Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
achilleslaststand77

The Beatles thread

Recommended Posts

Just watch the facial expression of the violinist in The Dirty Mac when Yoko opens her mouth.

:D I love watching that poor man's facial expressions. At one point, Yoko lets out a shriek and he's looking to lock eyes with anybody on stage for verification of what the hell he just heard. My favorite moment during the whole circus. That show is a great timepiece. Imagine people watching that 100 years from now.

An artist doesn't have to perform live to be considered "the best rock n' roll band" and the Beatles are no exception. They quit performing live for obvious reasons and began to focus solely on studio craft. That doesn't lessen their abilities as a live band one bit in my eyes. The Brian Wilson Pet Sounds era Beach Boys are probably best known for their studio work but that hasn't stopped them from being considered one of the best rock n' roll bands in the world. Following 10 years of near non-stop touring R.E.M. stopped performing live so they too could concentrate on perfecting their talents in the studio. The result? Out of Time and Automatic For the People. They returned to the road with a vengence in '95 to tour behind Monster and have continued to tour ever since. They are still considered one of the best live bands out there. There are many other examples but there's two very shining ones right there.

C'mon Jahfin....they don't have to play live ? When they did play live, their shows were closer to their 50's roots than anything groundbreaking for the 60's. Besides the songwriting, I think their greatest contribution was bringing back the whole stage concept of Buddy Holly & The Crickets....the basic 4 piece rock band.

I always figured Harrison brought in Clapton and Preston because he knew The Beatles sound needed a bit of a boost at that time just to compete. There wasn't anybody in The Beatles that was a guitar hero by any stretch of the imagination. George was certainly capable, but I believe he would have struggled playing leads on stage with any consistency.

Could you see John Lennon wanting to play a 70's rock show like Paul McCartney & Wings ? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what the Beatles would have been like as a live band in their latter years, to say they couldn't pull it off is to engage in total conjecture and speculation since no one really knows. And yes, I think their studio craft speaks volumes about their abilities as a band, onstage or not. Same for the other artists I mentioned. R.E.M. took those years off the road just for the purpose of honing their skills in the studio and still kick ass on stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beatles transcend more than just music, they are in the fabric of society, for years i use to wonder what the fuss was about, but gradually as i got older I really digged alot of their stuff, especially the mid later period !! I think Harrison wrote some good tunes and doesn't get the credit, how difficult must of it been for him being with Lennon and McCartney, asking for them to help write some songs with him and getting nothing back !! He had to forge his own way.

AS for for them being better than Zeppelin well I don't think really as they had a dodgy beginning with their songs and recording, but Zeppelin from record one just blew us all away, with the Beatles it took alittle while !!

Fave songs are Blackbird, one of a handful of acoustic fingerstyle numbers I ever bothered to learn !! Lady Madonna, Something to name 3 at the moment !!

Seeing McCartney live in 1990 was a highlight, seeing and hearing beatles and Wings numbers was cool !!!

Edited by leddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know where i can get a recording of any of the beatles concets from the 65 or 66 tours without the screaming?

i heard some were leaked onto the internet and i would really love to have that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can cut The Beatles all kind of slack as far as influence up to about 1966. Once the Summer of '67 came around, I think you can make a good argument that they were overrated media darlings to a certain extent. How a band that never played live after 1966 could be called the best rock and roll band ever is beyond me. Best pop songwriters ? Ok....I can buy that. Best rock and roll band ? Sorry....not when your influence as far as live performance was virtually zero.

ok...I must now lay down the whoopass.

The beatles werent overrated in '67. The magical mystery tour film bombed in Britain and the bigger than jesus comment didnt go over well in the US.

As for the live element.....whatthefuckingfuck?

Ed Sullivan and the rooftop gig are so obscenely seminal, you must have taken them for granted. I suppose you meant LA forum or boston garden bootleg like shit. ANyone who has beatle boots knows you can't hear a damn thing cause of the chicks. Marshall stacks were coming in just as they stopped touring. Thats not their fault.

They wrote candy-ass pop songs until Dylan challenged them. IMO, The Byrds, Buffalo Springfield, Hendrix, Cream, and others shot past them as far as relevance by '67. The Moody Blues beat Sgt. Peppers with "Days of Future Passed". The Stones, after chasing The Beatles with Satanic Majesties Request" went their own way and showed us the dirty side of rock, including defining the modern live rock show. New recording techniques brought everyone up to speed to anything that George Martin provided.

