"The Beatles!"

[Lowender]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1360859673' post='1977566']
Not that I'd dare to try putting a full stop at the end of this debate...

But reading between the lines, I think much of this discussion is rooted in the term 'overrated' as applied to The Beatles - when in fact what people seem to be talking about is The Beatles being 'over-popularised'.

I think most of us would agree that they were a hugely successful and influential band, and such success wouldn't have been sustained for so long without a genuine sense of authenticity and credibility to their music. What seems to rankle people (myself included, I must admit) is the way their success has been exploited to such a level that they have become ubiquitous - as a perpetual cash-cow for some; as a lazy cultural reference for others.

In short: too much of a good thing can become a pain in the ass. And personally speaking, while I respect The Beatles and their music, they're just too 'obvious' and 'everywhere' for me to get truly excited about them. They give me a sense of "That's been done; the t-shirt bought and soiled". And I just find it all a bit too retrospective for my tastes. But that's me.

That's not meant to be disrespectful to the band or their music. I feel the same way about other classic cultural references, such as the work of Shakespeare. It deserves to be revered. And it will continue to be revered. But sometimes, I just get bored of people banging on about it.
[/quote]

Good point.

[BetaFunk]

Shhhhhhhhh..............don't want to speak too soon but i think it's all gone quiet on the Fab Four front.

Edited February 14, 2013 by BetaFunk

[SteveK]

[quote name='BetaFunk' timestamp='1360870563' post='1977758']
Shhhhhhhhh..............don't want to speak to soon but i think it's all gone quiet on the Fab Four front.
[/quote]Yeah, I think Fat Rich's YT link was a kind of 'Back of the net' moment. Not surprisingly, it seems to have taken the wind out of the naysayers sails.

Edited to add another Fab Factlet (for BC's younger members):

Usually, the Fabs sang their own songs... whoever wrote it, sang it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by SteveK

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360854222' post='1977461']
Everyone who understands music wilh any depth and education also understands that the introduction to "If I Fell" is an masterful musical impossibility . There's no way that movement cannot come off as clumsy, yet Lennon somehow makes it a brilliant melody.

Anyone who thinks they can do that if they just had a good recording studio is hopelessly oblivious. But...carry on.
[/quote]
[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360855991' post='1977502']
Lowender, I was going to make post about that very song. Chordaly, the intro to If I Fell is quite extraordinary: Ebm / D / Db / Bbm / Ebm / D / Em / A
But as with many of The Beatles songs, they make the oddest chord changes sound perfectly natural.

BTW Fat Rich, nice find with the documentary. I hadn't seen it before.
[/quote]
It's not that extraordinary or impossible. First three chords are essentially a ll-V-l with a tritone substitution on the V. The 4th chord is the dominant of the home chord to start the sequence again on eb. Half do the ll-V-l then come out of it on a basic, tho altered, lV-minV-l. Which crops up loads in beatles tunes.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lord Sausage

[BetaFunk]

I like to call it a Road To Damascus moment myself. A light bulb moment perhaps. The Fabs were great and are not or have ever been over rated at all.

Please note that this has nothing to do with the fact that i have all the Beatles Fan Club flexi-discs (complete with letters, paperwork and in their original mailers) and these may well be appearing on a popular auction site very soon.

[icastle]

...are you intentionally trying to incite another argument because it's gone quiet or was it an accident?

[BetaFunk]

As someone who actually saw the Fab Four in the flesh on more than one occasion this thread has brought back some good memories. Seeing the Beatles during the filming of A Hard Days Night & Help was a bit of a thrill at the time. I remember things like the film crew painting the front doors down the road where a school friend lived and watched the filming plus talking to Ringo when he was filming a scene in the pub near my school. I was there. Great memories.

[Elvis Valentine]

Used to freakin hate them in high school , but that was very much an i hate everything that isnt what i consider bona fide.
I now realise that they were great. They were innovative and continued to move forward musically (what they did after the beatles is up for debate imho though)
To paraphrase Black Francis when the Pixies were in Liverpool and he demanded they had to go to abbey road and the rest of the band were all like But why? the Beatles freakin' suck! Frank replied 'Helter Skelter. It started it all.'

[SteveK]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360873045' post='1977810']
It's not that extraordinary or impossible. First three chords are essentially a ll-V-l with a tritone substitution on the V. The 4th chord is the dominant of the home chord to start the sequence again on eb. Half do the ll-V-l then come out of it on a basic, tho altered, lV-minV-l. Which crops up loads in beatles tunes.
[/quote]You're quite right (although I'm not sure of your description of the Bbm). Chord substitutions are commonplace in jazz, but, I would argue, not so common in pop music of the early 60s... and coming from a 24 year old pop star.
Maybe 'extraordinary' is a little ott

[Lowender]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360860068' post='1977574']
You really can't help yourself can you; you trolling waste of breathe?
Unlike you, with your massive count of abusive posts, not just against me, but you're racking up quiet a count of them, you only need to read back this thread to see that; I was trying to clarify a serious part of the thread.
I happen to have a massive music collection across all genres, apart from rap, I work in an associated area, quite often in the music industry itself.
You're obviously too dim to know a serious question when you read one, so again, as in the past, the basis of your point is wrong. It's either that or you're just out to cause trouble - based on the number of your posts being provocative - I suspect the latter.
[/quote]

You're funny!

