What makes a great Beatles song | Page 3 | Recording and musicology | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  
 

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

What makes a great Beatles song
6 November 2011
5.44am
mithveaen
Sitarday's room
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4651
Member Since:
1 May 2010
Offline

The problem Gniknus is the way things are said.

 

Anderson said:

I think that a great Beatles song must consist of two elements: its being primarily written by Lennon, and its being accompanied by an inspired McCartney bass  line.  Without this formula, I believe that we are left with songs that are either mediocre or outside of the first-rank. 

To me, mediocre is this..

 

 

Not Something or Blackbird. Come on..

 

Edit : Heck, I'll rather hear Ob-la-di Ob-la-da and Ding Dong a million times again and again than this crap. a-hard-days-night-ringo-14a-hard-days-night-ringo-14

 

edit 2 : Joe forgive me for posting this video in here... blue-meanieblue-meanie

Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie…… Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower… Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go. Beware of Darkness…  I believe in SH...
6 November 2011
1.23pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
42

In fact, I closer see a resemblance to JFKin60. Both being COMPLETELY ignorant of anything. Paulsbass, (and you too Kedame), you are spot on with this guy. I mean, even if you prefer John (which I used to) that doesn't mean EVERYTHING PAUL DID SUCKS! I can stand an opinion, but I can't stand the stating of those opinions in such a patronising way, such as calling Kedame (who you are having a f ing debate with) love. Come ON. And Paulsbass, I love how you responded to his "good faith" bullshit. It's pathetic and laughable. And finally, Anderson, if you go about insulting, being condescending and arrogant, well expect those things in return. We'll respond to you how you speak to us. You'll have a bad time here if you don't realise that insults get returned fast.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
6 November 2011
2.11pm
mithveaen
Sitarday's room
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4651
Member Since:
1 May 2010
Offline

Just to make it clear Paulsbass.

 

I'm not feeding the troll. Well. Maybe. I'm just practicing what the Dalai Lama says "Try to connect and understand people". Otherwise my first reaction would be "Fuck off Man, George and Paul are as awesome as John. Nuff said". But I try to get people. So blame it to this book.

 

 

Also, I still haven't learned how to discuss about the Beatles like you LOL!!

Now Paulsbass I don't say Ob-la-di Ob-la-da is junk. I just don't like it. I dunno why. It's one of those things that I just can't explain. And I don't think I'll find love for it, because in Paul's concert, when he sang the song it was like when I go to the gym and my instructor says "Ok, time to drink water". It was my time to catch my breath. But there are tons of kids who like it.

 

Now what I find interesting in all this is that typical Beatle fan who says that John Lennon was the greatest thing on Earth and Paul McCartney should be kissing Yoko's dress rim for having the opportunity of working with John.I even heard a guy saying "The Beatles should have been John Lennon and his chorus"

 

First of all, when John met Paul,he thought Paul had talent, he was as good as he was, and that maybe, just maybe he might jeopardize his position of leader in the band. And still, he chose him. Why can't we trust John's judgment?

 

I wonder what it would have been if Paul chose John instead. We would have rabid McCartneistas?  a-hard-days-night-paul-2a-hard-days-night-john-7

Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie…… Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower… Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go. Beware of Darkness…  I believe in SH...
6 November 2011
2.37pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10038
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

Its noticable that Anderson has not responded to how can you can write off Paul and George as not being great songwriters?

He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
6 November 2011
5.35pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10038
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online
45

Anderson said

To defend my view, it's necessary for me to hold that McCartney and Harrison didn't write great songs.  McCartney and Harrison were good at writing hits, but this is not the same thing as writing great songs.  A great song must feature both an interesting mood, and an unbanal tonal framework.  Neither McCartney nor Harrison seem to me very good at these things.

(Taken from the very first post of this thread tho i think you may be being sarcastic. My emphasis by the way, not Anderson's.)

He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
6 November 2011
6.04pm
mithveaen
Sitarday's room
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4651
Member Since:
1 May 2010
Offline

This was not my day.

