Kid Calamity
|
The Beatles
May 12, 2005, 14:38
|
Interviewer: "So, John. Would you say Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the sixties?"
John Lennon: "He wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles!"
Love that quote.
|
Earl Mallard
|
Re: The Beatles
May 12, 2005, 14:59
|
I would like to see one of those nice Beatles tribute act try out the following set list:
What's the new mary jane?
Revolution #9
Carnival of light
You know my name (look up the number)
Helter skelter
Blue jay way
Tomorrow never knows
Love You To
Why don't we do it in the road
...and for an en core recreate 'Two Virgins'
|
red peony
|
Re: The Beatles are/were rubbish.
May 12, 2005, 15:04
|
Neil Young on meeting Mikey Mills from the band said, "aren't you one of them rrrremm (pronounced) boys"
classic.
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: The Beatles
May 12, 2005, 15:07
|
I'd like to have seen the Beatles attemp it too, even with all their money I don't think they'd have taked Abbey Road with them on tour.
Mind you not all tribute bands suck. Aussie Pink Floyd play stuff that Floyd never have, and the stage shows PDF too! (plus they have that extra Aussie ingredient - HUMOUR)
|
Popel Vooje
|
Re: The Beatles are/were rubbish.
May 12, 2005, 15:14
|
Time to turn the automatic cliched response generator on.
Yes, "Sgt. Pepper" is overrated and mostly kaka (especially when compared with Brian Wilson's "Smile", which pisses over it from the highest height imaginable), but "Revolver " is far superior. Came out a year earlier, you know.
All cliches begin in truth. Plus "Rubber Soul" and "The White Album" and some of the early singles are fab too. Totally ripped off the Monkees, though.
|
Rolling Ronnie
|
Re: The Beatles are/were rubbish.
May 12, 2005, 15:17
|
|
Entirely with you on Smile. Saw BW twice at the RFH and it was simply stunning!!
|
riotmaster
|
Re: The Beatles are/were rubbish.
May 12, 2005, 18:50
|
behave!
its fooking shite too. another thing to blame the beatles for if you ask me
|
Dog 3000
|
Re: Hold the Fuck On!
May 12, 2005, 19:50
|
You can certainly examine a group or individual's music on "musicological" terms -- what sorts of rhythmic, harmonic & melodic tools they used -- are they unique & innovative or recycling cliched progressions? This is almost like a purely mathematical analysis, as close to "objective" as you can get.
And in these terms (as well as inventing "the pop group" and their recording innovations in the studio), the Beatles were super-original & influential and this really can't be questioned.
Which is not to say that they were great lyricists (not really, except for Lennon occasionally), or soulful singers (a matter of taste perhaps), etc. There are other dimensions that may be more important to you -- the esteemed Lester Bangs always said that he prized a kind of "emotional purity" over anything else, and so he was not particularly a fan of the Beatles or Frank Zappa but he had good things to say about Slade and Black Oak Arkansas.
Of course taste is subjective -- but the header is "the Beatles are rubbish" and that's a ridiculous thing to say. Beethoven was a shmuck too I suppose . . .
|
Stevo
|
Re: Hold the Fuck On!
May 12, 2005, 20:09
|
Is it possible that he was more of a schlemiel?
Couldn't really tell you.
Probably unlikely since I heard the chappy was black, as in partially sub-Saharan and I don't think we tend to suffer from that kind of thing.
|
Fitter Stoke
|
...but U2 are worse, much worse...
May 13, 2005, 00:10
|
No-one else can rightly be called the most overrated garbage ever while U2 are in living memory. And fuck me, the bastards still exist.
In the words of Pitch Shifter:
Hate
I hate
You motherfuckers
Drown
Bleed
I wish you would
You motherfuckers
There. That's better.
The Beatles? Okay sometimes. But (as I've said before in these pages) no way did Lennon and McCartney write all those songs. Evidence? The abject shite both came up with - consistently - afterwards. Only Harrison showed any originality in his solo career, and even then it was rare. Starkey? A lucky pisshead.
x
|
