Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Philosophy of Lennon and McCartney
Topic Started: Sep 5 2005, 10:44 AM (843 Views)
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Seriously Fes, I need a degree in music theory to know what a good song is?


My comment still stands:

"Cos it only exists for those that were teens in the moment."


It is the way it is, and the way it will always be.

If it werent, you have 14 yr olds downloading " Love me do" into their IPods at this very moment
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 03:49 PM
History says this is true, as do numerous record sales, musical experts, theorists, musicologists, pop/rock artists, and performers today whom have been forever influenced by their work. They changed music formally, and they did it consistently and at a level unsurpassed by any other band in history. If you can prove otherwise (other than saying their lyrics are silly), then please do so.

But how do you prove that has more to do with there talent then the times they lived and flushed? The time in which they preformed was very volatile; it wasn’t just music that changed, everything changed, change when talking about that time period in my opinion is not a good marker, change was a dime a dozen.

Of course artiest of today look back on them for inspiration, that’s how inspiration works you look back on something, it doesn’t mean the artists of today can’t/don’t have the talent of the Beatles because they where inspired by the Beatles. Even the Beatles where inspired by someone.

Even your idea of what’s good music (in a scholarly connotation) was influenced by the times you have lived in, and so is not immune to the idea that it was the movement that shaped it rather then the talent.

You spoke about staying power, I will agree with you on all this if its still true when all of us are gone form this earth for a long time and the Beatles are still thought of as you describe them. When the movement and all those effected by it and the people who grow up in the tutelage of those effect by it are long gone and the Beatles are thought of the same way than it proves something, to day its too clouded to make the distinction.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
BTW, I still can't explain the hysteria that accompanied their performances. All I know is that I experienced it a few times, and that when I did, I was not a teenager. I still experience it when I watch AHDN--and I am still not a teenager.

Quote:
 
Seriously Fes, I need a degree in music theory to know what a good song is?

CP,

It wouldn't hurt. ;) Seriously, part of what makes a work 'good' is the craft of musical composition, and the thought that went into its creation. BTW, I also like a lot of the music you like. As I said a page or two ago, we will just need to disagree with one another. However, I want to thank you--for something you've always done since I've 'known' you on this Board--you've always remained civil in our discussions. ;)

Quote:
 
You spoke about staying power, I will agree with you on all this if its still true when all of us are gone form this earth for a long time and the Beatles are still thought of as you describe them.

Scotty,

An excellent point. I believe they will be. They are the only group I have ever read about that is compared to Bach, Beethoven, and (esp.) Schubert. There are musical reasons for this. Your point is one that I wrote about several months ago. It's one of the primary criteria of standing the test of time (staying power); unfortunately, we will not be alive to see what transpires. :(
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 04:18 PM
we will not be alive to see what transpires. :(

Do we need to be?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
You spoke about staying power, I will agree with you on all this if its still true when all of us are gone form this earth for a long time and the Beatles are still thought of as you describe them.

Quote:
 
Do we need to be?

Scotty,

Isn't this a question best answered for yourself? For my own part, no. I need no convincing. For others, apparently so. :lol: ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
who
Have light saber. Will travel.
Fes, I have been following this and this discussion is not what I had in mind. I believe that you know FAR more about music than I do (remember I know next to nothing). I am not interested in comparing the Beatles with other groups or whether certain people like their music or not.

You seem to be saying that their music, from experts in music, is or approaches a genius level. Is is possible to say in layman's terms what it is about the music that makes its quality so high?

Thank you very much.

:wave2:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Who,

I was curious about what you thought regarding this course of action. I almost asked, but thought it inappropriate. I tried my best, but IMO it still failed.

Re: your question--

Another poster asked me to do this several months ago. How would it be if I were to correspond with you via PM (less restrictions) on this subject? I think posting my thoughts here would be unfruitful and would yield very little of substance for several reasons. Let me know. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Despite the "times" that the Beatles emerged in, which certainly casts an interesting dimension upon their popularity and everything, there nevertheless remains the fact that the music of the Beatles evolved with the times, and their style and approach became more sophisticated as time went on; both "Hey Jude" and "The Taxman" are compositional giants but relevant to the time line.

