Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Oh Yoko!

13»

Comments

  • #62
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Pete Moss wrote: »
    In terms of innovation, did The Beatles start anything new? Not in the beginning, they really just rebranded rhythm and blues music for white people (much like which was done previously via Elvis) as rock n' roll.

    That's not strictly true either. Without realising it themselves, they were introducing folk into rock and roll music in a way that had never been donebefore. That's what caught the ears of the likes of the David Crosby and other folkies when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show.


  • #63
    Wigglepuppy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 397 ✭✭Wigglepuppy


    Discodog wrote: »
    Well done for saying what can't be said. The Beatles were overrated.
    Of course it can be said - it's constantly being said. :D
    Bubbaclaus wrote: »
    I always get the impression that people who think the Beatles are "overrated" only know the throwaway pop songs like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or Yellow Submarine and have never bothered to listen to a music changing album like Revolver through.
    Exactly. And what's with the Beatles v Stones/Who stuff? I love them all!


  • #64
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Wigglepuppy wrote: »
    And what's with the Beatles v Stones/Who stuff? I love them all!

    Yeah, I hate that shíte. That's following music like a football supporter. That's what bugged me most about the Blur/Oasis thing. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation when it comes to music.


  • #65
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    Olishi4 wrote: »
    Why did Beatles fans take such a dislike for Yoko Ono? Do you think that she really was the main catalyst in breaking up The Beatles or it was going to happen anyway?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6u2h924m4IE

    No i don't. There was more than one catalyst for the break up of the beatles. The real catalyst was the whole allen klein thing where john, george and ringo wanted to go with him as manager and paul didn't.

    Also, their manager, brian epstein had died in august 1967 which really subsequently set off the chain of events which eventually culminated in the break up of the band.
    In addition, there were various problems in the studios as well so one needs to bear all this in mind.:)


  • #66
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That's not strictly true either. Without realising it themselves, they were introducing folk into rock and roll music in a way that had never been donebefore. That's what caught the ears of the likes of the David Crosby and other folkies when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show.

    thats true to a certain point. The really came into their own around the time of the likes of rubber soul and revolver (the latter being a huge step forward musically, the stepping stone to sgt. pepper if you like.)
    :)


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not sure how clean cut anyone is after an apprenticeship playing strip clubs in early 60s Hamburg (on amphetamines).

    They might look like a boy band in hindsight but when they emerged in the UK they were considered anything but clean cut.

    They became a clean cut band when Brian Epstein became their manager in late 1961.

    He was the one who changed their image (which john apparently hated) from straight rock and roll band to the moptops and the suits basically making them a lot more commercially appealing to a wider audience.


  • #68
    Olishi4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,469 ✭✭✭Olishi4


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Not sure how clean cut anyone is after an apprenticeship playing strip clubs in early 60s Hamburg (on amphetamines).

    They might look like a boy band in hindsight but when they emerged in the UK they were considered anything but clean cut.

    I think he meant marketed as a clean cut band. The Rolling Stones were just selling a different image but I don't think either were clean cut.

    I only know bits and pieces from watching the odd documentary about both bands but I remember watching one about The Rolling Stones and the original leader of the band Brian Jones who was over shadowed by Mick and Keith Richards. I think he was asked to leave the band or something and the band consciously made an effort to dissociate with him to the extent of not turning up to his funeral when he died in a pool a short time after leaving the band.

    That whole documentary kind of turned me off Mick Jagger although I still love the music. It made it seem like he was very image conscious, a bit too orchestrated and shrewd. Maybe that's why he's lasted though.


  • #69
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »
    thats true to a certain point. The really came into their own around the time of the likes of rubber soul and revolver (the latter being a huge step forward musically, the stepping stone to sgt. pepper if you like.)
    :)

    This going back to the 'With The Beatles' era which inspired a lot of love from the folkies for the Beatles use of Folk chords and progressions.

    David Crosby:
    I was singing at Old Town North and Mother Blues. I was trying to quit smoking, and the way I figured to quit was to buy a quarter-pound of pot, which I rolled and smoked every time I wanted a cigarette. I'm not saying to try this at home, kids - but it worked. So I was in a high old state of affairs, and Clem walked in one afternoon with that first Beatles album, Meet the Beatles. He put it on, and I just didn't know what to think. It absolutely floored me- "Those are folk-music changes, but it's got rock and roll backbeat. You can't do that, but they did! Holy yikes!"

    http://die-augenweide.de/byrds/speak/aboutbeatles.htm

    Roger McGuinn:
    When the Beatles had come out, the folk boom had already peaked," McGuinn notes. "The people who had been into it were getting kind of burned out. It just wasn't very gratifying, and it had become so commercial that it had lost its meaning for a lot of people. So the Beatles kind of re-energized it for me. I thought it was natural to put the Beatles' beat and the energy of the Beatles into folk music. And in fact, I heard folk chord changes in the Beatles' music when I listened to their early stuff like 'She Loves You' and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand.' I could hear the passing chords that we always use in folk music: the G-Em-Am-B kind of stuff. So I really think the Beatles invented folk-rock. They just didn't know it.

    http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=43212


  • #70
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »
    No i don't. There was more than one catalyst for the break up of the beatles. The real catalyst was the whole allen klein thing where john, george and ringo wanted to go with him as manager and paul didn't.