Relevance in '67? They were part of the 1st ever live satellite hookup, the 'all you need is love' event......and since that summer is called the 'summer of love'......yeah, yer right, no relevance there. :rolleyes: Yea I'm not an expert on the stones, but I dont know that theres a consensus of what a "modern live rock show is".

The Beatles knew better than to try an O2 type concert in the 70's. They would have fallen flat on their faces in a live setting. It sure the heck wouldn't be a 4 piece band.

They were breaking up and playing on a freezing roof....still... the rooftop gig is great. If they had Marshalls and played their latter day material with more a more mature/non screaming audience they would have owned, no doubt about it.

Anyone here that was old enough to buy "Double Fantasy" when it was released in the Fall of '80 ......How often did you listen to Yoko's side of the lp ? Critics poked fun of Linda McCartney's off key background vocals. Lennon gave Yoko Romo a whole frickin album side on his first solo album in 6 years so she could waste 20 minutes howling like an injured Mandarin dog !! :blink:

Yeah, lets base the validity of zeppelin with death wish 2 or the Firm ....I dont see the relevance here.

McCartney 70's solo candy like "Let 'Em In" & "My Love",....it's crap. If you can compare that to anything by Zep, we better start talking about how much you enjoy Billy Joel, Elton John, etc.....because they wrote better stuff in the same vein in the same era.. Look at Harrison's 70's solo stuff. Sure I enjoy "All Things Must Pass"....but how about "Extra Texture" or "33 1/3"" ?

More solo shittalkin. Successful solo careers after huge bands are rare, thats like a universal constant. The Beatles definitely win over zep in this category anyway. 'Imagine' alone is worth more than most artists' entire discography.

Just fanning the Friday flames of a good thread. :rolleyes:

indeed, good sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering, are there any Zepplin sites such as this Beatles one?

http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/wgo.htm

It basically dissects every second of almost every song to highlight anything you thought you heard but weren't really sure what the hell it was.

For instance, Hey Jude:

2:52-3:02. 2:58 mostly!

This is Mark Lewisohn’s "Recording Sessions" non-specific reference to an "undeleted expletive".

As Paul and John sing "Remember to let her under your skin", John shouts "Got the wrong chord!", (maybe in response to the clunky dead chord at 2:53-2:55) the last word sticks out more than the previous three, and then swears.

If you count out loud 1-2-3-4 in time to the rhythm through this section, you get :-

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1

P/J: skin Then You Be Gi - In

J: Got the wrong chord F**king Hell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The beatles werent overrated in '67. The magical mystery tour film bombed in Britain and the bigger than jesus comment didnt go over well in the US.

The bigger than Jesus comment occurred in the Summer of 1966. Most of the furor over that event didn't come from the media, but from Southern Baptists in the Bible belt. The media rode it because it was Beatles news. Magical Mystery Tour wasn't aired until the Christmas Holidays of '67....and the media wouldn't have given the time of day to any other artist that tried to pull that off, except Elvis.

As for the live element.....whatthefuckingfuck?

Ed Sullivan and the rooftop gig are so obscenely seminal, you must have taken them for granted. I suppose you meant LA forum or boston garden bootleg like shit. ANyone who has beatle boots knows you can't hear a damn thing cause of the chicks. Marshall stacks were coming in just as they stopped touring. Thats not their fault.

Not at all. In fact, I think the Rooftop Sessions is more evidence for my point than yours. If they would have gone on tour with a setlist consisting of Get Back, I've Got a Feeling, Dig a Pony, and other stuff in the same vein, I'm betting the average Beatle fan boy would have been extremely disappointed. Those songs were written with the intent of playing them live. They were trying to return and recapture something that was already gone. Seminal ? Maybe for you, but not me.

Relevance in '67? They were part of the 1st ever live satellite hookup, the 'all you need is love' event......and since that summer is called the 'summer of love'......yeah, yer right, no relevance there. Yea I'm not an expert on the stones, but I dont know that theres a consensus of what a "modern live rock show is".

I think the whole concept of "The Summer of Love" was established before The Beatles joined the party. I'm not asserting that The Beatles had no influence, but rather in retrospect, are given far too much credit.....especially for that. Yes, the "All You Need is Love" session is a beautiful thing....but they would have never been able to pull that off if they didn't have the media in their back pocket. What other group was offered/given that kind of air time ? The Beatles had frickin cartoons !! The Monterey Pop Festival probably didn't even make the evening news.

Yeah, lets base the validity of zeppelin with death wish 2 or the Firm ....I dont see the relevance here.