[icastle]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360876418' post='1977880']
You're funny!
[/quote]

You have an unread personal message.
Please read it before posting anything else.

[Lowender]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360873045' post='1977810']
It's not that extraordinary or impossible. First three chords are essentially a ll-V-l with a tritone substitution on the V. The 4th chord is the dominant of the home chord to start the sequence again on eb. Half do the ll-V-l then come out of it on a basic, tho altered, lV-minV-l. Which crops up loads in beatles tunes.
[/quote]

Mmmm, not quite. First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5. Secondly, just describing the chord sequence doesn't explain the abstract beauty and uniqueness of the melodic movement. Yeah, THEY did stuff like that in other tunes, but there aren't too many examples of that kind of movement anywhere else in popular music prior to their doing it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lowender

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360876826' post='1977883']
Mmmm, not quite. First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5. Secondly, just describing the chord sequence doesn't explain the abstract beauty and uniqueness of the melodic movement. Yeah, THEY did stuff like that in other tunes, but there aren't too many examples of that kind of movement anywhere else in popular music prior to their doing it.
[/quote]I'd say Jazz was popular music and there are quite a lot of examples of this in jazz. Popular music existed before the 1950's. Also people seem to act like songs weren't written before this period.

It's commonly known they lifted chord sequences. Even macca admitted it.

'First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5'- describe this better it doesn't make sense.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lord Sausage

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1360876076' post='1977872']
You're quite right (although I'm not sure of your description of the Bbm). Chord substitutions are commonplace in jazz, but, I would argue, not so common in pop music of the early 60s... and coming from a 24 year old pop star.
Maybe 'extraordinary' is a little ott
[/quote]The Bbm is a bit hazy i think it's just there to create the push and pull back to the next eb (and referenceing the first chord tho it is a ll) it being a fifth away and all that.

[Lowender]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360879532' post='1977942']
I'd say Jazz was popular music and there are quite a lot of examples of this in jazz. Popular music existed before the 1950's. Also people seem to act like songs weren't written before this period.

It's commonly known they lifted chord sequences. Even macca admitted it.

'First of all, there's a difference between a major minor second chord (in this case a Dmaj) and a tritone sub for the 5'- describe this better it doesn't make sense.
[/quote]

Again, saying people did stuff LIKE this is not quite the same. I've studied and played quite a bit of jazz and never came across and intro verse with like that one, but of course, how "good" something is , is subjective.

The minor ii would a sub for the V because it contains the V of the 1. (In this case the tonal center being Eb -- the Ab being the 5). But here, the ii chord is a D major -- no Ab, plus a dissonent A natural. That first part is actually a decepetive cadence because it shifts seamlessly up a half step to the key of D without any sense of modulating. It's fricking brilliant.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lowender

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360880149' post='1977954']
Again, saying people did stuff LIKE this is not quite the same. I've studied and played quite a bit of jazz and never came across and intro verse with like that one, but of course, how "good" something is , is subjective.

The minor ii would a sub for the V because it contains the V of the 1. (In this case the tonal center being Eb -- the Bb being the 5). But here, the ii chord is a D major -- no Bb, plus a dissonent B natural. That first part is actually a decepetive cadence because it shifts seamlessly up a half step to the key of D without any sense of modulating. It's fricking brilliant.
[/quote]No! The (f*** numerals) 2-5-1, a common jazz device, is ebm (2 from Db), 5 would be abmaj, but is subbed with a Dmaj (common 3rd and 7th) to Ab (1 the root).And unlike what's 'good', this isn't subjective.

If you've never come across this i suggest studying a little more.

Thank you and Goodnight, I'm here all week! Try the veal!

(I knew it was here..you read it yet son) 26/11/2013

Edited November 26, 2013 by Lord Sausage

[BassTractor]

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1360880149' post='1977954']
The minor ii would a sub for the V because it contains the V of the 1. (In this case the tonal center being Eb -- the Bb being the 5). But here, the ii chord is a D major -- no Bb, plus a dissonent B natural.
[/quote]

I don't know the song, but above must contain a writing error, or several (I couldn't know), coz this doesn't work out.

best,
bert

Edited February 14, 2013 by BassTractor

[Lowender]

[quote name='Lord Sausage' timestamp='1360881085' post='1977977']
No! The (f*** numerals) 2-5-1, a common jazz device, is ebm (2 from Db), 5 would be abmaj, but is subbed with a Dmaj (common 3rd and 7th) to Db (1 the root).And unlike what's 'good', this isn't subjective.

