taunton-hobbit Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ....bet he was delighted...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4-string-thing Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The Beatles were just a band, they didn't change the world, the world was changing at that time anyway and they just went along for the ride. They rehashed 50's Rock n Roll to start with and their own early songs were pretty banal pop songs. Compare the lyrics from She Loves You, or I wanna Hold Your Hand to Dylans Mr Tambourine Man or Blowin in The Wind and you'll see that (lyrically anyway) they were nothing special really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='4-string-thing' timestamp='1455812993' post='2982676'] The Beatles were just a band, they didn't change the world, the world was changing at that time anyway and they just went along for the ride. They rehashed 50's Rock n Roll to start with and their own early songs were pretty banal pop songs. Compare the lyrics from She Loves You, or I wanna Hold Your Hand to Dylans Mr Tambourine Man or Blowin in The Wind and you'll see that (lyrically anyway) they were nothing special really. [/quote] Harsh - but largely factual - though in balance, and since you mention covers/rehashes; is there a Dylan song that actual wasn't vastly improved by being covered? I'm thinking Hendrix, Byrds, UB40 etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4stringslow Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Possibly because Dylan was a great poet but only an average musician? And let's not even think about his singing voice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) [quote name='4-string-thing' timestamp='1455812993' post='2982676'] The Beatles were just a band, they didn't change the world, the world was changing at that time anyway and they just went along for the ride. They rehashed 50's Rock n Roll to start with and their own early songs were pretty banal pop songs. Compare the lyrics from She Loves You, or I wanna Hold Your Hand to Dylans Mr Tambourine Man or Blowin in The Wind and you'll see that (lyrically anyway) they were nothing special really. [/quote] I'm glad that"s not my Beatles experience. Blue Edited February 18, 2016 by blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushbo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='4-string-thing' timestamp='1455812993' post='2982676'] The Beatles were just a band, they didn't change the world, the world was changing at that time anyway and they just went along for the ride. They rehashed 50's Rock n Roll to start with and their own early songs were pretty banal pop songs. Compare the lyrics from She Loves You, or I wanna Hold Your Hand to Dylans Mr Tambourine Man or Blowin in The Wind and you'll see that (lyrically anyway) they were nothing special really. [/quote] In the early 1960s, Rock and Roll was practically over. Most of the big names were emasculated. Presley was in the army, Little Richard turned to religion, Gene Vincent was well on his way to being an alcoholic, Jerry Lee Lewis was so discredited he could barely get any work and Cochran and Holly were dead. What the Beatles did was take that energy and combine it with "something" - Tin Pan Alley or Music Hall or Motown or Showtunes - and create something which helped to save a genre of music which could have passed like any other fad. The early stuff is simple...but it's thrilling. "I Saw Her Standing There" is pretty much a Little Richard knock-off, but that first recording is as raw and exciting as anything that's been recorded since. Simple-yes. Banal-No. In just a shade over eight years they went from "Love Me Do" to "Let It Be" taking in hard rock, soul, rhythm and blues, country, avant-garde, folk and even children's songs. They made films, and were at the forefront of recording technology. I'm sorry, but to say they were "nothing special" misses the point. Not everyone likes them and that's fine, but go back and look at what they did. The world was changing when they were around. But part of that change was inspired by or highlighted by that band. ...and Liverpool is great place to visit whether you like the Fabs or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colgraff Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Like most trailblazers, the Beatles have been surpassed by others many times since, but that shouldn't detract from their achievement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4-string-thing Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='rushbo' timestamp='1455820254' post='2982760'] Not everyone likes them and that's fine, but go back and look at what they did. The world was changing when they were around. But part of that change was inspired by or highlighted by that band. ...and Liverpool is great place to visit whether you like the Fabs or not. [/quote] I actually do like them, but for me the early stuff was not quite as groundbreaking as people seem to think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulWarning Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) [quote name='4-string-thing' timestamp='1455822839' post='2982777'] I actually do like them, but for me the early stuff was not quite as groundbreaking as people seem to think.... [/quote]ah, you had to be there seriously, the charts were just full of manufactured middle of the road stuff back then, bit like today really. Not sure what that's got to do with Liverpool though Edited