More solo shittalkin. Successful solo careers after huge bands are rare, thats like a universal constant. The Beatles definitely win over zep in this category anyway. 'Imagine' alone is worth more than most artists' entire discography.

I think "the win" falls under personal taste. I agree that Zep was like The Beatles....a fifth element as a whole that was larger than the individual. By the way, I think McCartney's first solo album sucks.....yet it sold millions anyway. "Imagine" is great, but the album itself is still a waste of time for me. Again, personal taste.

Exactly what makes Sgt. Pepper a concept album ? Besides the title track which is featured at the beginning and the end.....which tunes on the album support the concept ? Most bands didn't have the cash support The Beatles did to even attempt anything close recording quality wise. As an example, "I Can See For Miles" cost more to produce than the whole rest of the tracks on "Sell-Out".

I'm not claiming The Beatles weren't great songwriters, that they weren't a great band, that they weren't influential. I'm claiming that the media showered them with a lot of credit they just didn't deserve. This was especially true from '67 onward, because the media basically missed the boat on what everyone else was doing. The Beatles had become totally embraced by the mainstream entertainment media. The money machine was set up and churning, and it was just as much in the their interest to keep The myth alive. Isn't that what Lennon was eventually revolting against ?

At least we agree on Yoko Romo and the "mother" issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Wall Street Journal:

Ringo Stars in His Own Life Story on CD

By JIM FUSILLI

January 29, 2008; Page D6

It feels unseemly to criticize Ringo Starr, whose new album, "Liverpool 8" (Capitol), was released earlier this month. An amiable presence, he readily shows his vulnerability, a rare trait in an artist who's been a celebrity for almost 45 years. As recently as 2006, during the recording of the "Love" remix album, he spoke of how he occasionally felt underappreciated by his Beatles colleagues. He recorded the Lennon-McCartney song "Love Me Do," conceding he still was hurt that he hadn't played drums on the version included on the band's debut album. Though Mr. Starr is 67 years old, his face bears the sad-eyed expression of his experiences as a sickly child who was separated from family and friends during repeated hospital visits. But his fellow musicians love him, guitarist and producer Dave Stewart told me recently. "With some people, when they walk into the room the temperature rises. That's Ringo," he said. "He keeps everybody's vibe up."

As a drummer, Mr. Starr has an unmistakable sound, making a little go a long way. "Starr possessed no more than a rudimentary technique on the drums," writes Jonathan Gould in his recent biography "Can't Buy Me Love -- The Beatles, Britain and America." "What distinguished him from Pete [best, his predecessor in the band] was the authority and feeling with which he applied his rudimentary skills. Ringo's playing was much punchier and more syncopated . . . [and he] had learned to distribute the weight of his playing among the cymbals, bass and snare."

That's about right, but it omits how savvy and adaptable Mr. Starr was as a Beatle, serving three songwriters and producer George Martin with equal verve. He has a distinctive sound born not of bombast, but of the slightly behind-the-beat groove he sets. "What he does is what he feels" is how Mr. Stewart put it. It's pointless to compare him to Keith Moon and rock's other wild percussionists since that's not his game. The legendary New Orleans drummer Earl Palmer is a pretty good analogy.

On "Liverpool 8," Mr. Starr and his competent band, the Roundheads, give us plenty of Ringo the vulnerable, sentimental personality at the expense of Mr. Starr the drummer. Some of the album's best moments come when his kit, rather than his persona, is at a song's core, but the percussion is mostly buried under an overly bright, whirring wall of sound.

"Liverpool 8" does its best to touch on every aspect of Mr. Starr's career, quoting directly or alluding, in either music or lyric, to some part of his past, particularly with the Beatles. It's not a new strategy for Mr. Starr: The title track of his '05 release, "Choose Love," sounds like it was cobbled together from "Taxman" outtakes, and it mentions the Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows," "The Long and Winding Road" and "What Goes On" in the lyrics.

On the new disc, "Gone on the Days" has a faux, George Harrison-like Indian raga intro, a Lennon-like "oh no, oh no!" and the phrase "it don't come easy," the name of Mr. Starr's 1971 hit. "For Love" recalls Mr. Lennon's solo pop efforts, and Beatles-like vocal harmonies leap from the mix in several songs. Co-written by Mr. Starr and Mr. Stewart, the title track is an overview of the drummer's life. "Went to Hamburg with the red lights on/With George and Paul and my friend John," he sings. "In the USA when we played Shea/We were number one and it was fun."

