Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 234 |
| Author | |||||||||
BroSpence 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: March 05 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2614 |
 Posted: May 13 2007 at 20:57 |
||||||||
I can be so sure because I have the evidence of Ringo playing great on great songs. Another drummer would have changed things complete because everyone has their own feel and style. Ringo played the perfect amount to make the drums noticeble and good sounding. The drum parts fit perfectly with all the other instruments' parts. Also Ringo was not a strong songwriter (George helped him on a number of occasions) however, he had a nice voice, and wrote Don't Pass Me By which is a good song. His first few solo albums are pretty good too. Rngo ,the album, was a brilliant album that even featured all former Beatles and other great guests like Hal Blaine, Marc Bolan, maybe Mick Ronson (can't remember) and many others.
Those bands are good and all, but the Beatles were able to write really great songs that could be enjoyed by a lot of people. It didn't matter what you believe, who you were, what you looked like, the songs of the Beatles sounded great. A lot of people simply don't enjoy things like Gentle Giant. Which isn't bad or good. Its their taste. Some people don't like the Beatles, but that doesn't mean they aren't great. I think if you can manage to do what you want and make it sound really really f**king good (As the beatles did) while managing to communicate to a large audience you must be really really really great. Hell Sgt. Peppers was made in part to get away from the massive attention and hyteric audiences. It was supposed to be their weird underground not for everyone album. Look how that turned out.
Thats qute impossible. You've heard the Beatles haven't you? So...how do you think you're going to make music not influenced by them if you've heard them?
Part of being great is being influential. Also all the members in the group believed they were the best band at the time. Not that that makes a difference, just as people from Liverpool not really thinking of them as the best nowadays makes a difference. Hell Oasis was voted the best british band of all time or something like that a year or two ago in some UK poll. |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: May 13 2007 at 21:09 |
||||||||
|
Just as Bach, Beethoven & Mozart occupy the top spots in the classical world; just as Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington & Miles Davis (please note my knowledge here is limited) are the top jazz cats; just as Jimmy Reed, the Carter Family, Hank Williams are the cream of country; the triumvirat for "Pop" music is Elvis, the Beatles & another act that will remain nameless as this kind of impact will likely never happen again.
If I may rephrase the original contention, it is that the Beatles are the band that had the biggest impact in "pop" music. "Pop" music is, at its' most elastic, generally understood to include a wide range of musical styles, but simply means music that the "masses" like or love. Elvis came along at the right time. Whether you believe he stole, ripped off or was the perfect combination of mid century american music influences , the fact remains that he stands as a musical icon with few matching the extent of his fame. And while history is the only determinant, it should be simple enough to say that at this period in time, his music will probably survive as many of the classical masters' opuses have done through the centuries, becoming part of the "canon". The same with the Beatles. It is too easy to ascribe much of their success to timing. Yes, their arrival, their progression , & the cultural shifts happening during this same decade meant that it came up as a "perfect storm", i.e. all the conditions were ripe for such an event. But the Beatles delivered their share & deserve their share of accolades for their status. Are they the "best" ? Who objectively can "know " ? But they are & have been the biggest selling act for years, their music has come down through the generations (interesting poll re ; teenagers music purchases - 20-30% of Beatles, Zep, Pink Floyd record sales are from teenagers & young adults; less than 5% for the Stones, the Doors, & Elvis), and they are likely the most "covered group in modern music history. So in that way it could be said that they are the greatest. But such a thing will never happen again. And this is because the "mainstream" no longer exists as it did even 5-6 years ago. With the democratisation of music making (home studios, internet, MP3s, digital downloads, pro tools etc ...) the niche is now king. |
|||||||||
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: @ wicker man Status: Offline Points: 32705 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 04:47 |
||||||||
|
Sorry to intrude on the discussion in Progress...
Certainly not, my wife wouldn't have stood for it.
