.
Documented fact..? Well, even the Beatles bowed to his influence (Bach in the USSR, Get Bach etc...).
Beethoven..? No, he'd never heard of Bach (well he was deaf, innit..?)
...and as for Brahms and Liszt, they were too... (Oh, s[i]orry; I have to go now[/i]...)

[Roland Rock]

[quote name='Perennial' timestamp='1360681692' post='1974521']
Wow that was great. I usually avoid the Lennon solo stuff but this was interesting. A little Zappa.
[/quote]

Isn't that the version off the White album, ie The Beatles rather than solo John? The YT description is quite misleading
Agreed though, fantastic song

[JTUK]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360677774' post='1974412']
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]

I hear Clayton mentioned on here quite a lot and I don't get it.
It doesn't matter if they spend EONS in the studio getting the bass down, as long as that is Clayton playing, then he does a pretty decent job.
U2..for all their faults ..have some decent grooves going on and this is down to that section.
If you wanted to pull apart U2, I wouldn't start at AC.
just my 2p..

Same as Williams in AC/DC... you try playing straight 8's rock steady all night...??
AC/DC are REALLY not my thing, but these guys are decent professionals and as such someone has seen fit to pay them a LOT of money over a LOT of years when they pretty much could have afforded anyone else..
They do a good enough job and do the basics pretty well.

Back to U2.. the hardest thing about doing their songs is nailing a decent enough groove on some of the tracks.
The drum programmer must be pretty damn good

[risingson]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1360681872' post='1974527']
This is one of my favourites. This could almost be a Chemical Brothers song.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spjcPS4ekOA[/media]
[/quote]

It was They acknowledge it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkkMz2awmbI

[SteveK]

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1360682093' post='1974536']
Isn't that the version off the White album, ie The Beatles rather than solo John? The YT description is quite misleading
Agreed though, fantastic song
[/quote]
At that point they were not happy Fabs. Many of the tracks could be considered to be solo efforts.

Oooh, another factoid: The opening spanish guitar phrase on Bungalow Bill, was in fact, a Mellotron... didn't influnce prog? - pah! [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwby-XvzpH8[/media]

[uncle psychosis]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360683267' post='1974574']
Oooh, another factoid:
[/quote]

I apologise in advance for the pedantry, but...

[size=4][b]Factoid[/b]

[color=#333333][b]A.[/b][/color][color=#333333] [/color][color=#333333][i]n.[/i][/color]

[color=#333333][b] Something that becomes accepted as a fact, although it is not (or may not be) true; [i]spec.[/i] an assumption or speculation reported and repeated so often that it is popularly considered true; a simulated or imagined fact.[/b][/color][/size]

Edited February 12, 2013 by uncle psychosis

[SteveK]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1360684274' post='1974609']
I apologise in advance for the pedantry, but...

[size=4][b]Factoid[/b]

[color=#333333][b]A.[/b][/color][color=#333333] [/color][color=#333333][i]n.[/i][/color]

[color=#333333][b] Something that becomes accepted as a fact, although it is not (or may not be) true; [i]spec.[/i] an assumption or speculation reported and repeated so often that it is popularly considered true; a simulated or imagined fact.[/b][/color][/size]
[/quote]
Upon further investigation (frantic Googling), I stand corrected.
I hereby wish it to be known that my 'factoids' will forthwith be known as 'Factlets'

Fab factlet (doesn't have the same ring, does it?):

In 1964 Manfred Mann tried to sting Paul Macca ('cause he was a Beatle) by selling him a harmonium, which was worth £8, [b]for £12[/b]... Macca said , "No ta, wack!"

Edited February 12, 2013 by SteveK

[KevB]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360686277' post='1974674']
In 1964 Manfred Mann tried to sting Paul Macca ('cause he was a Beatle) by selling him a harmonium, which was worth £8, [b]for £12[/b]... Macca said , "No ta, wack!"
[/quote]

What a chisler, I don't know how you can look him in the eye onstage...