Ringo Starr's latest album, 'Liverpool 8,' emphasizes his vulnerable persona over his talent as a drummer.

If all this co-opting sounds unbecoming, Mr. Starr pulls it off, as far as it can be pulled off, with characteristic charm, drawing from a well of goodwill that he sees, perhaps rightly, as bottomless. But it doesn't seem the way for a talented musician to burnish his legacy.

Mr. Stewart told me that Mr. Starr wanted a distinctive sound on the new disc; he was brought in to work on "Liverpool 8" after Mark Hudson, its original co-producer and longtime Starr associate, withdrew late in the game. Best known for his work with the Eurhythmics, Mr. Stewart is a Starr fan -- an interview he did with the drummer for an HBO special is now in post-production -- and a presence in his own right. Perhaps if he had been in on "Liverpool 8" from the beginning, it would have had a different concept -- maybe something like the Paul McCartney-Elvis Costello collaboration, "Flowers in the Dirt," issued in 1989, in which Mr. Costello nudged Mr. McCartney outside his comfort zone. Of Mr. Starr, Mr. Stewart told me: "He's great to play with. People don't realize what an amazing contributor he was to the Beatles. He's a serious player."

Yes, but if you come to "Liverpool 8" expecting to hear why Mr. Starr is a special drummer, you'll be disappointed. He has his moments. "Give It a Try" skirts close to Jimmy Buffett's brand of good-time pop, but Mr. Starr comes up with a clever pattern that fights off Mr. Hudson's additional percussion. He sets a groove on the high-hat and snare in "Think About You," which also features that instantly recognizable Starr sound on the splash cymbals. If you drill your way through the roar, Mr. Starr makes interesting choices in "Now That She's Gone Away," a song built on a variation of the Bo Diddley beat, which can take on an almost military rigidity in the wrong hands. But Mr. Starr's playing is relaxed, his toms have a warm, mellow tone, and his fills, which he's played sparingly and tastefully throughout his career, gives the song unexpected depth.

Liverpool 8 was the postal code of Mr. Starr's old neighborhood. When I heard rumors of the title of his new album, I thought he had started a jazz octet akin to one of the swinging bands Charlie Watts leads now and then. Wouldn't you love to hear Mr. Starr take on that challenge? But "Liverpool 8," it turns out, is more of the same: nothing new or special delivered as only our beloved Mr. Starr can.

Mr. Fusilli is the Journal's rock and pop music critic.

URL for this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156329047523621.html

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bigger than Jesus comment occurred in the Summer of 1966. Most of the furor over that event didn't come from the media, but from Southern Baptists in the Bible belt. The media rode it because it was Beatles news. Magical Mystery Tour wasn't aired until the Christmas Holidays of '67....and the media wouldn't have given the time of day to any other artist that tried to pull that off, except Elvis.

It was the media that broke the story and rode it. Thats their nature. Strange you'd absolve the media of furorcism when they created and sustained the furorosity. Every press conference on the 66 tour they elicited an obligatory 'john semi-apology'.

Not at all. In fact, I think the Rooftop Sessions is more evidence for my point than yours. If they would have gone on tour with a setlist consisting of Get Back, I've Got a Feeling, Dig a Pony, and other stuff in the same vein, I'm betting the average Beatle fan boy would have been extremely disappointed. Those songs were written with the intent of playing them live. They were trying to return and recapture something that was already gone. Seminal ? Maybe for you, but not me.

Heh?

The plan was to play the Get Back stuff live and record that one performance as the album; they would not have made it a tour setlist. Never mind that it would be ridiculous to tour live with a setlist identical to a new live album, or that bands virtually never tour with only new material, but that the Beatles wouldn't tour playing stuff from the best career discography of all time would never happen.

I think the whole concept of "The Summer of Love" was established before The Beatles joined the party. I'm not asserting that The Beatles had no influence, but rather in retrospect, are given far too much credit.....especially for that. Yes, the "All You Need is Love" session is a beautiful thing....but they would have never been able to pull that off if they didn't have the media in their back pocket. What other group was offered/given that kind of air time ? The Beatles had frickin cartoons !! The Monterey Pop Festival probably didn't even make the evening news.

The BBC asked them to represent Britain and they delivered. If it was a shit song, then you could say they were overrated. Of course they weren't because they delivered. As for hippiedom, I didnt say they invented flower power....it was you said "others shot past them as far as relevance by '67". Well...apparently not, since you seem to indicate they were hippie bandwagoners....in '67(!).