If you've never come across this i suggest studying a little more.

Thank you and Goodnight, I'm here all week! Try the veal!
[/quote]

Sorry for the confusion. Corrected it. Also, no need to be snotty bro. We're just talking.

Okay, I think what you're missing is that the minor 2 would have to be contain a b5 to be a sub for the 5. ( D with a b5 which contains the Ab) D mag contains an A natural which is dissonant (a #5) to the key of Db.

Sure, it's still a viable sub but one that most jazz musicians would consider clumsy. But the way it then treats that 2 chord as the "1" but going up to the Em is extremely clever. If you have any examples of that, feel free to pass them along.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Lowender

[peteb]

You lot still here?? This is (hopefully) my last contribution to this epic saga on why the Beatles became a national treasure and the biggest pop group of all time, but may be ever so slightly over-rated (of course, based purely on their musical output)!

First of all we have to set the scene…. it’s the early sixties and on this side of the Atlantic there is an economic boom following post war austerity, angry young men abound and sex is in the process of being invented. Hoards of new beat combos (some from the north of England) emerge from the skiffle craze, influenced by the American rock n’roll sounds from the fifties, all competing to be top of the hit parade. The winners of this particular race are four lovable scousers, all cute haircuts and suits, quite good looking with a cheeky sense of humour and displaying the new found confidence of working class Brits! In short, perfect to sell to the new market of teenage girls who see can all see at least one of them as ideal boyfriend material!

But what makes them different from the Bay City Rollers of ten years later? Well, they do have some talent and they even write their own songs, unheard of at the time (but don’t tell Chuck Berry or all the other American artists of the previous decade). Then they go across to America and storm it, filling the vacuum left by Elvis when he abandoned his rebellious beginnings to join the army and become an all-round family entertainer. This momentum takes them to being the biggest ever act to come out of the emerging pop music market – they sell shiploads of records, play to hundreds of thousands of screaming teenage girls, break all existing records and generally create dozens of fascinating factoids that will be quoted in internet forums nearly 50 years later! By this time they are not only the poster boys of teenagers into pop music but also at the forefront of the emerging psychedelic and hippy movements.

Then they stop playing live! They are encouraged to spend all of their time in a state of the art studio with a top producer who happens to be a highly trained musician. Every record they release goes straight to number 1 to great critical acclaim, generating humongous amounts of cash! They are encouraged to be as creative as they can be, to experiment with different musical forms and even be self-indulgent. As long as they keep churning out records they can do whatever they like! Remember at this time, pop and rock music is still relatively new and everything they (and others) create sounds fresh and is treading new ground!

So John Lennon can muck around with ideas with lots of major chord changes whilst shouting I am the Walrus and people look for hidden meanings for an insight into his genius! Macca can try out his new found Tin Pan Alley songwriting chops and people whose musical tastes were formed before rock and roll can find something to like and the Beatles are their favourite group as well! They write all sorts of songs across all genres: some great, some good, some not so good and some bloody awful!

Everything they did sold without them having to tour and anyway, they had more money than they could ever want anyway. No other band has ever been in that position before or since. I would suggest that there have been better songwriters, but they have had to write to a particular audience and hope to crossover to other markets and then tour for years if they wanted to sell lots of records.

The Beatles have become part of the pop DNA and their music has been very influential, but has it been really that more influential than Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, Elvis, the Stones, Tamla Motown, the Beach Boys, Hendrix, Led Zep & the Who, etc?? I would suggest that important as they were, their music alone was not as remarkable as their huge cultural and social significance as the flag carriers of the most influential decade of the post war era……

Edited February 14, 2013 by peteb

[Big_Stu]

You Sir, are so spot on it's incredible! ("FBO" is the printers term) You should write a book.

[peteb]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1360884255' post='1978040']
You Sir, are so spot on it's incredible! ("FBO" is the printers term) You should write a book.
[/quote]
I thought that I just did (almost)!!

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360884297' post='1978041']
I thought that I just did (almost)!!
[/quote]

Hmm, OK - true, so you're next step is making it into a musical

[Myke]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360883929' post='1978032']
they sell shiploads of records, play to hundreds of thousands of screaming teenage girls, break all existing records and generally create dozens of fascinating [s]factoids[/s] [b]factlets[/b] that will be quoted in internet forums nearly 50 years later!
[/quote]

There you go, now it's perfect

[risingson]

My last contribution then: I suspect that the Beatles made up one of the most important songwriting team in musical history, and will be remembered and written for hundreds of years just like J.S Bach and Beethoven for musical works of great importance. Those who have gone out of their way to misconstrue - or maybe even genuinely misunderstand - their importance in this thread will constitute a minority of people whose dressed up opinion as fact will fortunately not prevail.

Quite an eye opener of a thread.

Edited February 14, 2013 by risingson

[icastle]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1360883929' post='1978032']
You lot still here??
[/quote]

Crikey!

Another post like that and we're going to have to get a second server!