I can hum and whistle and sing the melodies of dozens of Beatle songs; whether I'm driving in my car or in the shower. Can't say the same for any other pop group. How many melodies stick in your mind from the Rolling Stones? Half their stuff doesn't even have a melody unless you enjoy the drawling gutter voice of Mick Jagger. Even though the Stones have shown staying power, their material has not been emulated (or done by symphony orchestras) any where near approaching that of the music of the Beatles.

Simply put, Lennon and McCartney did not write formula music. They only wrote and recorded what "seemed like a good idea at the time". Today's rock is over mixed, formula, repetitive, and copycat. There is no rock or pop band in history that can boast the tour de force lineup of the scope of material covered by the Beatles.

From a musical standpoint, many Beatle songs are quite intricate in places. Contrary to popular belief, good popular music is quite difficult to write and arrange. Also, the vocal melody treatment that McCartney and Lennon would apply were usually ingenious.

The bottom line was that the Beatles established a whole new genre of popular music. A hundred years from now they'll still be playing many of their greats, and other artists will likely redo many of their tunes. As for the Stones, M. Jackson, U2, and modern grunge and metal, they'll just be historical curiosities.

That's the difference.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator


Quote:
 
Seriously Fes, I need a degree in music theory to know what a good song is?




Of course not. A good song is what you say it is.


However, harmonic analysis should prove interesting, Captain.... ;)



Quote:
 
If it werent, you have 14 yr olds downloading " Love me do" into their IPods at this very moment



Hate to break the news to ya, but many of them ARE.


Although the current young teens are inundated with the current commercial gloss, as they get older there are many who rediscover the classics. I saw a couple of young teens just the other day buying a couple of Beatle albums (CDs)


It may be that the Beatles are still more of a legend in US culture than in British/Oz pop music culture. Just a theory.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Franko,

You make some excellent points. As I mentioned, one cannot fake being pretentious. Besides, Beatlemania existed not only for teens, but for adults as well. Some of them had ears to hear, while others just experienced it along with the younger crowd. I know, because I was there after the fact, and experienced the next wave first hand. According to George Martin and the boys themselves, it went on for years. It's that simple.

Quote:
 
There is no rock or pop band in history that can boast the tour de force lineup of the scope of material covered by the Beatles.

Precisely. And there never will be again. Regardless of their icon status, their talent for songwriting and for extending the song form is there for all to see and to scrutinize. The 'proof is in the pudding,' as they say.

Quote:
 
Hate to break the news to ya, but many of them ARE.

I was going to mention this as well, since it occurs every semester at university. We know because we track downloads (for classes, not private material) and then take that information as feedback for our assessment.

Quote:
 
It may be that the Beatles are still more of a legend in US culture than in British/Oz pop music culture. Just a theory.

If true, then that would be interesting. Back in late 1962 and esp. 1963 they were huge in England before they hit America (1964). And as we know, they were America's no. 1 artist before even setting foot on our soil.

Franko, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on their musicianship--particularly the guitar work (I know of Ringo's fills as I've analyzed them over the years). I understand that Macca's bass lines were quite innovative for the time. But as I am not a guitarist, I don't know what his proficiency (or the proficiency of Lennon/rhythm and Harrison/lead) is/was on the instrument. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
captain_proton_au
Sep 16 2005, 11:52 AM
Fesarius
Sep 16 2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:
 
Are the Beatles better musicians, better songwriters than say a band like Metallica

This is an entirely different question, but an interesting one. I think 8247 and Minuet ought to weigh-in on it. Besides, you've heard enough from me on the subject to this point. ;)

No, I think that question is the crux of what we have been discussing over the last page or so.


You believe the Beatles are the best band that ever was and have, and for the most part you have cited either their popularity or their music ability.

Does this mean that the most popular artists are the best?

In order for them to be the best band ever, thier songs have to be the best of all time, but they were a mainstream band, I could eventaully name hundreds of artists from not so mainstream genres like country, rap, metal, blues and disco whos musical and songwriting abilities rival or top the Beatles.

They're popularity proves nothing of their talent ( see- Britney Spears).