 

Paulsbass just to make it clear. I disagree with Anderson. And right now, I don't give a fuck about what he says.

 

I just wanted that for one fucking time, a John fan told me a very valid reason why Paul and George were mediocre.

Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie…… Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower… Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go. Beware of Darkness…  I believe in SH...
6 November 2011
7.08pm
mithveaen
Sitarday's room
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4651
Member Since:
1 May 2010
Offline
47

Wow I used the f word twice. Sorry a-hard-days-night-john-2a-hard-days-night-john-2a-hard-days-night-john-2 heart

Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie…… Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower… Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go. Beware of Darkness…  I believe in SH...
6 November 2011
7.27pm
Anderson
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline
48

Wow. I had a good chuckle reading over these posts. 

I think what we really have is a clashing of "fandom" types.  Some of you seem to grow really upset at criticism of the Beatles, and can't fathom how anyone could at the same time love the Beatles, but also be deeply critical of their work.  Let me just say this: musicians don't tend to be "fans" in the same way as non-musicians.  Musicians tend to be a bit more picky.  I confess that I'm on the extreme end in this regard: I've never heard a song that I wouldn't criticize at all.  I've never heard a piece of art that I would really consider "perfect".  Sometimes artists come close, including the Beatles, but whenever I analyze their work, I'm going to include praise and criticism.  This is called "critical appreciation" of art.  It seems that some of you are deeply upset by critical appreciation of the Beatles.  To be honest, that's just not my problem. If critical appreciation of art troubles you that much, there is a very simple solution: don't read this thread.  As the philosopher Joel Feinberg notes, a person offended by nudity can hardly cry foul if he or she observes nudity while being a "peeping Tom".  You're going out of your way to read this thread, and so you have no grounds for blaming me for your offense. This is especially true when the things to which you're taking offense are things I haven't even said. 

Kedame and Paulbass wonder why I won't respond to all of their demands for answers.  One reason is because, when I do so, my careful responses seem to be ignored.  Another reason is because it's difficult to have conversations with people who contradict themselves in their own posts, and then refuse to correct their reasoning when this is pointed out to them.  Both of these people are still committing the same error of reasoning which I pointed out on the first page of this thread; i.e., dismissing my criticisms on the grounds of artistic subjectivism on the one hand, and then saying I'm dead wrong in my positions on the other.  But these two moves contradict one another.  And I can't have a reasonable conversation with people operating under fundamentally irrational, illogical, and confused frameworks.  I have taken the time to try to help people clarify their reasoning on these matters, but when I do so I am simply ignored.  So what's left open for me to do as regards these people?  I'm sorry, but I have no interest in trying to have a reasonable conversation with someone who insists on being unreasonable. 

Mithvaen claims, quite reasonably, that the problem is with terms like "great," which he says are subjective.  But I don't think that they are necessarily subjective.  Great is just a measure of something, like "tall".  "Greatest" can be measured the same as "tallest," once we agree upon some framework.  For instance, suppose we accept (as we shouldn't) the claim that "greatest" for an artist comes down to record sales.  In this case, it would be a trivial matter to determine who are the "greatest" musical  artists.  However, if we use a more philosophical standard, such as the one I have put forward, then it seems that we will need to engage in a bit more discussion.  The first order of business is trying to agree upon some evaluative framework.  This is what I've been trying to do, only to be ignored by people like Kedame and Paulbass.  They demand that I explain myself, and then ignore me when I try to do so.  For instance, after putting forward a reasonably thoughtful case against using "popularity" as a framework in which to judge art, and offering instead a more philosophical framework where art is to be judged based upon the excellence of an artist's self-expression, Kedame simply completely ignored me and went right back to the untenable and silly "popularity" standard.  Again, I can't have a reasonable conversation with someone who is unreasonable. 

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
6 November 2011
7.42pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10038
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

Anderson, can you please explain your claim that Paul and George have not written great songs. Thank you.

He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
6 November 2011
8.32pm
kedame
Miles above you
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 531
Member Since:
23 January 2011
Offline
50

meanmistermustard said:

Anderson, can you please explain your claim that Paul and George have not written great songs. Thank you.

Thank you! He still hasn't done this. I asked valid, legitimate questions that are being ignored. I'm sorry Anderson, but your philosophical points amount to nothing more than a song is first rate if John writes it and Paul plays the bass. We have offered numerous examples of first rate songs not written by John, and you even contradicted yourself when you said Helter Skelter has great bass, when it is decidedly not Paul playing it. It does have great bass...you admitted that, but how can your standards hold up to criticism when you admit that someone other than Paul adds a great bassline? That totally contradicts your initial position, but you haven't addressed that.

I have no problem with constructive criticism of a song. It's healthy, and it can be fun. However, dismissing at least 75% of their catalog as mediocre is not constructive criticism. Dismissing it simply because Paul or George wrote it is not constructive criticism. It is a weak argument.

I still hold that popularity is important. I don't care that you think it isn't. That's one of my positions. I think a person's response to a piece of art matters. If no one hears it, it is of no consequence. It might be a beautiful piece of work, but it accomplishes nothing if no one knows it is there. Penny Lane paints a beautiful picture of a place I have never been to in my head. Here Comes The Sun gives me the chills with its serenity and peaceful setting. Strawberry Fields Forever puts me in place in my head that I could experience with no other work of art. That matters to me. The feeling the art evokes is paramount to its success, in my opinion. If those same songs don't do the same for you, that's ok. I'm honestly, truly fine with that. We all have different life experiences that help shape what we think of as a great song. I guess I just don't understand why, simply because you don't like something, you have to label it as second rate. I'm not very fond of Yoko's performance art (or any performance art, really), Cut Piece, but I recognize it has value. As performance pieces go, it is a powerful one. You said the power to evoke emotion doesn't mean it is good art...I thought that is exactly what art was meant to do.

Also, those of us who disagree with you have every right to continue reading the thread. It's an interesting topic. You posted your thoughts...we're posting ours. Sorry they don't line up with yours, but I feel many of us have made interesting points that you just keep hedging. You accused me of being lazy and not reading your responses, but it's clear you haven't read my responses if you can't see that the questions I have posed you with are valid. I'm truly (not being sarcastic here) sorry that I can't formulate a technical response to your arguments. I barely know what you're saying, other than the fact that anything John doesn't write or Paul doesn't play on bass is substandard. Your reasoning baffles me, I must say.

I happen to think they are both brilliant songwriters and musicians who can put you in a unique place and in a unique mood with only four minutes or so of writing and instrumentation. They have affected me as no other musicians have. I was never able to connect with music until I first fell in love with Come Together, with John Lennon and Paul McCartney. What they have given to the world is beautiful. A criticism of their work can't be based purely on technique, in my ever so humble opinion, because by all definitions, their technique is truly unique. I can't imagine any other songwriters coming up with the material they did. I can't imagine a guitar player being able to add such fluid leads as George's. That's how I think of his guitar solos sometimes...flowing slowly like a little stream that weaves its way into your mind. (If you're interested, I visualize Paul's as crashing waves coming down on you and John's as fire streaking towards you.) I can't imagine another drummer coming up with a drum pattern as good and fitting as the one in Rain...or A Day In The Life. I can't put it in technical, musical terms. I know that must be frustrating for someone who has a musical background. I know it frustrates the hell out of me to hear someone talk in scientific terms when I know they have no idea what in the hell they are talking about...but this is different, I think. This is the complete dismissal of brilliant work as substandard, just for the hell of it. People study Yesterday in music classes. They study Hey Jude and Eleanor Rigby. Why would they do that, why would music teachers teach students their value if they have none in the artistic world?

Please, please take the time to read this and respond without sounding like I am an idiot. I admit, I am a technical musical idiot, but I can tell when a song is substandard and when it is not. I enjoy songs like All Together Now, but I can tell it is not a masterpiece. It's a nice, fun song. I enjoy Mean Mr. Mustard, but I know it isn't OMGSOOOOBRILLIANT. But some of these works you have dismissed ARE fundamentally great songs.

