8.52pm
1 November 2013
Comments for that article start here. I’ll repost my response.
rigorously white
That quote made me laugh. What other kinda white could they be? Unless they changed band members of something or are a chameleon band. And also their were white rockers before the Beatles
Rock and roll could finally be included in the pop charts.
Guess Elvis wasn’t a thing
The Beatles were the quintessence of instrumental mediocrity. George Harrison was a pathetic guitarist, compared with the London guitarists of those days (Townshend of the Who, Richards of the Rolling Stones, Davies of the Kinks, Clapton and Beck and Page of the Yardbirds, and many others who were less famous but no less original). The Beatles had completely missed the Revolution of rock music (founded on a prominent use of the guitar) and were still trapped in the stereotypes of the easy-listening orchestras. Paul McCartney was a singer from the 1950s, who could not have possibly sounded more conventional. As a bassist, he was not worth the last of the rhythm and blues bassists (even though within the world of Merseybeat his style was indeed revolutionary). Ringo Starr played drums the way any kid of that time played it in his garage (even though he may ultimately be the only one of the four who had a bit of technical competence). Overall, the technique of the “fab four” was the same of many other easy-listening groups: sub-standard.
How can you say overall about the bands technique when you don’t even mention John?
While the Velvet Underground, Frank Zappa, the Doors, Pink Floyd and many others were composing long and daring suites worthy of avant garde music, thus elevating rock music to art
So in order to be an art it has to be avant garde and super long? What makes that art versus any other kind of music?
Beatles fans can change the meaning of the word “artistic” to suit themselves,
It seems Beatles fans aren’t the only ones who can change the meaning of words
As popular icons, as celebrities, the Beatles certainly influenced their times, although much less than their fans suppose. Even Richard Nixon, the American president of the Vietnam war and Watergate influenced his times and the generations that followed, but that doesn’t make him a great musician.
Several times he mentions how long 15 – 20 minute songs are better than the Beatles 3 minute songs. What is his problem with short songs? A song can be just as “artistic” and still be short.
They scatter studio effects here and there, pretending to be avant garde musicians, in Fixing A Hole and Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite , but in reality these are tunes inspired by the music halls, the circuses and small town bands
So? If everyone is doing the avant garde thing except them would they be considered the out their different group. Avant garde music can’t be inspired by the circus? Where are avant garde musicians supposed to get their inspiration?
classical (Piggies , a rare moment of genius from Harrison, a baroque sonata performed with the sarcastic humour of the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, with a melody borrowed from Stephane Grappelli’s Eveline)
Piggies is classical? Well your not too far gone if you like Piggies
All efforts at cohesion notwithstanding, their personalities truly became too divergent. The modest hippie George Harrison became attracted to Oriental spiritualism. (Something and Here Comes The Sun are his melancholy ballads). Paul McCartney , the smiling bourgeois, became progressively more involved with pop music (every nursery-rhyme, Get Back and Let It Be included, are his). John Lennon , the thoughtful intellectual became absorbed in self-examination and political involvement. His was a much harder and/or psychedelic sound (Revolution , Come Together , the dreamy and Indian-like Across The Universe ). They were songs ever more meaningless and anonymous. After all, the break-up had begun with Revolver (Lennon wrote Tomorrow Never Knows , Harrison Love You To , McCartney Eleanor Rigby ), and had been camouflaged in successive records by Martin’s painstakingly arrangements.
What about Ringo? Where does he stand in all this?
He gives a summery of their solo years expert for Ringo! What happened to Ringo? Did he fall in a black hole?!
unlike Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix they didn’t further the myth of LSD;
Was that something that needed to be furthered? Was their a demand for people to explore the myth of LSD? Wouldn’t it be better to share the facts of LSD so that everyone is well informed before they try it?
I just read his article and I found it amusing and pretentious. Their are a lot of thesis type of articles everywhere on the internet and it doesn’t really stand out compared to the other critical articles. It doesn’t really go into the Beatles instead just compares the Beatles to everyone else. I found it funny that he talked about the avant garde yet he hardly brings up Yoko Ono and her influence on the Beatles. I don’t get why a lot of the comments before are so angry at this article
Mr. Kite said
meanmistermustard said
Surely going by that logic none of us here can criticise any musician who is of a better standard than us.
You’re right… But I’m saying everyone can have their opinion, but making fun of someone’s musical skills when you don’t play and cant respect the difficulty is unfair.
I am not sure how that is unfair. It is free speech and the first amendment. I don’t think he is making fun of them. He is just stating they are inferior compared to other acts at the time. He does mention that the Beatles are good at writing melodies. Your One Direction comparison includes only past acts by a few decades if it was more like this article it would include modern acts and how they are all so much better then One Direction.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Beatlebug, mcsugalumpsIf you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
8.56pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Wow. That was depressing.
The guy was so desperate to thrash the Beatles that he even got a couple of factual errors wrong (since when have the Beatles doggedly obsessed over the Beach Boys ? I was always under the impression that it was the other way around), despite the fact that he would occasionally (grudgingly) admit that something was good. Some of what he said was valid, but most of it — even if it’s true, I would rather not believe it. Maybe he’s right that the Beatles are nothing but insulation against reality, but I’m happy being insulated, thank you very much.
I don’t particularly care about their musical influence, myself; they are what they are, and I love them for it. That Is All. It doesn’t really matter to me if they changed the world or not, if they created a Revolution or stifled it — their music means something to me: it always has, and it always will. Nothing to do with revolutionary technique or avante-garde experimentation or any of it; it just speaks to me, on a personal level.
