Another eye on the Beatles

[Hovmod]

If the internet had had editors, that article would have been rejected.

[clueless]

yes, but doesn't every politician (lefty or righty) or philosopher do that?

just what the world needs - a politician discussing pop music



have you ever seen a politician dance?

[liqih]

Talent - the Beatles talent, is the raw material, but the success is the way that the raw material is utalized. Whith the sampler the raw material is what is being sampled, its a matter of what you do whith it. A person might go to Abbey road studio, and spend a lot of cash, and might have a hit. The Beatles was pysicadelic middle of the road music.

Talent- so success it's a layering of several different talents, this is very interesting,
and sounds true,

the different talents may be in one person or in group, that's could explain why when a band breaks up
often the single elements loose the success,

ok, I've said my obvious thing for today, <grin>

[Stupid American Pig]

Its interesting that someone would write such a long article about why the beatles shouldnt matter.

Anyway, the beatles did work because all 5 of them(George martin included) brought very different and very necessary aspects to the band. Paul was the best musician and knew how to write a melody. John was the best songwriter as long as McCartney could assist with a melody. George saved Abbey road with his songs(it would have sucked bad with out them)and his guitar work was good even if not flashy. Ringos drumming would have sounded bad in any other band, but works great for their songs.

The "genius" of the beatles is the simplicity. Most of their songs are pretty easy to play, and sound like something anyone could play. However not everyone can write like them, and sound childish and inferior when they attempt to. yeah its pop music, but every musician should play to their strengths instead of trying to come out with something they are simply no good at. Experimentation has its place, but the last thing I want to hear is 12 songs full of artistic masturbation, in the end, I want to hear a good song..

George Martin absolutely was the reason they made so many good albums, the production is good, and the arrangement is what makes the songs so listenable. There are better songwriters, producers and musicians out there, but no band is a better mix of talents and strengths than the beatles.

[nuffink]

George Martin the 5th Beatle, my arse.
My old man used to swear all the Beatles songs where written by Bert Weedon. He was another of those people who couldn't believe a bunch of scallys could be that good without help from a "musician".

[Stupid American Pig]

George Martin the 5th Beatle, my arse.
My old man used to swear all the Beatles songs where written by Bert Weedon. He was another of those people who couldn't believe a bunch of scallys could be that good without help from a "musician".

I think let it be and the solo careers prove me right here. there is good songwriting and even playing in each, but they dont have the same appeal that George Martins songs have. Personally I think plastic ono band is one of the best albums ever(and Ram and McCartneyI and II prove that Pauls has some chops at arranging/producing) , but they not as accessable as most beatles tunes. Phil Spector didnt have shit on George Martin, and if it werent for George being able to take what Paul and John were humming to him(as they progressed in the mid/late 60s) and write an arrangement for them, the beatles may have just been another band that had some pop success in the early 60s and then was never heard from again.

[nuffink]

I'm sorry, I just disagree. Yesterday isn't the most covered song of all time because of GM's production. It would have been if I'd have produced it and I'm shite.
History doesn't record who stretched Picasso's canvasses for him. George, through assiduous self promotion has made sure of his place.

[Stupid American Pig]

I'm sorry, I just disagree. Yesterday isn't the most covered song of all time because of GM's production. It would have been if I'd have produced it and I'm shite.
History doesn't record who stretched Picasso's canvasses for him. George, through assiduous self promotion has made sure of his place.

I think you are misreading me- I didnt say (in my original post at least )that there wasnt talent there- I was just saying that the four of them being able to compliment each other so well + George's ear for production and arrangement was a happy marriage, and that without all the ingredients there, the music usually isnt as good on a consistent basis. all of the beatles have written amazing songs without George Martins help. But George was very good at helping them achieve their vision.

[nuffink]

We're never going to agree on this. You think he's the 5th Beatle (not something I've ever heard from the lips of the other four) whereas I think he's a glorified tape op with a clever line in self promotion.

I thought he was a terrible classical producer too, and I haven't got a clue what other pop songs he poured his genius all over. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

[FlounderEye]

Sure enough, hidden behind those smiling faces were four mediocre musicians

?!?
By technical standards = probably, by compositional standards = no way!

My thought exactly! They may not have been virtuosos, but they songs consistently had amazing melodies over brilliant chord progressions.

Even their stuff that was crap outpaces (in terms of quality and inspiration) much of what we've been force-fed for the last 20 years.

[Stupid American Pig]

We're never going to agree on this. You think he's the 5th Beatle (not something I've ever heard from the lips of the other four) whereas I think he's a glorified tape op with a clever line in self promotion.

I thought he was a terrible classical producer too, and I haven't got a clue what other pop songs he poured his genius all over. Perhaps somebody can enlighten me.

Ok mebbe 5th beatle is alittle strong- but in most of the books Ive read (beatles songs, Revolution- making of the white album) The 4 do tip their hats to George Martin many times. I think the only beatle who really ever downplayed George Martins role was John, as he didnt like slickly produced tracks and prefered to work quickly. I know that george never wrote any of their songs, but the way he was able to arrange and pull off anything from hollywood vaudville(honey pie) to abstract(I am the walrus) to hard rocking is impressive in itself.

Im not minimizing the beatles talents either(cant wait to see macca in november ) but I think GM had a pretty big hand in some of their success. But If you dont agree, I can accept that.

[stefancrs]

FWIW, I don't think I've heard any "rock critic" state that The Beatles are the greatest rock band of all times or even anything remotely like that. The only ones I've heard/read such things from, are ordinary Beatles fans.

[Amberience]

The Beatles wrote good music, that article is bullshit.

[Stupid American Pig]

since when have we listened to "rock critics" anyway? I dont listen to them, they often slag every band I like...

[Amberience]

Oh, and there are people around today making music with no musical theory backing them at all. All by ear.

So why is that not possible in the 1960's, more than that though, why is that not possible EVER in our history.

Who knows... some of the great composers might have been charlatans.