"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?" John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
6 November 2011
8.35pm
mithveaen
Sitarday's room
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 4651
Member Since:
1 May 2010
Offline

paulsbass said:

mithveaen said:

This was not my day.

 

Paulsbass just to make it clear. I disagree with Anderson. And right now, I don't give a fuck about what he says.

 

I just wanted that for one fucking time, a John fan told me a very valid reason why Paul and George were mediocre.

Sorry Mith, I didn't want you to feel bad, I know you meant well.

I don't completely get you point about the "valid reason". Do you WISH somebody explains to you why they're mediocre? Do you think they are??

No, I didn't think so.

Anyway, as I said, I respect you very much, so don't overrate this thing too much.

Peace! apple01

A-ha! a-hard-days-night-ringo-8

 

Now we're into something Paulsbass. That's the point. I have talked to many many John Lennon fans who claim that, and so far, nobody has told me one single VALID reason why Paul and George are overrated. Not even my boss, who's one of my best friends and hates Paul with all his heart, and we always talk about it.

 

I like to challenge them. And at the end, it's their personal experiences who interfere in their judgment. That's why greatness is subjective.

Here comes the sun….. Scoobie-doobie…… Something in the way she moves…..attracts me like a cauliflower… Bop. Bop, cat bop. Go, Johnny, Go. Beware of Darkness…  I believe in SH...
6 November 2011
9.57pm
Anderson
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline

kedame said:
you even contradicted yourself when you said Helter Skelter has great bass, when it is decidedly not Paul playing it. It does have great bass…you admitted that, but how can your standards hold up to criticism when you admit that someone other than Paul adds a great bassline? That totally contradicts your initial position, but you haven't addressed that.

 

But of course, at no point did I claim that only Paul is capable of good bass playing.  Hence, there is of course no contradiction in acknowledging that a bass line played by John is great. 

 

I still hold that popularity is important. I don't care that you think it isn't. That's one of my positions. I think a person's response to a piece of art matters. If no one hears it, it is of no consequence…You said the power to evoke emotion doesn't mean it is good art…I thought that is exactly what art was meant to do.

Notice that this is different from the earlier "popularity" standard.  You see, by this standard, we might explain why the music of the Beatles is great, even if it's sitting in Mimi's attic.  It has the potential to "evoke emotion," even if it never does.  So we should notice, you're equivocating between several different standards.  You might want to try to take more care in organizing your thoughts.  But no matter, let's deal with this new standard. 

What art is "meant to do" surely comes down to the intentions of the artist, no?  Some artists could care less what emotions their art evokes; they are just trying to express themselves.  Their art is a form of self-expression, not an attempt to connect with others, gain fans and admirers, and so forth.  For these people, popularity is a circumstantial side-effect of their work, not the purpose of it. So I don't think this will do.

But maybe we ought to judge music by the power it has to evoke emotion, as you suggest.  I want to deny this, because I think it's odd to make the greatness of a work of art dependent upon the emotions of others.  To demonstrate, consider the following thought experiment:

The Beatles are born into an alternate universe where the only other sentient life-forms are Vulcans.  Vulcans are, of course, completely unemotional.  Using your proposed standard, it would seem that we would have to say that the Beatles are failures as artists, merely because their music cannot produce any sort of emotional reaction from others.  But this seems very odd, don't you think?

Here is the ultimate problem with the way you are thinking about these things: you're being a fan in a very self-centered sense.  For you, fandom is all about yourself.  It's all about how you feel, your emotions, your tastes, and so forth.  But in this "me,me, me, me" type of musical appreciation, you really devalue the artist as a human being and as an independent personIt's not all about you, and the worth of the artist doesn't come down to your personal feelings and emotions.  In fact, if you think about it carefully, you'll see that this is a deeply selfish and dehumanizing way to treat a band which you allegedly respect. 