It will be interesting to see how The Beatles stand the test of time in 20 years when the Baby Boomers start dyeing off

I think you make a good point here CP. While the Beatles popularity and their musical ability are inextricably linked there are other instances in history where the reverse was true. That is, those that were popular and thought to be the best for a limited time did not stand the test of time as well. Consider Van Gogh in life was not what one would consider a successful artist. In the music arena, since he was mentioned earlier in this discussion, look at Mozart. He was seen as talented at the time, but Saliere (sp?), was viewed by the contemporary critics as the better composer.

Popularity comes and goes, but talen has a way of being recognized over the course of time. I would expect that students that are interested in stdying the social impact of the Beatles have written their theses on the reactions of crowds to them. Why were these guys so popular? I doubt that they could have been as popular if their music were "simpler".

A better question, one that none of us will be around to see asked, is how will their music be viewed in 200 years rather than 20? I suspect their talent will keep them a focal point. Along with Elvis they are seen as the ones to be most credited with establishing rock and roll as a legitimate musical genre.

They benefitted from a time when television and radio were still quite young. While these devices brought music and other art forms to much broader audiences, since the internet has come along I would say we have taken a step "backward." How would they fare in this day and age? Is there any musical artist that has come out in the past 10 years that could easily fill a stadium? With our current level of technology I think that we are again, as in centuries past, seeing a time when audiences for an artist/performer will be smaller.

The very nature of society (almost homogenous) in the 50's and 60's allowed for the type adoration of an artist/performer. The more fractured nature of the 21st century makes this type of impact almost impossible to achieve again. But I'll never say never.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
In the music arena, since he was mentioned earlier in this discussion, look at Mozart. He was seen as talented at the time, but Saliere (sp?), was viewed by the contemporary critics as the better composer.

Swidden,

Your question of 200 years may be answered in part. Consider that during the classic period, app. 10,000 symphonies were written. Yet, we now recall (and study) those of Haydn (104), Mozart (41), and Beethoven (9), not the other 9,800 or so. This is because those other symphonies are quite frankly not very good. There are exceptions (C.P.E. Bach, Stamitz, Sammartini, and W.F. Bach), but even these are far and few between, and are considered to be inferior to those written by the three masters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

Franko
Sep 18 2005, 01:26 AM

Quote:
 
If it werent, you have 14 yr olds downloading " Love me do" into their IPods at this very moment



Hate to break the news to ya, but many of them ARE.



Oh Puhleeeeese!




Quote:
 
Although the current young teens are inundated with the current commercial gloss, as they get older there are many who rediscover the classics. 


Yes, after hearing of the influences of some of the mid 90s bands, in my late teens I started discovering the metal/ rock bands of the 80s, the best decade for this type of music IMO.


Quote:
 
It may be that the Beatles are still more of a legend in US culture than in British/Oz  pop music culture.  Just a theory.


The Beatles tour of AUS in the early 60s was just as crazy as anywhere else. But when it comes to legend status, Early AC/DC takes out the top honour here, they get special treatment cos they were Australias first big rock band, they even have a street named after them in Sydney (errrr....or is it Melbourne?) , no other band has that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

I should at this point qulify some things

I am not saying the Beatles were nothing.

While I dont listen to it, I recognise that their Sgt Peppers album is one of the best and most important albums of all time, and some of the post Beatles stuff was good, Lennons "Imagine" up there in the top ten singles of all time and McCartney did some cool stuff with Wings.

Its mainly I think a lot overemphasize the importance of their early stuff, While Beatlemania was bigger, not really different to fans screaming and chasing after Michael Jackson, Eminem or even The Backstreet Boys.

I get annoyed when people claim made the biggest impact on music that followed, it negates the influence:

Deep Purple and Lez Zepp had on rock and metal
The Stones had on blues rock
Abba and the Jacksons had on Dance / Disco
The Mowtown stars on just about everything
All the early country stars had
Public Enemy on Rap.
Sinatra on crooning
Elvis on Soul


And from the 60s, if you want to talk about pure, raw, obvious talent, Hendrix oozed it a whole lot more than Lennon and McCartney


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
I just got home a little while ago from a wedding. The bride and groom are both big Beatles fans.

Instead of clinking glasses to get them to kiss we were told that each table should stand up and sing a few lines from a Beatles song.

My table decided on Twist and Shout. We had the couple hopping! :rotfl:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus