"
BloodPuddles420 wrote:
"
Moridin79 wrote:
"
BloodPuddles420 wrote:
Real rock. Lyrics actually saying things, and Yngwie fucking shredding a sweet ass solo.
Are you implying that those things don't apply to the Beatles? lol
From what I've heard, which is a lot, but not everything. Yes. It's mostly be happy nonsense, or cliche love songs.
Edit: And for the actual musicians in the band, I've never heard them play anything that took skill. Edit edit: And I always hear the excuse "It was the times". But no, there was acoustic guitarists, and pianists shredding hard decades before.
You should really study their sound evolution. It's quite extraordinary for the short amount of time in which it occurred.
While I'll give that they might not be the most gifted in terms of technical musicianship, their impact and resume as singers/songwriters/hitmakers is unparalleled.
And I'm not a Beatles fanboy.....
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/988f3369-4b68-4eb9-bc0e-edfce4c3c950
|
Posted byMoridin79#6328on Jul 12, 2019, 12:51:24 PM
|
NOT ENOUGH SHREDDD BRO!!!!!
GIT GUD
quality of lyrics and how hard a piece is to play on an instrument... neither of those things are actually about the heart of music though. Thats poetry and dexterity. Music at its core is appreciation of sound for the sake of sound, lyrics and technical skill are other appreciations that sit on the fringe of music and sometimes overlap with certain kinds of music. Most of the great composers, theres no lyrics in their music and theres no recordings of them playing their music, theyre considered great because of the sounds they wrote.
that said the beatles did have some very interesting lyrics though. Theres a reason theyre the most important band in modern music history, they took pop and blues and blew it wide open, the diversity in their sound, how off the wall they took things from an era of a very confined pop formula, extremely important to modern music.
the history of rock and pop after the beatles is actually an artistic contraction in many ways, some of the bands that followed were amazingly diverse and interesting like led zeppelin, hendrix, pink floyd, david bowie, but kind of less so than the beatles in some ways and then by the time we get into the 80s things have become very generic/formulaic/monotone again in the world of rock n roll.
"
Moridin79 wrote:
You should really study their sound evolution. It's quite extraordinary for the short amount of time in which it occurred.
While I'll give that they might not be the most gifted in terms of technical musicianship, their impact and resume as singers/songwriters/hitmakers is unparalleled.
for sure. sometimes the beatles do get over rated imo but regardless of if people enjoy their music or not, and i feel like theres so much variety there its pretty hard to not find something in it, their importance to music itself and to modern culture cant be overstated. To become the biggest boyband pop sensation the world had ever seen and then also be such a force for political, anti establishment and psychedelic thinking? they literally changed the world in a way I dont think any band has since and maybe never will again in our lifetimes or that of our kids.
personally Ive got more time for the likes of floyd and zeppelin when it comes to my day to day listening. That was the point where a really satisfying amount of weight came into the music yet a lot of the abstract, experimental weirdness was still around. |
Posted bySnorkle_uk#0761on Jul 12, 2019, 4:06:50 PM
|
|
Good post. Totally agree, as far as preferences go. Even in my hardcore classic rock phase as a kid, I never really touched the Beatles. I felt liking them was akin to rooting for the Yankees or something. Yeah yeah they're the greatest, whatever blah blah blah.....
lol
https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/988f3369-4b68-4eb9-bc0e-edfce4c3c950
|
Posted byMoridin79#6328on Jul 12, 2019, 4:34:26 PM
|
"
鬼殺し wrote:
'cliched love songs'...seriously? They *created* the cliche, genius. And that was just their early phase.
Call me ignorant, then say this.
Edit: vvv Not from them, from Hendrix, and classical.
Need a new signature, cuz name change. I dunno though. I guess this seems fine. Yeah, this is good. Last edited by LV9999Majin#9565 on Jul 12, 2019, 4:50:19 PM
|
Posted byLV9999Majin#9565on Jul 12, 2019, 4:46:40 PM
|
"
Moridin79 wrote:
Good post. Totally agree, as far as preferences go. Even in my hardcore classic rock phase as a kid, I never really touched the Beatles. I felt liking them was akin to rooting for the Yankees or something. Yeah yeah they're the greatest, whatever blah blah blah.....
lol
ya the beatles were something i went back to later. all this please please me stuff... paul maca and his wifes vege microwave meals or whatever... come on. I wanted metallica, pantera, faith no more, I grew up in the uk so also rave stuff like the prodigy, their first album was the first album i ever bought, prodigy experience, breakbeat, moving into jungle a bit later...