Actually, I was not saying that. I said that "their music generally lacks the multi-layered textures, more complex harmonics, rhythms, nuances, and adventurousness that excites me." If you find their output mostly very satisfactory in regards to said qualities, and it excites you, fantastic. It has these qualities, but I find it still lacking for my tastes. This is a bit of an aside: I don't think, nay I know it, the "Fab 4" excelled at composition nor technique. Nor do most rock bands for that matter. As with E. Rigby, many (most I expect) of the songs that were best layered and had the best harmonies were scored, conducted, and arranged by their producer George Martin. I find the rhythms pleasing in the experimental "Tomorrow Never Knows." It has interesting effects (tape loops, processed vocals, compression) -- a cleverly engineered song, and good ideas from the Beatles too. But, to the general topic, I consider the Beatles much less of a band because they were so dependent on Martin's "musical expertise." They were quite dependant on help to flesh out their ideas. It doesn't make the songs bad, of course, though I still don't find them great, but I have more respect for musician's musicians and composer's composers. These guys seriously lacked serious training. They got by with a lot of help from their friends.
I'll pass that challenge back to you as that period of rock is not of particular interest to me. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any rock that is more exciting rhythmically before the mid-sixties than the Beatles early albums. But then I'm not really excited by early 60's rock to tell the truth (I far prefer jazz from that time). I'm much more interested in the Beatles mid-sixties to seventy period, and I can think of a great many bands from that time that excite me more rhythmically and otherwise. But hey, that's me. I still like The Beatles, but they don't wow me anymore. Historically important? Absolutely. Influential? Assuredly. Groundbreaking? I won't deny the impact of their albums. Were the band members as gifted, versatile, and skilled as a great many other musicians/ composers of their time, before their time, or after their time (I offered no temporal or genre limits in my former post)? I say no. Could they have done it on their own? Very doubtful. But nothing uncommon about that of course. Edited by Logan - May 14 2007 at 04:50 |
|||||||||
|
Just a fanboy passin' through.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Cheesecakemouse
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: New Zealand Status: Offline Points: 1751 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 05:17 |
||||||||
|
Don't forget that their producer was the one that added the strings, and did many innovations that Lennon and McCartney got credit for.
Edited by Cheesecakemouse - May 14 2007 at 05:18 |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 07:16 |
||||||||
Indeed - but, and this is the crucial point on a forum about rock music, for a rock band, they were and remain aurally exciting in many ways.
Yes, and Martin was often cited as the fifth Beatle, due to his significant input on the arranging side - but there's no getting away from the fact that the songs were written by the guys themselves.
See above - about Martin and the arrangements.
The fab 4 were no slouches in the songwriting department - by not acknowledging that, you show your lack of knowledge in the field of songwriting.
You're not a rock historian of any kind then, as that period - specifically 1965-67 is of immense interest because that is when rock changed from the simple songs of the 1950s onward into the more complex beast we appreciate on this forum. It's an absolutely fascinating and critical time in rock history.
It is doubtful they could have done it without either Epstein or Martin, as Marketing has been important to rock music since Elvis Presley/Colonel Parker - but their own songs are so much stronger than the material available for them to cover at the time (as evidenced on their albums before "Rubber Soul") that it is a nonsense to say that they were less gifted, versatile or skilles as composers or musicians in rock music at that time - all the recorded evidence is to the contrary - and if you have no interest in that period of music, then how can you possibly pass judgement?
If you're not taking the music in its proper context, then it's still very difficult to find songwriters in the popular music arena that are as accomplished as the Beatles - and you HAVE to set genre limits, as there is absolutely no point in comparing the Beatles with song maestros like Schubert, the Italian School and so on - you said it yourself, they had no training, which is the most remarkable thing about them.
They weren't composers of art music until later in their careers, but composers of folk songs. And at that, they are still unsurpassed.
It goes without saying that their later material evolved from the earlier material, so by acknowledging that the later material holds interest it follows that the earlier must.
I'm not asking you to like it - but to dismiss the Beatles as either a piffle or a souffle without context is akin to dismissing potatoes as a common vegetable.
I like potatoes - and souffle.
 . Edited by Certif1ed - May 14 2007 at 07:17 |
|||||||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: @ wicker man Status: Offline Points: 32705 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 10:52 |
||||||||
This I know.
Read it just a few seconds ago, my memory isn't so bad that I need to re-read it. 
Are you positive that that must be the case and there could be no possible other reason for such an omission? A bit presumptuous (not that I would ever claim to be an authority in the "Strawberry Fields" *pun for puns sake* of songwriting ). I do recognise them as good songwriters. In fact I take that as a given, but perhaps it does indicate something of my interests in that I did not feel it necessary to include that in aid of my thoughts on this subject. At least on page two of this thread I mentioned John Lennon's good songs.
