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.
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
Anyone not like The Beatles?
Comments
-
Badgermonkey wrote: »I've got a bike, you can ride it if you like,
I love you most of all, my favourite vega-tables.
Could be onto something there
Pure poetry. Who else could make nonsense mean so much.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I am not a big fan of The Beatles, but always loved the song Come Together, must have listened to that song thousands of times, often put it on repeat and listened to it over and over, don't know why that particular one of their songs is my favourite, but it is. This is a true story. Last week I was dreaming and in the dream I was singing that song and for the first time ever, it hit me how the song could be sung by a woman in the middle of bukkake. I woke up immediately and just thought: 'No way!' Not a clue why I never heard the lyrics that way before. I wish I hadn't had that awakening as now the song is ruined as when I hear it, I just picture a pornstar with cum in her eyes singing the chorus and then a bunch of scruffy hippies, men with flat tops, guys cumming coca cola, dirty toes, a man cracking the pornstar's spine and a monkey getting fingered. Damn dream ruined my favourite Beatles' song.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59269
I find the comparisons with the Stones a bit mad. The stones had maybe three years of decent songwriting in them(with a lot of filler). They've been a hackneyed cabaret act every since. Richards hasn't come up with a new chord sequence in nigh on 40 years. Musically speaking compared to the Beatles they weren't and aren't even in the equation. I like the stones BTW
As for their ability as musicians? When they started they were a skiffle group, the idea of mainstream virtuoso guitar heros like Clapton etc was not really a thing, with the exception of the Shadows. A band was more an ensemble piece or just as backing for the singer(just like The Shadows). The idea of a guitar band of songwriters playing their own stuff was novel and they and the Beachboys really popularised it(famously the A&R man at Decca turned them down thinking guitar bands were out of fashion).
Lead breaks in songs were there to musically compliment the song, not the song being a vehicle for the guitarist, drummer or bassist to show off their chops. Also their stuff sounds simple, but it's usually anything but. Yes you can play Yesterday or Blackbird with a few simple chords, but try and play it the way he did in the first place. McCartney is one of the best bass players of his generation and changed a lot of rules in that area, yet he's not obvious. Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO. Lennon is one helluva solid rythym player. Harrison? I defy you to imagine any Beatles song with a different lead break. 90 times outa 100 he nailed it and never went into self indulgence. OK two examples from the same song Rain. first Ringos drumming;
Second McCartney bass
OK so try playing that, then try inventing it in the first place, then do that in 1966.
Their progression from album to album, year by year is staggering. They rattled the stuff out, nigh on two albums a year. Plus singles. The rest were mostly paying catchup. Wilson of the Beachboys has stated one of the reasons for his breakdown was realising he just couldn't keep up with them. Though without wilson we wouldn't have Sgt Pepper. Then Pepper comes out and every mainstream band is falling over themselves to go "psychedelic"(the stones embarrasingly so) less than 8 months later(with a mini album in the middle) the Beatles release the (double) white album, with a blank cover and not a psychedelic song in sight and change the game again.
One of the main reasons I like The Beatles is they knew when to stop. Both in the studio and as a band. Lennon was largely a spent force by 1970(by 68 really) and McCartney is the Steven Speilberg of music, immensely talented, but tends towards twee and needs someone to reel him in. They had maybe one last good album in them both(and if they let Harrison in) but beyond that no IMH. Luckily they didn't go the Stones (and others) route and flog the same dead horse, at this stage the ossified bones of a dead horse for the last 35 years. Look at U2 and the static they get. I reckon they'd get a lot less static even in Ireland if they'd called it a day after Acthung Baby. know when to stop lads.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO.
I'd rate Ringo quite highly as a drummer. Despite being the quiet man of The Beatles (George eventually found his voice) his drumming is yet another unique factor to the Beatles. I honestly don't think I've heard another drummer like him. He doesn't play a beat, he plays as though the drums are a musical instrument. (For want of a better word.) Whenever he hits a tom he's not adding a beat to bob your head to, he's putting that tonal note into the soundscape. I think he's a brilliant drummer, and vastly underrated in general, let alone amongst Beatle fans.
And I'd never actually heard Rain before. Jaysus, it's great. It had me flicking through my albums to see which one it was on and how could I have missed it before (damn B-Sides to singles.) I can see it fitting in perfectly with Revolver (and if it was on Revolver I think that'd tip that album completely in my mind to "Greatest Beatles' Album" although I'd rate it either first or second anyway.) Very similar sound to it as Tomorrow Never Knows (backwards lyrics, drone, looping, drawling vocals) so I can see why they left it off.
