gsgbass Posted February 9, 2014 Author Share Posted February 9, 2014 And after all is said, and done, time will pass, and The Beatles will still be The Beatles. Thanks Ed, for the really big show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetaFunk Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1391988322' post='2363411'] There really is no argument - I mean... Don't recall The Fabs ever recording anything by Jagger/Richards. [/quote] But they did record Obla Di Obla Da. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360429093' post='1970288'] The Beatles listened to a lot of stuff by bands no-one was really listening to, and brought those sounds to the masses. Influential more than innovative I think you'll find. [/quote] The Beatles did both. They wore their many influences on their sleeves, but also innovated more than anyone else at the time. It's not an either-or situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Bassy Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='tonybassplayer' timestamp='1391958155' post='2362963'] We are over in the states at the moment and it's pretty big news over here and I seem to recall that tonight on tv they have Paul and Ringo on tv ( not sure if it's an interview or a concert or both as I only caught a glimpse ). Think I will tune in because those scenes when they arrived here for the first time and the whole Ed Sullivan show thing are still amazing fifty years later and it's unlikely anything like that will be repeated ever again. [/quote] I'm in the US as well at the moment, and as you say it's big news: "The Beatles and the British invasion" (and Jay Leno's retiring from the Tonight show). Mind you it might just be that the news programs and clips are repeated so often that makes it seems the big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] But of course in your points quoted - by then the Beatles had stopped being a live act. Which led them to being a studio bound experimental combo. I don't know of any of, what this forum construes as, rivals who did the same. [/quote] Another example of their innovation? Quite brave to turn their backs on touring I'd have thought. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. [/quote] Interesting suggestion that the main purpose of a rock band is to play live. It's certainly a great thing, but it could be argued that recordings reach more people. As for 'couldn't hack' live performances, I suspect the state PA technology was against them. We've all seen those ludicrous stadium gigs where they are resolutely out-screamed by their fans. I'm sure that would soon take the shine of gigging for any of us. Unfortunately, by the time PA technology caught up with their needs they were already well on the way to breaking up. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] Chuck Berry is who he is, without him the Beatles progress would have started and ended with Lonnie Donnegan. He's the one who created the "genre", NOT the Beatles! Surely knowing what Berry's contribution to music history shouldn't need any explanation. [/quote] Why would it have ended with Donegan? Why wouldn't Lennon and McCartney still have developed their song writing without Berry? It's possible I suppose, but just as much a guess as the alternative. Of course Berry made a big contribution to modern music, but I don't think he could fairly be cited for a wide range of different styles. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] Then of course, there's all of the Beatles admissions that without George Martin there would have been far less progress. [/quote] Absolutely! Martin is certainly worthy of the epithet '5th Beatle' if anyone is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420']... As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. I won't go to The Stones are still playing 40+ years later because IMHO they should have packed that in a decade+ ago...[/quote] Never saw them 'live', myself, but I've several acquaintances (none of whom could be remotely mistaken for 'screaming teenage girls'..!) who did, some of whom playing in bands on the same circuits at the time. They all give credit to their real performing abilities, before, during and after the 'Hamburg' period. They established their reputation for entertainment 'live', before record deals and such. One could say that they'd 'paid their dues' in that respect long before deciding to stop touring. As for continuing after the magic was gone: if some other groups continued to outlive their welcome, the Beatles, for whatever reasons, didn't. Once the 'sell by' date was up (in their view...), they stopped. Is that good or bad..? A judgement call, surely, but I can think of quite a few 'old farts' who would have better held my esteem if they'd done the same. To each his/her own, of course... Just sayin'. Edited February 10, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391991505' post='2363441'] Another example of their innovation? Quite brave to turn their backs on touring I'd have thought. Interesting suggestion that the main purpose of a rock band is to play live. It's certainly a great thing, but it could be argued that recordings reach more people. As for 'couldn't hack' live performances, I suspect the state PA technology was against them. We've all seen those ludicrous stadium gigs where they are resolutely out-screamed by their fans. I'm sure that would soon take the shine of gigging for any of us. Unfortunately, by the time PA technology caught up with their needs they were already well on the way to breaking up.[/quote] Beach Boys, Moody Blues, & The Stones & had the same problem to different extents, they didn't stop touring or gigging. The beatles took the easy cop-out, which gave them a head start in exploring, though as I said, the Moodys & the beach Boys were also releasing ground-breaking recordings at the same time. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391991505' post='2363441']Why would it have ended with Donegan? Why wouldn't Lennon and McCartney still have developed their song writing without Berry? It's possible I suppose, but just as much a guess as the alternative. Of course Berry made a big contribution to modern music, but I don't think he could fairly be cited for a wide range of different styles.[/quote] Because - as I've already said - Chuck Berry was shouting long & hard, along with Bo Diddley & Little Richard about how writing your own material was the way to go & taking care of your own business so you don't get ripped off. This was around when "the Beatles" were still playing skiffle & a few years before they were playing rock n roll covers. They couldn't have failed to have heard of that controversy. Before Chuck Berry, and apart from the Les Paul & Wes Montgomery type players the guitar was still largely, in the public eye, just another big band instrument.....that's how much influence he had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391992707' post='2363449']As for continuing after the magic was gone: if some other groups continued to outlive their welcome, the Beatles, for whatever reasons, didn't. Once the 'sell by' date was up (in their view...), they stopped. Is that good or bad..? A judgement call, surely, but I can think of quite a few 'old farts' who would have better held my esteem if they'd done the same. To each his/her own, of course... Just sayin'.[/quote] I beat you to it a long time ago - do try to keep up - just sayin' [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420']As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. I won't go to The Stones are still playing 40+ years later because IMHO they should have packed that in a decade+ ago.[/quote] Chuck Berry's thoughts are more financially orientated that he'll keep playing for as long as folk keep paying. His cash obsessed aim against the system that screwed him financially several times is very well documented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391992993' post='2363452'] I beat you to it a long time ago - do try to keep up - just sayin' Chuck Berry's thoughts are more financially orientated that he'll keep playing for as long as folk keep paying. His cash obsessed aim against the system that screwed him financially several times is very well documented. [/quote] Yeah, but I'm old, innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.