I suggest that you reject this standard in favor of an appreciation of art which centers on trying to understand the artist's perspective, rather than reducing everything to yourself.  All of your standards alienate the artist from his or her work, making its value dependent only upon the reactions of others.  This is dehumanizing, because it means that the artist and his or her work has no independent value.  But this is a rather monstrous way to look at it, don't you think? 

The artist doesn't need you for her work to be valuable.  True art is a deeply personal project, and can have independent value insofar as it is an excellent piece of self-expression.  Looking at art in the way you do is really quite childish, I must say.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
6 November 2011
10.30pm
kedame
Miles above you
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 531
Member Since:
23 January 2011
Offline
53

I asked you to please respond to me without trying to make me feel stupid...but you tried to do it anyways. Once an artist lets his or her art out in the world, people judge it. Artists know that. They wouldn't release their art if they knew no one would have a response to it. I think, for many artists, knowing that someone will appreciate and respond to their work is one of (notice I said one of, not the only) reasons they create. Sure, it is an expression of themselves, but it is also a reflection of the world around them, which you and I are a part of. Artists know that. I didn't ask for your opinions on me as a person or art critic. I asked for your VALID reasoning on the assertion that only songs with lyrics written by John and a bass line performed by Paul are first rate songs. You most certainly did say in your very first post that: "its being accompanied by an inspired McCartney bass  line" is one criterion that makes a Beatles song first rate. Then, you go on to say the bass line in Helter Skelter is practically brilliant and all that is the only reason it is almost a first rate song. Paul doesn't play this bass line. John does; therefore, you contradicted yourself.

You still are not answering paramount questions, only offering stunning insights into my lack of art knowledge. Yippy for you! I like the way I view art. I like the way I listen to music. I can enjoy it with a sense of freedom that you apparently cannot. I have a feeling you will never answer the questions I (and others) have posed with a good faith effort. You are certainly good with words, and you certainly have a knack for putting people down. I will continue to read this topic, and if you have something to add that is valuable to the actual questions we asked you (which, I feel, were reasonable questions give your broad statements), I will respond again. Otherwise, please base no more attacks on my level of art and music appreciation. I feel I can probably appreciate the beauty of their work more than someone who hasn't listened to their work in years, anyway.

I'll just go back to being my selfish fannish self, listening to music that brings me joy, which Paul McCartney has personally said is one of the things he loves about creating music...being able to bring joy and happiness into people's lives. I'm sure that's not the only reason he feels such a drive to create, but I think it is a powerful one. For you to to simply dismiss that is not taking into account the artists feelings, which you so wrongly accused me of in your last post.

Peace and Love...Peace and Love

"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?" John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
6 November 2011
11.23pm
Anderson
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline

kedame said:

I asked you to please respond to me without trying to make me feel stupid…but you tried to do it anyways.

 

I'm not trying to make you feel stupid.  In fact, the reason I'm responding to you, and not Paulbass and others, is because you're one of the few people in this thread actually trying to put forward serious arguments and justifications for your views.  I'm responding to you because there is substance in your posts to which I can respond.  I happen to think your arguments are dreadfully mistaken, but that's another matter. 

 

I asked for your VALID reasoning on the assertion that only songs with lyrics written by John and a bass line performed by Paul are first rate songs.

 

But this is what I'm trying to do.  In order to do this, however, we must agree on some framework within which to judge these works of art.  If your standard is popularity, and mine is excellence of self-expression, then we can't even begin to have a reasonable discussion on what constitutes a "great" Beatles song.  We would just be talking at and past each other.

In order to justify my claims, I must convince you that my framework for judging art is the one we ought to accept.  If I can't, then there is really no point in any further discussion.  It's like asking me to justify calculus before we've agreed on the validity of arithmetic. 

Also, as an aside, I actually didn't mention John's lyrics as a condition for the greatness of a Beatles song.  To be honest, I don't pay much attention to lyrics.  Hey Bulldog is probably my personal favorite Beatles song, and I really don't like the lyrics that much (they remind me too much of Lennon's "wife-beater" songs).  I just ignore them, really. 