but then over time as I got a bit more into my later teens and early 20s I started going back, herbie hancock, stevie wonder, the waterboys, u2, chris issak, fleetwood mac, neil young, I was raised on a lot of zeppelin/hendrix but pink floyd were a band I didnt really hear a lot until I went digging back.
the beatles kind of came to me pretty late in that period. I guess the older I got the more i mellowed and started to appreciate the more psychedelic aspects of what they were doing with their later work. Im still not an every day beatles guy but I really get into bits on occasions and they have some all time great songs.
stuff like eleanor rigby and hey jude are just such well written songs, even their 'greatest hits' type catalogue like that has a lot of undeniably quality work.
I do also love tender surrender by via tho, of course, its maybe the best bit of guitar ever recorded, absolute genius. Its technical, but its also just melodically stunning. The 80s riff n rock leggings and perm stuff I could live without tho in all honesty. Metallica/megadeth is about as close as I can get to that kind of thing.
|
Posted bySnorkle_uk#0761on Jul 12, 2019, 11:33:18 PM
|
"
鬼殺し wrote:
Do your research, please. They were the first of their kind. In so many ways. Malmsteen? Vai? That whole early metal bunch? A natural evolution from the psychedelic rock era...and where do you think THAT came from?
Anyway, off for the weekend. Hope yours is wonderful too. And full of not saying ignorant things. ^_^
Beatles did not pioneer psychedelia. Not sure that's what you're saying, not quite. Think you're saying Beatles were around for it in the height, or, Haight of it, before it all came crashing down. Love their creative evolution and how it's entwined with the different drugs they took. That's always interested me.
"
The story of Revolver began in a night of hell and illumination.
“We’ve had LSD,” John Lennon told George Harrison.
It was spring 1965...
Beatles’ Acid Test: How LSD Opened the Door to ‘Revolver’
Personal Top Ten Beatles Songs, no particular order:
Tomorrow Never Knows
I am the Walrus
Help
Eleanor Rigby
A Day in the Life
Why don't we do it in the Road?
Helter Skelter
Norwegian Wood
Hey Jude
Strawberry Fields Forever
That being said, have never been that into them, haven't owned an album and listened to it, aside from Mystery Tour, and that was because of the movie. Terrible movie, had cult status amongst my friend group many years ago, along with Akira, and a few others, for arcane reasons. I think because the Beatles were the popular soundtrack of their day, huge, in a way that's so tied to the day it seems odd to want to be in on that to any extent, more than any other band, unless you were there of course.
Stones? Hrm. They didn't so much evolve as ingrain. I do like a few of their songs, not as much as I did, after the umpteenth listen. Paint it Black may be an exception.
If I was around back then, and had one act to go see, it wouldn't be the Beatles.
Still, Beatles were superb at tuneful, cleaver melody, and evoking common feelings. Their music brings diverse people together in a positive way. That's a fine kind of genius.
ed: lol cleaver.
Maybe the 11th is Maxwell's Silver Hammer.
Nah, I don't know, ten's good.
Last edited by erdelyii#5604 on Jul 13, 2019, 10:53:37 AM
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on Jul 13, 2019, 10:31:13 AM
|
"
鬼殺し wrote:
I made sure to do my research before the otherwise simple task of taking someone comparing Yngwie Malmsteen's shred ability to The Beatles' pioneering contributions. It was enlightening because I'm primarily a metal-head, but even I know that early metal was hardly a huge step away from its psychedelia/rock roots.
Music's interesting to read about, for sure.
"
Who's surprised it was Paul, the closest The Beatles had to a functioning adult, who staunchly resisted the drug influence? :)
But he didn't.
"
...
Musically, the Beatles were already changing, taking increasingly daring risks. They had inspired countless British and American bands – the Rolling Stones, the Byrds, the Beach Boys – with their uncommon chord changes, their curving, often sharp-cornered melodies and their commitment to writing their own songs. Lennon, for his part, envied the Stones’ permission to make dirtier and angrier music than the Beatles. But it was Dylan whom the Beatles heeded most. Dylan’s new electric music was majestic, in particular “Like a Rolling Stone,” and some wondered if hallucinogens had helped stimulate his surreal, stream-of-consciousness imagery. In December 1965, the Beatles upped the ante with Rubber Soul, seen as a major step in their artistic growth. McCartney leaned into his songs more: “Drive My Car” was feisty and witty; “You Won’t See Me” and “I’m Looking Through You” were surprisingly angry, like some of Dylan’s more acerbic songs. Lennon’s songs, though, were a whole new thing: “Nowhere Man” and “Girl” showed vulnerability; “Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)” was vengeful and musically unusual, featuring the first use of sitar on a pop record.