    Also, their manager, brian epstein had died in august 1967 which really subsequently set off the chain of events which eventually culminated in the break up of the band.
    In addition, there were various problems in the studios as well so one needs to bear all this in mind.:)

    Paul was really proven right in that regard in the end… given the fortune he sits on now, he really is one shrewd fecker when it comes to business.


  • #71
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Paul was really proven right in that regard in the end… given the fortune he sits on now, he really is one shrewd fecker when it comes to business.

    he certainly was and I think even john had to admit later on that paul had been right all along.

    :)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »
    They became a clean cut band when Brian Epstein became their manager in late 1961.

    He was the one who changed their image (which john apparently hated) from straight rock and roll band to the moptops and the suits basically making them a lot more commercially appealing to a wider audience.

    The original comment was "The Beatles had been a clean cut band. Then the summer of love came along. The drugs."

    That just isn't true. Epstein might have tidied them up a bit but they were still four hard-living and most definitely rough-around-the-edges individuals. That was most definitely part of their appeal, and part of their significance was the breath of fresh air they represented (in pop music terms) in the early 60s.

    The idea that they were 'clean cut' until the summer of love in 1967 is not true whichever way you want to look at it.


  • #73
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Brian Epstein changed their look from rocker to mod.


  • #74
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,244 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    OP uses the word "catalyst", which is spot-on. I think she exposed rifts in the band, between the personalities, that were there already, without causing them. Lennon was already unhappy with much of McCartney's songwriting, despite those songs being the ones that people tend to remember more than his songs. Songs like Maxwell's Silver Hammer got described as "more of Paul's granny music", despite its subject matter
    (a serial killer)
    , and he didn't play on the final recording at all. George was OK with it, Years later Ringo said:
    The worst session ever was 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer.' It was the worst track we ever had to record. It went on for fcuking weeks. I thought it was mad.
    There's yer "musical differences" right there, no fault of Yoko's.

    Government resting upon the will and universal suffrage of the people has no anchorage except in the people's intelligence.

    — Grover Cleveland



  • #75
    Zxclnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Zxclnic


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Oddly enough and especially for the time they only ever wrote and recorded one blues track. Really odd compared to contemporaries. They brought in weird musical influences. The Indian and other "world music" OK, but medieval church musical progressions were very common in their stuff and god knows where they pulled that from.

    String quartet. :D IIRC I think they only ever used a full orchestra for a Day in the Life. At least partially because it was expensive and EMI might have complained.

    Wibbs, from one Beatles admirer to another, I'd put both 'Yer Blues' and 'Come Together' in the ''blues'' category.
    What say you?


  • #76
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Zxclnic wrote: »
    Wibbs, from one Beatles admirer to another, I'd put both 'Yer Blues' and 'Come Together' in the ''blues'' category.
    What say you?
    Personally Zx I'd say not nearly so much with Come Together. Not as a "pure" 12 bar blues composition.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #77
    WomanSkirtFan8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The original comment was "The Beatles had been a clean cut band. Then the summer of love came along. The drugs."

    That just isn't true. Epstein might have tidied them up a bit but they were still four hard-living and most definitely rough-around-the-edges individuals. That was most definitely part of their appeal, and part of their significance was the breath of fresh air they represented (in pop music terms) in the early 60s.

    The idea that they were 'clean cut' until the summer of love in 1967 is not true whichever way you want to look at it.

    yes you're right. Personally, i don't think the beatles ever needed the drugs for them to be as creative as they were. I believe that they always had that talent within them which just needed to be nurtured which, thankfully for all of us, it was. :)


  • #78
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    People who think the Beatles are overrated may not realise quite how much of the music they value came about through the earlier work of the four.


  • #79
    Zxclnic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Zxclnic


    Chuchote wrote: »
    People who think the Beatles are overrated may not realise quite how much of the music they value came about through the earlier work of the four.

    Bang on 'Chuchote'...The Beatles are the touchstone for most of the bands and singers that some fab four non-believers might hold up or offer as superior.


Advertisement
Advertisement