Never claimed to be a rock historian, so the jibe seems unnecessary. I have no qualms in claiming that I am a music lover who knows something about music history, In fact, I said that I am not particularly interested in early 60's rock music (I don't enjoy it so much) but my next sentence was meant to indicate that I am more interested in the mid-sixties up (from 1965 on in fact because of the reasons you noted). Did I have to spell that out?
Of course I'm well aware of the marketing in music... But it seems my writing didn't come across again. I did not say that they were less skilled etc. than composers or musicians in rock music at that time, I said that there were many composers/ musicians who were more talented... I deliberately chose to say both before during and after as well as a comment to allude to the fact that I was not specifically referring to the rock genre or defining temporal limits as an absurd-ist riposte to a former comment of yours (your challenge to me to find a band from the early 60s that was as rhythmically exciting). It was just meant as a bit of fun in response to the temporal and genre boundaries you set in your challenge. Really, I had initially just meant that the Beatles rhythmic approaches do not appeal much to me (especially their early stuff it must be said...) Nothing wrong with your challenge, you were just approaching it from a different angle than I was initially. Did I ever say I have no interest in that period? I said I'm not particularly interested in the early 60s rock music (really I don't enjoy listening to much music of this time). At one time I liked it more. And I once was more into the Beatles and had all of their albums (albeit hand-me-downs from my brothers). It's just that I have found more rock music of interest from the mid-'60s up: '65 to 67 are great years... I like much more rock music from '65-69 than '60-64 as would most people here. I guess this time I could have said see above.
When analysing the music one must look at it in the proper context, obviously. But this all referred back to the initial post you quoted which was really about me saying it's not to my taste for such and such a reason. Prog rock was my initial yardstick as this topic was raised in the Prog forum initially, and of course that this is being posited at a Prog board as THE best band. Proto-Prog classified bands very rarely appeal nearly so much to me as the Prog bands as I enjoy. While The Beatles were influential and helped pave the way for Progressive rock (as I said in an earlier post here), I do not consider them to be at the same level as the Prog bands that came out, well, not many years later. Not that I can expect it as rock music evolved... and darned quickly, and they played a big part in that.
Well that's subjective (I mean I've been approaching this more from a subjective angle and you've been going more for objective evaluation). So many great folk song composers.
In my case, while I once enjoyed the early material, I don't much anymore. Interesting from an evolution standpoint, but not so much from an enjoyment of the music itself standpoint for me.
. When my wife called it "a piffle" (a word I had taught her) I thought my it's more of a souffle response kind of clever at the time. I was actually rather displeased at the time that she so casually disregarded the music come to think of it. Edited by Logan - May 14 2007 at 11:03 |
|||||||||
|
Just a fanboy passin' through.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 15:12 |
||||||||
|
OK, it's the complete lack of context that made your initial post so baffling. I was merely probing to find out your reasons for dismissing the music as lightweight (something you made clearly apparent). My statements weren't intended as jibes - but I must admit I found it hard to conceal my incredulity at the apparent naievity of some of the statements coming from someone who clearly has an appreciation for fine music.
I would remind you that this is the Proto-Prog lounge...
 |
|||||||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Logan
Forum & Site Admin Group
Site Admin Joined: April 05 2006 Location: @ wicker man Status: Offline Points: 32705 |
Posted: May 14 2007 at 17:21 |
||||||||
|
Cheeky me often does have tongue planted in cheek[s] (loosely or firmly). Sometimes my absurd-tickle-me-bone just gets in the way of healthy discussion and leads to confusion.