February 18, 2016 by PaulWarning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 (edited) [quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1455824266' post='2982793'] ah, you had to be there seriously, the charts were just full of manufactured middle of the road stuff back then[/quote] Really? In the week of the Beatles first big UK hit they shared the charts with...... Elvis, Billy Fury Nat King Cole (x2) Joe Brown Lonnie Donegan The Shadows Jet Harris Buddy Holly Ray Charles & Carole King Edited February 18, 2016 by Big_Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushbo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1455827059' post='2982830'] Really? In the week of the Beatles first big UK hit they shared the charts with...... Elvis, Billy Fury Nat King Cole (x2) Joe Brown Lonnie Donegan The Shadows Jet Harris Buddy Holly Ray Charles & Carole King [/quote] Compare that with the US chart...Elvis is in there but with "Return to Sender""...not exactly visceral Rock and Roll. The rest of the top 20 is pretty bland, with only The Crystals to add a bit of grit. Fortunately, it took a few years for Rock to get to Britain, so by the time it was on the way out in the States, it was getting popular over here. It's that second wave that revitalised Pop Music and reminded the US what all the fuss was about in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='rushbo' timestamp='1455832340' post='2982900'] Compare that with the US chart...Elvis is in there but with "Return to Sender""...not exactly visceral Rock and Roll. The rest of the top 20 is pretty bland, with only The Crystals to add a bit of grit. Fortunately, it took a few years for Rock to get to Britain, so by the time it was on the way out in the States, it was getting popular over here. It's that second wave that revitalised Pop Music and reminded the US what all the fuss was about in the first place. [/quote] Yes, but as was already pointed out, the Beatles first singles were also 2 minute boy meets girl songs; also while there was a heavy measure of the same in the Beatles first week in the US charts the US already had Beach Boys, Roy Orbison, Martha Reeves & The Vandellas, The legendary Louie Louie by The Kingsmen, the equally legendary Surfin Bird by The Trashmen and the afore-mentioned Ray Charles for Cliff's sake (him too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushbo Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 They did write ace pop songs though. A real shot in the arm on both sides of the Atlantic. A welcome relief from Bobby Vee and Bobby Rydell.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taunton-hobbit Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I consider that the ability to reinvent the group as the years went by was their strongest asset, and the one that Liverpool manages to capture quite well (he said,clunkingly trying to get back on topic). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4stringslow Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Would it be too controversial to suggest that their real creative genius didn't come from Liverpool at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambient Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 [quote name='4stringslow' timestamp='1455838294' post='2982960'] Would it be too controversial to suggest that their real creative genius didn't come from Liverpool at all? [/quote] I'm not a fan, and was born long after they split up. I do think that the 'beatles' probably wouldn't have been so groundbreaking if any single one of them hadn't been there. What really did any of them do afterwards, besides the odd moment here and there ? I also agree strongly with the above comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1455821559' post='2982768'] Like most trailblazers, the Beatles have been surpassed by others many times since, but that shouldn't detract from their achievement. [/quote] Only surpassed in your opinion. Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='rushbo' timestamp='1455820254' post='2982760'] In the early 1960s, Rock and Roll was practically over. Most of the big names were emasculated. Presley was in the army, Little Richard turned to religion, Gene Vincent was well on his way to being an alcoholic, Jerry Lee Lewis was so discredited he could barely get any work and Cochran and Holly were dead. What the Beatles did was take that energy and combine it with "something" - Tin Pan Alley or Music Hall or Motown or Showtunes - and create something which helped to save a genre of music which could have passed like any other fad. The early stuff is simple...but it's thrilling. "I Saw Her Standing There" is pretty much a Little Richard knock-off, but that first recording is as raw and exciting as anything that's been recorded since. Simple-yes. Banal-No. In just a shade over eight years they went from "Love Me Do" to "Let It Be" taking in hard rock, soul, rhythm and blues, country, avant-garde, folk and even children's songs. They made films, and were at the forefront of recording technology. I'm sorry, but to say they were "nothing special" misses the point. Not everyone likes them and that's fine, but go back and look at what they did. The world was changing when they were around. But part of that change was inspired by or highlighted by that band. ...and Liverpool is great place to visit whether you like the Fabs or not. [/quote] Nice commentary. Agreed