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360662279' post='1974033']
And BRX is right, go and listen to the Residents for some outstanding and incredibly varied work that only a few people like.
[/quote]

Thanks!

[IMG]http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n249/BigRedX/MI0002077036_zps937b6f29.jpg[/IMG]

[BassTractor]

The main problem in this thread, IMHO, is that people do not express their views in a very precise fashion, and that others easily - I'd say way too easily - misunderstand what is being said, resulting in lots of broad statements supported by lots of straw men, defensiveness and maybe even vindictiveness.


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?


FWIW, I was the 8 year old boy who tried to explain to the grown ups in the sixties that "She Loves You" was a very simple song, and that they'd better start listening to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
Then, Rubber Soul and Revolver made me more "mild". Yup!
Fast forward:
Some of the Beatles' songs are amongst the songs I love most of everything, like Blackbird and The Long and Winding Road.
But I'd never bought a Beatles album before "Let It Be - Naked" when it was on sale, but now much enjoy my CD copies of their latter years albums (starting with Rubber Soul and Revolver), except Sgt. Pepper, which I can't stand probably only because it was much overplayed in my circles when I was young.


I can't and won't deny the influence The Beatles had on the popular culture of several generations.
Musicologically speaking, I think they provided nice to awesome pop songs, some of which were among the best that pop music has brought forward, but art it ain't. I'm here using my Dutch definition of art, as in that only the very best, most profound, art-developing music is considered art.

They have influenced popular music indeed, but certainly have not influenced Krzysztof Penderecki or Iannis Xenakis, to name a few.
The Beatles would certainly not be able to explain the inner working of those composers' works, whilst [i]those[/i] composers on the other hand hand wouldn't want to explain the Beatles' works out of sheer boredom.
BTW, McCartney's "classical" work is hardly classical, and at any rate very dilettantish.

Before I get arrested: NO, I do NOT think that formal matters are the only thing to look at when talking about music.
But I do think that exclamations like "Over-rated" do tend to actually relate to the formal side of things.

As to the discussion on "who's gonna judge", some of you may be surprised to learn how much of music is actually quantative, and there will always be people who are better than others in knowing how exactly a certain song or piece works, to which degree it reaches the goals it set out for itself, and why it has the impact it has.
As an example, I presented a short piece totally different than anything to my composition teacher. He immediately told me about the formal flaws in the working out of the implicit rules that I myself had set up. He immediately saw what I still can't see 30 odd years later.


Well, this certainly became longer than I intended.
Condescending? I don't think so. I tend to have a lot more respect for other people than those others have for me, and I do kinda know what I'm talking about here. I think i would be condescending to [b]not[/b] share my thoughts.


best,
bert

Edit: speling and clarity

Edited February 12, 2013 by BassTractor

[flyfisher]

[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.

[51m0n]

Cant stand PM (and he wrote such utter dross - IMO), Lennon was a bit of a w**ker apparently, but I prefer the songs he wrote, Ringo was largely confused by everything around him as far as I can tell, and my mother in law had a big crush on GH (enough said I think)....

From the point of view of the pop song's evolution, the real innovation was the studio usage and technology they had an almost unique level of access to at the time, the songs were just songs. They were helped no end in the arrangements of those songs by GM, who can be considered to be in the same league as Quincy Jones when it comes to musical ability.

Some of the songs were pretty good, some were tripe, some people like some, some people like others, some people are more influenced by some of the songs than others. They are a very large body of work though, and cover territory that is surprisingly wide, until you take into account the insanely fervent hot bed of innovation that the music industry was at that time, if you were really obsessed with music, then the influences they had on them were there for you to find to, assuming you had access to those influences at all, which wasn't very likely really.

If your only means of deciding that something lives up to the hype is the number of units sold over time, then for you nothing could ever beat a Big Mac and Fries to go.

Sorry if I have offended everyone....

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360678403' post='1974435']Admit it -- you're try trying to be provocative now. If you don't understand the Beatles or Bach and their importance, that's fine. But don't pass off a lack of understanding as insight. It's just silly.
[/quote]

Yeah OK sweetheart; any one that has so much difficulty understanding three words such as "serious question, honest" has serious problems of their own so as to be not worth giving credence to.
Choob.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1360681949' post='1974529']
...and a very pertinent question it is, too.
Documented fact..? Well, even the Beatles bowed to his influence (Bach in the USSR, Get Bach etc...).
Beethoven..? No, he'd never heard of Bach (well he was deaf, innit..?)
...and as for Brahms and Liszt, they were too... (Oh, s[i]orry; I have to go now[/i]...)

[/quote]

At least your answer was more worthwhile than Lowenders.

FWIW, Jimmy Lea, who was a classical violinist from the age of 14 among other accomplishments, as well as a Macca fan, cited Mozart above the other classicists, & often dropped a bit of Gershwin into Slade gigs.
Though I don't hang on to his every word & have been known to actually go in the door rather than stand outside his house .

[tedmanzie]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1360688551' post='1974738']
I can't and won't deny the influence The Beatles had on the popular culture of several generations.
Musicologically speaking, I think they provided nice to awesome pop songs, some of which were among the best that pop music has brought forward, but art it ain't. I'm here using my Dutch definition of art, as in that only the very best, most profound, art-developing music is considered art.
[/quote]

Interesting and well put. Debating whether the songs are art or not is a red herring in my opinion. For me The Beatles work celebrates the simple joy of music. That's why it was and is still so popular and will more than likely remain that way for hundreds, maybe thousands of years to come . . . . . . (post ends with final E major chord from Day In Th Life) . . . ..

Edited February 12, 2013 by tedmanzie

[BassTractor]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360689462' post='1974765']
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.
[/quote]

.

I don't understand how that relates to the part you culled from my post. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker, so it may be perfectly logical.

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.
The exception here is new art, for which adequate theory normally has been developed in hindsight - though exactly that aspect is on the return these days.

best,
bert

[BassTractor]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1360690935' post='1974814']
Interesting and well put. Debating whether the songs are art or not is a red herring in my opinion. For me The Beatles work celebrates the simple joy of music. That's why it was and is still so popular and will more than likely remain that way for hundreds, maybe thousands of years to come . . . . . . (post ends with E major chord from Day In Th Life) . . . ..
[/quote]


Thanks.
The red herring in case was not intended as a red herring, but I can see how it can function like that.
Great remark about celebrating the joy of music. I will indeed enjoy my Beatles for thousands of years to come, and will continue to be moved to tears.

E Major?!
Demn you! I hate E Major! You only wrote that to provoke me! Clown!


best,
bert

Edited February 12, 2013 by BassTractor

[tedmanzie]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1360691286' post='1974827']
Demn you! I hate E Major! You only wrote that to provoke me! Clown!
[/quote]

Oh yeah! You can stick your [i]A Sharp Diminished 7th[/i] where the sun don't shine!!

[BassTractor]

[quote name='tedmanzie' timestamp='1360692634' post='1974856']
You can stick your [i]sharp diminished 7"[/i] where the sun don't shine!!
[/quote]

Hey! You've been talking to my ex!! Stop that!!!

best,
bert

[Lowender]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360690038' post='1974782']
Yeah OK sweetheart; any one that has so much difficulty understanding three words such as "serious question, honest" has serious problems of their own so as to be not worth giving credence to.
Choob.
[/quote]

Apparently you misunderstood Nancy. I gave a serious answer, you just don't want to accept it, because that would mean admitting your foolishness.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360694654' post='1974905']
Apparently you misunderstood Nancy. I gave a serious answer, you just don't want to accept it, because that would mean admitting your foolishness.
[/quote]

I don't think you did, you just dressed up your opinion as a fact.

I have accounts at a couple of classical only shops, I'll see if they know of anyone that states for a fact that Bach is THE most influential classicist. I think they'll agree with me that it's an absurd and unquantifiable proposal.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Big_Stu

[flyfisher]

[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.

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1360690943' post='1974815']
.

I don't understand how that relates to the part you culled from my post. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker, so it may be perfectly logical.

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.
The exception here is new art, for which adequate theory normally has been developed in hindsight - though exactly that aspect is on the return these days.

best,
bert
[/quote]You ain't a native speaker, bloody hell! Your post are some of the best on here!

[SteveK]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1360689550' post='1974767']
From the point of view of the pop song's evolution,[b] the real innovation was the studio usage and technology they had an almost unique level of access to at the time,[/b] the songs were just songs. They were helped no end in the arrangements of those songs by GM, who can be considered to be in the same league as Quincy Jones when it comes to musical ability.
[/quote]
And why did they have a 'unique level of access' to technology and 'studio usage'? Because very quickly they had proved to the 'powers that be' at Parlophone that they were worth the investment.
Initially they were treated no differently to any other bands of the day. It wasn't until they started selling shed loads of records that all that changed - basically, they had [i]earned[/i] their right to more studio time - and that's how it works to this very day.
Oh, and no one would be foolish enough to say that George Martin wasn't a major factor in their success.

[BassTractor]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360697764' post='1974993']
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.
[/quote]

Oh, but then we're on a ledger here. I did not write, or intent to indicate, that music alltogether is a quantitative science.
What I do want to write though, is that music is far more quantitative than often believed by those without formal education.

The fun fact[s]oid[/s]lett here is that they themselves will use formal, semi-formal or attempted formal arguments to put down music they dislike, and will try to use similar to stand up for music they do like.
"That stupid, repetitive two chord sh*t! My daughter wrote more advanced stuff when she was five!"
"Oh, man! Listen to those chord changes. So inventive with these polyrhythms! This is deep, man!"


[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360697764' post='1974993']
I can imagine there has been loads of work on the psychology of music, but psychology itself isn't the most quantitative science.
[/quote]

Agreed, and see above.


[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1360697764' post='1974993']
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.
[/quote]

Hm. I don't see this is necessarily so. A game of GO (Chinese board game that's easily learnt but very hard to master, often compared to Chess) can easily be analysed, but the very best GO computer software today is still lousy at playing, effectively playing at mediocre to reasonable club player level.
Similarly, it's far easier to analyse an existing song and include some of the "magic" in the analysis, than to set up some formal rules and have a computer churn out "good" stuff. The computer program lacks the evaluation capability that humans have, and does not have a composition process consisting of listening back and changing over time either.

More importantly, the essence of a "good" pop song has both quantifiable and non-quantifiable (for now) parts, even though analysable afterwards, but I would also put forward the idea that EVERY pop artist that has ever been hugely popular in all kinds of circles, has some formal bits very much in order. Or, to put it a little differently: formal qualities are a necessity to become hugely popular across markets.
The Beatles are one of those bands. I think Queen are as well (I have zero Queen albums, mind, so not talking as fanboy).


[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360697794' post='1974994']
You ain't a native speaker, bloody hell! Your post are some of the best on here!
[/quote]

Thank you. That was very nice to read, indeed, and a great support. Must be doing something right then.

Trying to explain what I mean:
When I write, apart from often making mistakes, I can choose how much time I use on looking things up, and I can form sentences that only use the words and ways of expressing that I feel comfortable enough with. When I read, however, part of this freedom is removed, and often stuff does go over my head. In sum, I'll often look more able than I really am.



OK, this has cost a lot of time and energy, and I'm tired and not capable of rereading and judging what I wrote. Will come back later and change where necessary, rather than not posting now.


best,
bert