Still, The Beatles, I thought I knew them. Silly me. :rolleyes:
Edit: As for your Stones comment, Their Satanic Majesties is my favourite Stones album (although I haven't listened to the rest of them enough, just their greatest hits really.)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I find the comparisons with the Stones a bit mad. The stones had maybe three years of decent songwriting in them(with a lot of filler). They've been a hackneyed cabaret act every since. Richards hasn't come up with a new chord sequence in nigh on 40 years. Musically speaking compared to the Beatles they weren't and aren't even in the equation. I like the stones BTW
As for their ability as musicians? When they started they were a skiffle group, the idea of mainstream virtuoso guitar heros like Clapton etc was not really a thing, with the exception of the Shadows. A band was more an ensemble piece or just as backing for the singer(just like The Shadows). The idea of a guitar band of songwriters playing their own stuff was novel and they and the Beachboys really popularised it(famously the A&R man at Decca turned them down thinking guitar bands were out of fashion).
Lead breaks in songs were there to musically compliment the song, not the song being a vehicle for the guitarist, drummer or bassist to show off their chops. Also their stuff sounds simple, but it's usually anything but. Yes you can play Yesterday or Blackbird with a few simple chords, but try and play it the way he did in the first place. McCartney is one of the best bass players of his generation and changed a lot of rules in that area, yet he's not obvious. Ringo? Bonham he may not be, but I'd rate him a lot higher than a lot of drummers around at the time. He's gotten a bad rap IMHO. Lennon is one helluva solid rythym player. Harrison? I defy you to imagine any Beatles song with a different lead break. 90 times outa 100 he nailed it and never went into self indulgence. OK two examples from the same song Rain. first Ringos drumming;
OK so try playing that, then try inventing it in the first place, then do that in 1966.
Their progression from album to album, year by year is staggering. They rattled the stuff out, nigh on two albums a year. Plus singles. The rest were mostly paying catchup. Wilson of the Beachboys has stated one of the reasons for his breakdown was realising he just couldn't keep up with them. Though without wilson we wouldn't have Sgt Pepper. Then Pepper comes out and every mainstream band is falling over themselves to go "psychedelic"(the stones embarrasingly so) less than 8 months later(with a mini album in the middle) the Beatles release the (double) white album, with a blank cover and not a psychedelic song in sight and change the game again.
One of the main reasons I like The Beatles is they knew when to stop. Both in the studio and as a band. Lennon was largely a spent force by 1970(by 68 really) and McCartney is the Steven Speilberg of music, immensely talented, but tends towards twee and needs someone to reel him in. They had maybe one last good album in them both(and if they let Harrison in) but beyond that no IMH. Luckily they didn't go the Stones (and others) route and flog the same dead horse, at this stage the ossified bones of a dead horse for the last 35 years. Look at U2 and the static they get. I reckon they'd get a lot less static even in Ireland if they'd called it a day after Acthung Baby. know when to stop lads.
The great thing about Paul McCartney was that he played his bass like a lead guitar, not simply playing notes vaguely following the chord progression.
Lennon famously said of Ringo when asked if he was the best drummer in the world "He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles!".
Maybe not the most technically gifted, I still think he put down some of the most effective beats ever recorded
0 -
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,342 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59269
No way? Glad to put that song your wayAnd I'd never actually heard Rain before. Jaysus, it's great.
Always reminds me of Oasis in a way. Then I read somewhere Oasis were called Rain early on... Hmmm...
They left it off for contract reasons. Well kinda. In the UK until 68 IIRC they were limited in how many album tracks they could take as singles/had to have a certain number of singles per year. Plus they themselves thought it a bit stingy to put too many singles on albums. Apparently the same reason Strawberry fields forever and Penny lane aren't on Pepper and Hey Jude's not on the white album(and the B side's a different version revolution). Mad or wha? :eek:Very similar sound to it as Tomorrow Never Knows (backwards lyrics, drone, looping, drawling vocals) so I can see why they left it off.
Like Buceph noted earlier they were doing all this in the 60's against serious fcuking heavy hitters. Look at their contemporaries. Dylan, Simon & Garfunkel, The Strolling Bones, The Doors, Beachboys, The Who, The Byrds, The Animals, Cream, Yardbirds, Grateful Dead, Zep, the Floyd, the Kinks FFS, the Velvet Underground and that's before we're even sniffing at the whole fantastic Motown explosion kicking up the airwaves. And the vast majority of their contemporaries rated them hugely. I think it was Clapton who said at the time, there was them and then there was everybody else. When God says that ya listen Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axb2sHpGwHQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxVcyvJukCU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f7D2_jUkqA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0MS4GHlYzs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S30lLf7LeFo
Advertisement