What I said is that a great Beatles song will feature Lennon creating the tonal framework

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
6 November 2011
11.31pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10038
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

It appears that Anderson is here to cause trouble as the last few posts have been not about the thread but at people. Nothing in any of his/her posts have been in regards to the topic but having a go at people. My advice is walk away simply because he/she is completely unwilling to discuss without personal attacks, albeit in a nicely worlded way. With these people you cannot get anywhere as your posts will only be thrown back at you with bile attached.

 For the first time on this site since i have been here can we please do something about it.

And also for the very first time here i am going to say what i think without care. Anderson is an asshole. I thought that last night when he/she pissed me off and if anything it has only been shown even more since then with the comments to Kedame and Paulsbass.

I am all for people having their say but not to such a level as either very negative personal comments to other people and/or making it out that they are basically nothing. And if they do they should expect it back.

He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
6 November 2011
11.50pm
kedame
Miles above you
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 531
Member Since:
23 January 2011
Offline

I completely agree with you meanmistermustard, so for my last post on this subject, I shall say what I think is the ideal Beatles song.

First and foremost, it must absolutely be written by Ringo, whose whimsical lyrics and everyman voice is the epitome of the Beatles "message." Secondly, Paul must play drums because we all know his drum fills are the greatest of any drummer, ever, in the history of drumming. George must play the moog synthesizer because, as we heard in Electronic Sound, there is nothing sweeter than a George Harrison moog solo. Next, the anvil must be played by Mal in every ideal Beatles song. It adds that extra tonal nuance that is missing from a song that doesn't have Mal's touch on it. John must speak gibberish over Ringo's singing because it is what is truly on his soul, his heart, that matters so much. He must scream to the high heavens, and if you don't understand the artistic value in that…well, you're just plain dumb. Yoko must also be on the track. Her back up vocals are nothing short of stunning alongside Ringo's voice. George Martin should add the flowing bass lines because I said so. There is no other reason for it other than that I declare it will be an empty song without it.

Finally, Geoff Emerick needs to play the harp and tympani. Without those two instruments played by Emerick alone, the song would just fall flat…it would lack that certain something that I just can't explain without sounding like a pompous ass.

Thank you for respecting my opinion on this matter. Every song that does not match these criteria are mediocre and second rate, and I will tolerate no other opinion to the contrary.

Good night.

Edit: And just when Anderson posted something that didn't sound snide, too. As my official, official last word on the subject, we will never agree Anderson, because you seem to be of the belief that the only person in the Beatles with an adequate grasp of self expression is John Lennon. I admit, he has a great way of expressing himself. He's marvelous at it, in fact...but so are George and Paul. They do it in different ways than John, meaning they express  themselves more in the sarcastic and religious (George) and happy and joyful love of life (Paul). Those are valuable forms of expression. It might not meet with your standards, but that doesn't mean they are sub-par. I still maintain, however, that a certain popularity, a certain connection, with your fellow man is an extremely important part of art. Emily Dickinson wrote beautiful poetry when she was alive, as self-expressive as anything John Lennon ever wrote. It wasn't recognized for its full glory until after her death. Does this mean it was bad before she died? No. How could it? It's the same piece of art. However, it means nothing on a grander scale if it affects no one. If no one sees the words, appreciates them, they are just empty letters on a yellowing sheet of paper that mean nothing to anyone but their writer. To deny that seems silly to me. The connections artists make with their audience is extraordinarily important. I think it gives their work more meaning...not sole meaning, but it certainly adds to it. I think the Beatles themselves would scoff at your analysis of their first rate songs. John Lennon was embarrassed by Hey Bulldog, but he thought Hey Jude was brilliant. Does his opinion of his own and his partner's work not matter? According to you, it should. Also, if I thought popularity was the sole reason a work of art is great, I would have to maintain that Justin Bieber is a great artist, which I do not. His songs have not connected generations of people from all walks of life all around the world together. John Lennon, Paul McCartney, and George Harrison's songs have. Just look at this board for your evidence. We have people here ranging in age from 13 to fifty-something, from Slovenia, to Germany, to Mexico, to England, to the United States, to Australia, to Canada. And it wasn't just John Lennon's music that brought them/us together. I think what truly makes a great Beatles song is the magic that made that happen. I can't explain. No one can. They can try, just as they try to explain why nearly everyone in the world responds favorably to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony or Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. You can't just attach some arbitrary rules to these timeless works of art to declare that is what makes them great. It's insane.