SO THERE, MR MAN!
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Jules([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
10.03pm
1 December 2009
Yeah I read that takedown awhile ago and thought it was really unfair and excessive…some people have some kinda grudge against the boys very ubiquity it seems…I do appreciate that he knows a hell of a lot about many kinds of music tho…I liked his articles about cecil taylor and MX-80 Sound
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
BeatlebugGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
11.41pm
31 July 2014
I’ve read stuff like this before. I’ve known people who spoke like this before. I just smile and nod. (Knowing better.) To quote my beloved Donovan, “The book you are reading is one man’s opinion of moonlight.”
The following people thank SaxonMothersSon for this post:
BeatlebugMatches...Candles...Matches...Candles
12.04am
5 April 2015
Applying experimental techniques, genres and sounds to popular music is an innovative triumph in itself. Some of the techniques that The Beatles employed had been done before by artists such as Stockhausen but they brought these techniques to the popular music and wrote great melody’s around these avant garde techniques. The Beatles don’t have to composed long 15 minute songs in order to be avant garde. That’s probably my biggest critique of this article. Also he says that they were mediocre musicians but in my opinion they play what was needed for the song and didn’t need to over stuff their song’s with complexity in terms of playing style. The article is well written but it’s arguments are flawed.
The following people thank mcsugalumps for this post:
Beatlebug, Von Bontee1.54am
11 November 2010
Silly Girl said
(since when have the Beatles doggedly obsessed over the Beach Boys ? I was always under the impression that it was the other way around)
Actually, I think that was pretty much true both ways ’round.
The following people thank Necko for this post:
BeatlebugI'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017.
1.44pm
7 April 2015
I wasn’t really planning on coming back and posting on here again after a member said unjustified horrible things to me,and I’m only posting this information to totally debunk the extremely ignorant,ludicrous,inaccurate lies that Piero Scaruffi wrote and he’s constantly quoted by Beatles haters who ignorantly, ludicrously call The Beatles a talentless,overrated boy band and compare them to any stupid,uncool,untalented true boy bands that are popular at the moment,now it’s ludicrously One Direction. I really am shocked that any fans on here actually think that Scaruffi’s horrible,inaccurate,article has any truth or validity to it.
On a heavy metal site metalpedia some years ago someone had posted Scaruffi’s garbage and a guy so rightfully said,that Scaruffi made up whole a lot of contrived bullsh*t about The Beatles and a lot of people think he knows what he’s talking about because he’s a cognitive scientist. Other people have said that Scaruffi made most of this stuff up,and he did all of it really.
1.49pm
7 April 2015
The Beatles were very good musicians,not ”mediocre”.This is all of the true important things Scaruffi conveniently doesn’t tell people.
One of his countless hateful,ignorant lies,is that none of The Beatles peers praised them.
1.50pm
7 April 2015
1.52pm
7 April 2015
John Lodge and Justin of The Moody Blues are interviewed in this book and Bill Wyman and Ron Wood says how The Rolling Stones became good friends with The Beatles in 1963 after John and Paul wrote 1 of their first hits,the Rock n Roll song,I Wanna Be You’re Man.
Justin Hayward says that the album he always really loved ,and he said it was when they started experimenting with chord structures ,was A Hard Day’s Night .He says they began to move away from the standard 3 chord thing and just went into more interesting structures .He said A Hard Day’s Night was the album for him and their song If I Fell was the song.He said it started in a different key to how it ended up,and it’s a beautifully worked out song and that there are some songs on that album that were very emotional and evocative. He said that for everybody just starting to write songs as he was,it was a real turn on and eye opener.
1.58pm
7 April 2015
1.59pm
7 April 2015
Here Ozzy Osbourne says that he doesn’t anyone will ever be as great as The Beatles and he said they were all great,even George Harrison and Ringo Starr were great.
2.00pm
7 April 2015
In this 2008 interview asking Keith Richards who the five greatest bands ever are besides The Rolling Stones,he said obviously he put The Beatles in there. This was 6 years of course before he ridiculously criticized The Beatles brilliant Sgt.Pepper album that The Rolling Stones tried but failed to copy and equal.
2.01pm
7 April 2015
2.02pm
7 April 2015
2.04pm
7 April 2015
The early Beatles lyrics were more simple but a lot of their early music was actually much more complex. Just one of many examples I always loved this very early John song written and recorded in 1962 Ask Me Why .
I have always loved this great beautiful song written by John,with such typical beautiful melodies and harmonies John and Paul usually wrote,and John’s usual beautiful singing voice.And this was amazingly recorded in 1962 on only two track tape! with such limited,primitive recording technology but it of course still sounds great.Except I hate mono it’s limited sounding and only makes their already limited recording technology sound even more limited.I tried to find the stereo version of this song on youtube but I couldn’t find it.
Here university of Pennsylvania musicologist Alan W.Pollack who did an 11 year extensive analysis of every one of the 200 Beatles songs,analyzes Ask Me Why and explains that it’s structurally complex.
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~sounds…../amw.shtml
Here is Alan’s whole Beatles song analysis series http://www.icce.rug.nl/~sounds…..s_on.shtml
2.05pm
7 April 2015
2.07pm
7 April 2015
31 Year old Beatles and academic music scholar Arron Krerowicz plays many instruments & writes his own music too
2.08pm
7 April 2015
2.11pm
7 April 2015
1 Guest(s)