McCartney was aware of the growing competition and intended to keep the Beatles at a creative edge. Despite his reluctance about psychedelics, he was in some ways the most progressive Beatle. “All the other guys were married in the suburbs,” he said. “They were very square in my mind.” Remaining in London, he kept his tastes open, not just to cutting-edge popular music, but also to unorthodox ideas in the arts, politics and philosophy (Bertrand Russell turned him against the Vietnam War; McCartney, in turn, says he educated Lennon on the subject).
McCartney took an interest in the groundbreaking electronic music of classical composers and experimentalists Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio and Edgard Varèse, and in the free jazz of saxophonist Albert Ayler. “I’m trying to cram everything in,” McCartney said, “all the things I’ve missed. People are saying things and painting things and writing things and composing things that are great, and I must know what people are doing.” In early 1966, McCartney and his girlfriend, Jane Asher, helped her brother, Peter, and his partners John Dunbar and Barry Miles prepare the opening of Indica Books and Gallery, a site for counter-cultural interests. McCartney was also the shop’s first customer: He would pore over new books at night and had the shop send on copies of what intrigued him to the other Beatles...
McCartney took LSD for the first time within the year, though it wasn’t in the company of the other Beatles. The drug, he said in a 1967 interview, “opened my eyes to the fact that there is a God… It is obvious that God isn’t in a pill, but it explained the mystery of life. It was truly a religious experience.” He also said of LSD’s effect, “It started to find its way into everything we did, really. It colored our perceptions. I think we started to realize there wasn’t as many frontiers as we’d thought there were. And we realized we could break barriers.”
In the coming months, the Beatles would forswear LSD. Lennon, though, who had consumed it the most – frequently, sometimes to a degree that worried others (“We didn’t realize the extent to which John was screwed up,” said Harrison) – wasn’t always true to that word. One day in 1968, following a night of psychedelics, Lennon summoned some intimates to Apple Records and announced he’d had a revelation: He was Jesus Christ, come back to Earth, and he wanted a press release issued to that effect.
Two days after finishing recording and mixing Revolver, the Beatles set off on a summer world tour. In Germany, they heard the finished product. McCartney was briefly alarmed: He worried that the whole thing sounded out of tune. The Beatles had been so successful at achieving something unfamiliar that it even disoriented McCartney, who had the most precisely attuned ears in the group.
From the beginning, the tour was a comedown. The four young men had just spent three months making music that could not be translated to the stage; now, they were confined to playing older material that felt a million miles away to them. But worse lay ahead. In Manila, Philippines, Brian Epstein, the Beatles’ manager, declined an invitation from the country’s first lady, Imelda Marcos, to a presidential-palace garden party, and the Beatles had to flee the country after public sentiment turned vehemently against them. At a press conference back in London, the group seemed badly shaken. “We’re going to have a couple of weeks to recuperate,” said Harrison, “before we go and get beaten up by the Americans.”
Definitely switched on, McCartney, and a long-distance kind of guy.
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on Jul 13, 2019, 7:45:37 PM
|
"
鬼殺し wrote:
Like I said, switched on. Only a fool rushes headlong into LSD, especially back then, with the doses they did and it was the real deal, unlike a lot of stuff around nowadays. The fact he had a trip like he did means he weighed the risks, and did it with an open mind, in a safe space and all that. Otherwise, he would have had a bad trip; that's how it goes.
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on Jul 14, 2019, 12:44:54 AM
|
I'd call that a convenient narrative for a knight of the realm, in an official biography no less. If he was scared, fear pressure? yeah nah, I don't buy he would have had such a good time.
"
Paul McCartney: Many Years from Now is a 1997 biography of Paul McCartney by Barry Miles. It is the "official" biography of McCartney and was written "based on hundreds of hours of exclusive interviews undertaken over a period of five years", according to the back cover of the 1998 paperback edition. The title is a phrase from McCartney's song "When I'm Sixty-Four", from the Beatles' 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. The book was first published in the United Kingdom in October 1997 by Secker & Warburg.
Let's agree to differ, I think it comes down to how we'd like to see him. The truth is likely a mix of this and more besides.
Last edited by erdelyii#5604 on Jul 14, 2019, 8:46:57 AM
|
Posted byerdelyii#5604on Jul 14, 2019, 8:46:07 AM
|