Blue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Stu Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='ambient' timestamp='1455839823' post='2982963'] I'm not a fan, and was born long after they split up. I do think that the 'beatles' probably wouldn't have been so groundbreaking if any single one of them hadn't been there. What really did any of them do afterwards, besides the odd moment here and there ? I also agree strongly with the above comment. [/quote] I find Wings far more listenable than 99% of Beatles stuff, there's a fair few classics (IMHO) in that catalogue and they were huge in the mid/late 70s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rushbo Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 In the words of Alan Partridge- "Wings...the band The Beatles could have been". If there was a museum for them in Liverpool (says he, vainly trying to get the thread back on topic...) I'd go to that as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colgraff Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) [quote name='blue' timestamp='1455841809' post='2982976'] Only surpassed in your opinion. Blue [/quote] Blue, you are doing it again. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me and I respect your right to do so. However, please stop making absolutist statements rubbishing my opinion. I am not the only person who thinks that the Beatles have been surpassed and you know it. To suggest that I am in the manner in which you did is clearly designed to belittle me in a manner which is both childish and offensive. I am entitled to be treated with the same respect with which I treat you. Edited February 19, 2016 by colgraff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr zed Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='Wonky2' timestamp='1455665961' post='2981396'] Im from liverpool, born and bred.... I dont know anyone who is caught up in its past or more accuratley the beatles ??? I think this is the stereo typical perception that most people outside the area have... Add to that we're all theives with curly hair and tashes... Take a single element of historical notoriety, use that as your assciated (limited) knowledge of a place and conclude the locals obsess over one thing , simply because thats the expanse of your own knowledge ? Liverpool, capital of culture, filled with diversity, filled with history, the international hub and supply chain which indistrilised Britain. Yes, There is a commercial element to the beatles continuing popularity in liverpool, but you will find that supply is only ever met by demand. Its not too different from most other cities on the whole, each of which will likley have their own commercial market. Ask any kid round our way the best thing to come out of liverpool and they'll say steven Gerrard. Chances are theyve never heard the beatles..... Not looking for a response or trying to provoke anyone, just a veiw from the inside looking out. For the record, most of my fave beatles tracks if i played them to most scousers they would even know it was the beatles. Ja garu deva om, nothings gonna change my world. [/quote] He He - you mentioned the words stereo and thieving in the same sentence. This word association made me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr zed Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1455711975' post='2981667'] Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts. I didn't count the hours I put into it, so whatever I end up getting for it - if at all - I don't think would be great as an "hourly rate" - though art isn't supposed to be like that. It's the first painting I've done in many years, I usually do pencil stuff. Taking the water from the Mersey......the water I have left over is still in the same bottle with a layer of green slime in the bottom [/quote] And this proves it - they even nick the water! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acidbass Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1455843719' post='2982985'] Blue, you are doing it again. You are, of course, entitled to disagree with me and I respect your right to do so. However, please stop making absolutist statements rubbishing my opinion. I am not the only person who thinks that the Beatles have been surpassed and you know it. To suggest that I am in the manner in which you did is clearly designed to belittle me in a manner which is both childish and offensive. I am entitled to be treated with the same respect with which I treat you. [/quote] +1. I have unfortunately learned to ignore Blue's posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4stringslow Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 [quote name='ambient' timestamp='1455839823' post='2982963'] I'm not a fan, and was born long after they split up. I do think that the 'beatles' probably wouldn't have been so groundbreaking if any single one of them hadn't been there. What really did any of them do afterwards, besides the odd moment here and there ? [/quote] Fair point. Given that the majority of Beatles songs were Lennon/McCartney collaborations (even in their later period there was still an element of collaboration) I think it fair to say that, broadly, they were better together than apart. As for The Beatles' solo works, my preference is for Harrison's body of work. All Things Must Pass, released so soon after The Beatles breakup, proved how much material he had accumulated without an outlet through the Fabs. 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.