I think "the win" falls under personal taste. I agree that Zep was like The Beatles....a fifth element as a whole that was larger than the individual. By the way, I think McCartney's first solo album sucks.....yet it sold millions anyway. "Imagine" is great, but the album itself is still a waste of time for me. Again, personal taste.

I dont have any solo albums for either Zep or the Beatles...a smattering of mp3s does me fine. McCartneys album sold big because he basically broke up the band with/for it. The self-interview and such.

Exactly what makes Sgt. Pepper a concept album ? Besides the title track which is featured at the beginning and the end.....which tunes on the album support the concept ? Most bands didn't have the cash support The Beatles did to even attempt anything close recording quality wise. As an example, "I Can See For Miles" cost more to produce than the whole rest of the tracks on "Sell-Out".

I think Pepper is the weakest of the post Rubber Soul era...so...no argument here. Pink Floyd wasn't rolling in dough and 'Piper' is comparable. Beach Boys too. What most bands didn't have was George Martin.

I'm not claiming The Beatles weren't great songwriters, that they weren't a great band, that they weren't influential. I'm claiming that the media showered them with a lot of credit they just didn't deserve. This was especially true from '67 onward, because the media basically missed the boat on what everyone else was doing. The Beatles had become totally embraced by the mainstream entertainment media. The money machine was set up and churning, and it was just as much in the their interest to keep The myth alive. Isn't that what Lennon was eventually revolting against ?

At least we agree on Yoko Romo and the "mother" issues.

What credit did the media give to them that they didn't deserve? That Apple Corps was a well run business ? :lol:

I were Lennon at that point, had done practically everything and everyone, conquered my chosen field, was rich for life, all before turning 30, and I'd probably chill out and go freaky from 70-75 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help! on cable. one of those chanels where they want donations to operate, played help! last night. i haven't seen it in years. what a great movie. lots of fun. WOW! what a sound track! the best sound track of all time!(not including concert films). i just loved it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone here thinks the Beatles are overrated or whatever, I really think you just need to actually sit down and just listen to their stuff. There is so much going on, it sounds simple but it's really not.

We can all have our opinions, but if you ask me, you're insane if you don't like or at least respect the Beatles.

We're learning about them right now in my music class, so I'm on a huge Beatles high right now. They're basically all I've listened to in the past two weeks. I've also randomly become really interested in the relationship between John and Paul - both their musical partnership and their personal relationship. I don't really know why. I think part of it is just because of the transitions that took place during the time of the Beatles, and the way that it impacted the music. I think it's sad, actually, what all happened towards the end. But there must be some sort of God, because it is definatly amazing that they met each other. I think the world would be a much different (and probably more depressing) place if they hadn't.

I'm rambling again. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Worst band ever. :rolleyes:

:P

:rant:

I will never speak to you again, Ricky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mona! :(

What'd I do?

:o

I was joking, haha. I was in a very strange mood earlier today. I still sort of am... :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you were joking, Mona. :P I was just being me.

I've sorta fallen away from the Beatles a bit to be honest. I used to love singing along to the Beatlemania albums, and then I've recently truly realized the awesome genius of albums like Abbey Road and The White Album (even though I've been listening to The White Album for years, I never fully listened to it from start to end)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you were joking, Mona. :P I was just being me.

I've sorta fallen away from the Beatles a bit to be honest. I used to love singing along to the Beatlemania albums, and then I've recently truly realized the awesome genius of albums like Abbey Road and The White Album (even though I've been listening to The White Album for years, I never fully listened to it from start to end)

I think you do have to listen to them a lot before it really hits you how genius their work was.

They are really my favorite band at the moment, thanks to my music class. I've fallen in love with them all over again. :wub:

I bought the movie Help the other day, too. Their house in that film is awesome, and I totally want John's bed. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John's bed was awesome! :lol: I didn't like George's side though.

I wonder why George had a hobo living in his side. I thought the grass was very appropriate for George, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't a hobo! It was his gardener! :lol:

:lol:

He looked like a hobo. And he slept on the floor, and played the clarinet. Poor guy. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bought the movie Help the other day, too. Their house in that film is awesome, and I totally want John's bed. :lol:

Hehehe...I remember watching the film as a child. I always thought I'd live in a house like that one as a grown-up!

In fact, I'm still working on it... :chickeddance:B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hehehe...I remember watching the film as a child. I always thought I'd live in a house like that one as a grown-up!

In fact, I'm still working on it... :chickeddance:B)

Realistically, I guess it would get annoying. I mean, you wouldn't really have any privacy, would you? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...