"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?" John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
7 November 2011
12.05am
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10038
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Online

ROFLMAO. Fantastic Kedame.

 

The thing is with all of this thread, in my head all i can hear and see is John laughing and saying its all bullshit. John we miss you.heart He'd have a field day seeing all these sites and posts [seriously] discussing and analysing his work.

 

"Listen, writing about music is like talking about fucking. Who wants to talk about it? But you know, maybe some people do want to talk about it." John Lennon – 1980

(Apologies for the language used)

He told us not to get overwhelmed by grief and whatever thoughts we have... to keep them happy, because any thoughts we have of him will travel to him wherever he is. (John Lennon - 27/8/67)
7 November 2011
12.08am
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
58

Paulsbass and Kedame, may I propose something? That we let this ingorant ass stay ignorant? As in ignoring him? Please? Kedame, your points are beautiful. But beauty is seemingly lost on Anderson.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
7 November 2011
12.17am
kedame
Miles above you
Candlestick Park
Forum Posts: 531
Member Since:
23 January 2011
Offline
59

mr. Sun king coming together said:

Paulsbass and Kedame, may I propose something? That we let this ingorant ass stay ignorant? As in ignoring him? Please? Kedame, your points are beautiful. But beauty is seemingly lost on Anderson.

Yes, I know, but I just can't resist a good argument, as you yourself can attest to. I also want to thank you and whoever else (I think it was Mith) who mentioned the song Tweeter and the Monkey Man. I looked it up, and it is simply fantastic. It's been stuck in my head all day. It reminds me a lot of The Highwaymen (Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, and Kris Kristofferson), and that is a high compliment coming from me. I love The Highwaymen.

"You can manicure a cat but can you caticure a man?" John Lennon- Skywriting by Word of Mouth
7 November 2011
2.04am
Anderson
The Jacaranda
Forum Posts: 27
Member Since:
5 November 2011
Offline
60

kedame said:

 we will never agree Anderson, because you seem to be of the belief that the only person in the Beatles with an adequate grasp of self expression is John Lennon.

But that's not what I said.  I'm not trying to rank Lennon above McCartney as an artist.  I'm saying that Lennon's artistic genius is in creating a tonal framework, while McCartney's artistic genius is as a bass player. 

However, it means nothing on a grander scale if it affects no one. If no one sees the words, appreciates them, they are just empty letters on a yellowing sheet of paper that mean nothing to anyone but their writer.To deny that seems silly to me.

I deny it.  Strongly.  A person's art is not "empty" until someone else comes along and reacts to it.  Emily Dickinson and her art is valuable with or without you or your opinions (or anyone else's).  You're still dehumanizing the artist by reducing their work to merely an instrument for the satisfaction of yourself and others.  Your conception of art and artists still fundamentally fails to respect them as individuals with intrinsic worth, instead making their worth dependent on the emotional reactions of yourself and others. 

Popularity of art might have some value, but it's not an artistic value.  A piece of art doesn't become any better as a work of art at the moment you have an emotional reaction to it.  Popularity is simply a different category of value.  We might call it the "political value" of the work. 

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: meanmistermustard, Annadog40
66 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10038

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

parlance: 5324

Ahhh Girl: 5304

mithveaen: 4651

Annadog40: 4447

Zig: 4279

Mr. Kite: 3947

Ron Nasty: 3144

fabfouremily: 2947

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2652

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3152

Posts: 137496

Newest Members: Anna555, BigSparklyEyes, nina555, mshearn3198, Phil74501

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5304, meanmistermustard: 10038, Zig: 4279, Joe: 3480

Administrators: Joe: 3480, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: davedrum