Kind of you to remind me, but completely unnecessary. Although this topic was originally planted in the Prog forum, I couldn't help but notice the move, but I'm sure you recognise that already from reading my last post (I'd actually said some more on that originally but deleted most of the text). As I said in my second post in this topic cheekily in response to Atkingani "But The Beatles were still just Proto-Prog and Proto is inherently inferior  -- nah, I don't really think inferior, just primitive comparatively."While the Proto-Prog section is for discussing Proto-Prog bands, and therefore it is usually best to draw comparisons to other of like ilk, considering the opening statement, ludicrous and hyperbolic though it is in a sense, is "The Beatles are, were, and always will be the greatest band to ever exist on this Earth, and for the Human Race in general" that opened the doors wide for mentioning bands of any genre as I, and others saw it. Therefore I have no problem using Prog as a yardstick -- especially as this topic, as I recall, was originally placed in the Prog forum, an act which is likely to cause people to draw even more comparison between the Beatles and pure Prog bands. Some do consider the Beatles a true Prog band for their later work. However, I can't deny that the Beatles is greater in a sense than any other band, nor can I say for certain that they will not always be the greatest. I started defining/ coming up with synonyms for greatest when I saw this topic -- preeminent, grandiose, biggest, most important and noteworthy, most worthy of attention, most distinguished and prominent, the most outstanding, the best. Not the greatest as in best in my opinion, most importantly not the best for me, but I won't deny their massive stature and popularity. I won't deny that people love them; been there myself, and I still enjoy them for what they are rather than what they are not. I may love Hatfield and the North, for instance, but did mad Hatter-mania ever rival Beatlemania? No (though Peter North had plenty of fans). I may love Henry Cow, but when Bart Simpson uttered "Don't have a Cow, man" was it an homage to Henry Cow? No.. erm, maybe. Probably not.. I may love Magma, but did Kobaian supplant Esperanto as the proposed international language? No. Did the girls start screaming when Gentle Giant flew in? Weathers can have that effect, you know. Ahhh! Walk softly but carry a Giant stick. Did Comus induce comas due to worldwide excitement? Okay that got old really fast. "God Bless the brilliance of this band, all of the members, everything involved with them, all pure beauty, impacting the lives of countless amounts of people." Wonderful, heart-warming positive sentiments. In fact, I'll apologise to TLC for helping to derail what should have been a love-in as I really like the way he expressed his first post. The greatest for him and for many others, and who am I to poo-poo that? In honour of TLC and the Beatles, I will play Magical Mystery Tour from start to finish. Ah, it's good to be the Egg Man again -- koo koo koo choo. I had forgotten just how much I like them (Progressive Rock corrupted me -- no, a certain Prog Snob mentality somehow got a hold of me -- I blame it on bad influences here since I used to be so nice ).I've always liked the Beatles, sometimes it just takes some TLC flower-power to get you back into the groove-y. Totally changed my mind on this. I'm now seeing things through rose-tinted kaleidoscope eyes... The colours man, the colours. What a trip! Bravo for the Beatles!!!  I seriously mean it.Edited by Logan - May 14 2007 at 17:29 |
|||||||||
|
Just a fanboy passin' through.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Certif1ed
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 08 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 7559 |
Posted: May 15 2007 at 02:55 |
||||||||
Indeed - I know the problem...
I agree that the opening statement was rather OTT - I guess I've just got used to TLC's style, and didn't take him at his word.
I wouldn't take all of prog as a yardstick - there are so many poor songwriters in Prog, and the music of the genre as a whole is not a useful thing to use as a comparison, IMO.
...sorry about that
I'll second that - my MFSL copy of MMT arrived only recently, and I've been hammering it - I'd forgotten just how good it is.
|
|||||||||
|
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4079 |
Posted: May 15 2007 at 17:21 |
||||||||
Wait, wait, wait.....
I thought Genesis was?
Edited by StyLaZyn - May 15 2007 at 17:21 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
progismylife
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2006 Location: ibreathehelium Status: Offline Points: 15535 |
Posted: May 16 2007 at 14:05 |
||||||||
Someone obviously did not read any posts, found on the previous page! 
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Komodo dragon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 20 2007 Location: Serbia Status: Offline Points: 346 |
Posted: May 17 2007 at 19:57 |
||||||||
|
This is gone to far !
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
purplepiper
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 23 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 280 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:38 |
||||||||
|
king crimson is the greatest band ever. The beatles were the MOST POPULAR band ever. And by the way, the beatles are not prog!!! I think their music is fine though...not my favourite, but it's okay.
|
|||||||||
|
for those about to prog, we salute you.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Spyro
Forum Newbie 
Joined: June 18 2007 Status: Offline Points: 27 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 03:58 |
||||||||
|
I think they are just OK nothing to get excited about
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
billbuckner
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 07 2006 Status: Offline Points: 433 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 06:25 |
||||||||
|
I don't like them myself, but I doubt that many people could be wrong.
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
ghost_of_morphy
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: March 08 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2755 |
Posted: June 19 2007 at 22:23 |
||||||||
God help us, what would have happened if that band had been The Rolling Stones???
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 234 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This needs to be said to the world, I am
Topic Options
Atomic_Rooster wrote:
