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 (842 Views)
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

So you just got home from a wedding.

Its the wee hours of the morning

Are probably a little tipsy.

Hubby has that sparkle in his eye.

Kids are asleep

And you decide.....



Good time to log on to Sistertrek :headscratch: ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
^^^ The hubby doesn't drink and he gets up at 5:30 am to go to work.

I get to sleep in later. I seem to have turned into a bit of a night owl lately. I actually logged on just to wind down and get sleepy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Fesarius
Sep 18 2005, 08:34 AM
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.

I think that is primarily my point. I certainly don't expect the Beatles to fade into obscurity, but we really have no way of "knowing" just what artists will be viewed as the best much further down the line. There may be others that were contemporary that could eventually float to the top.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
I recall Macca saying that their music was the classical (i.e., Mozart) music of the day. I've thought about that remark for years. Then again, I don't put too much stock in their words nor their politics. In any event, we do have forty years to consider at this point. Now, if you could create that wonder drug.... ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
captain_proton_au
Sep 18 2005, 08:14 PM


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



No disagreement here. And I tend to agree with most of your choices of influence in these respective genres.


Also glad to see you're a Hendrix fan. As a (now hobbyist) guitarist, I consider Hendrix to be the almighty godfather of modern rock guitar. His inventive style was so overwhelming that even to this day I find the sound of his playing intoxicating and even incorporate some of that texture in my own playing. That however, is a discussion of a singular musician (like Miles Davis and his influence on modern jazz bebop and fusion), rather than a group of artists with a large body of diverse material.

Just as a side note, it's interesting to observe that raw technical talent doesn't always translate into success in the rock field. I've known some pretty awesome rock musicians that can blow you away with their playing but can't put a catchy song together or do a decent album on their own. Alex Lifeson (Rush) is a good example of this. I've seen Joe Satriani in concert and I wanted to cut my fingers off (he is sooo good) but his material is actually quite forgettable; he is merely a circus tent of flashy technique and lightning fast scales.

On another side note, Britney Spears and bands like Back Street Boys usually don't write much of their own material. They are managed quite scientifically by professional producers who bring in studio musicians and expert songwriters whose names seldom even appear on the CD credits. They're entertainers, not really musicians in the pure sense of the term. That's why the Beatles through Elton John thru to Green Day have a little more credibility with me when it comes to the actual talent of writing, arranging and even producing.

Over to you, Fes... :news:


Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
The thing there Franko, is that if any material from these packaged performers stands the test of time, the one(s) to receive the laurels later on will be the composers and/or lyricists.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Just as a side note, it's interesting to observe that raw technical talent doesn't always translate into success in the rock field.

Franko,

This is often true. For all of their talent, bands like ELP and Gentle Giant, or performers like Rick Wakeman and Brian Eno, did not succeed nearly as well as some lesser bands and solo performers. Often, the technical wizardry cancels out the melodic and harmonic ingenuity.

Quote:
 
The thing there Franko, is that if any material from these packaged performers stands the test of time, the one(s) to receive the laurels later on will be the composers and/or lyricists.

Swidden,

Correct. And this we do know from history--going back to at least the 14th century. And between the composer and lyricist (or librettist), the former most often will win that battle as well. It's also why they (composers) are always considered main entries in the creation of the musical entity.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Fesarius
Sep 20 2005, 06:49 AM
Quote:
 
Just as a side note, it's interesting to observe that raw technical talent doesn't always translate into success in the rock field.

Franko,

This is often true. For all of their talent, bands like ELP and Gentle Giant, or performers like Rick Wakeman and Brian Eno, did not succeed nearly as well as some lesser bands and solo performers. Often, the technical wizardry cancels out the melodic and harmonic ingenuity.

I've been saying that about Jeff Lynne for years.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Swidden
Sep 20 2005, 01:54 AM
The thing there Franko, is that if any material from these packaged performers stands the test of time, the one(s) to receive the laurels later on will be the composers and/or lyricists.

Fesarius
 
Swidden,

Correct. And this we do know from history--going back to at least the 14th century. And between the composer and lyricist (or librettist), the former most often will win that battle as well. It's also why they (composers) are always considered main entries in the creation of the musical entity.


For the most part I agree with you. However - in the modern age we are able to record some of the great entertainers and keep them for posterity as well. I am thinking of artists like Frank Sinatra who was not a songwriter or composer but who will always be associated with certain songs. I can't tell you who wrote "New York New York" but I know who sang it. Same for people like Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, etc....

That is not to say that all entertainers will last either. I doubt anyone will be listening to old recordings of Britney Spears 100 years from now.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
For the most part I agree with you. However - in the modern age we are able to record some of the great entertainers and keep them for posterity as well. I am thinking of artists like Frank Sinatra who was not a songwriter or composer but who will always be associated with certain songs. I can't tell you who wrote "New York New York" but I know who sang it. Same for people like Bing Crosby, Judy Garland, etc....

Minuet,

True enough. And the same can be said for musicals. We know the music from those great shows, but we don't necessarily think of R&H (pick your 'H' ;)), or C. Strouse, or J. Bock. But I would still think of them before I would think of the lyricists, and in musicals, the text is from my view as important as is the music. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Actually I do think R&H - more often the second H however. Hart didn't do quite as well as Hammerstein. :D

I agree about the music versus the lyrics. I often stumble over remembering lyrics - but just hearing the music sets me off.

And getting back on the original topic - I can see where this is leading. :D Music has layers. Lyrics can be written by a proficient poet - but the music takes something different. Much of the Beatles work is seen as fluff by some members here, and frankly when you consider the lyrics I understand why. For the most part it is not exactly profound. But there is something about the music - the chords and the rhythms - that just seem to stay with you. That is why much of the work has been transcribed into orchestral form. There is real talent showing there.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Much of the Beatles work is seen as fluff by some members here....

But one has to know what fluff is (which you do) in order to make that determination. With the exception of two or three posters, I have yet to see evidence that most here have the tools necessary to make that assessment. Personal taste is what is usually submitted, which is fine in and of itself, so long as it is just that. But music, like many subjects of study, has a language and differing vocabularies. And that language and those vocabularies must be studied and absorbed in order to converse about the subject intelligently (beyond surface level aesthetics), and to appreciate the work to its fullest.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Walker_Keel
Member Avatar
PSV all the way
captain_proton_au
Sep 5 2005, 11:44 AM
Quote:
 
I am the eggman, they are the eggmen.
I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob.
Goo goo g'joob g'goo goo g'joob g'goo.




That's deep man


:meditate: :meditate: :meditate:

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. :huh:

Very deep :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Fesarius
Sep 20 2005, 11:33 AM
Quote:
 
Much of the Beatles work is seen as fluff by some members here....

But one has to know what fluff is (which you do) in order to make that determination. With the exception of two or three posters, I have yet to see evidence that most here have the tools necessary to make that assessment. Personal taste is what is usually submitted, which is fine in and of itself, so long as it is just that. But music, like many subjects of study, has a language and differing vocabularies. And that language and those vocabularies must be studied and absorbed in order to converse about the subject intelligently (beyond surface level aesthetics), and to appreciate the work to its fullest.

To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice:

I can't define "fluff," but I know it when I hear it! :D :angel: :whistle: :Fes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Yep! Marshmellow Fluff! ;)

Tangent:

Swidden,

Do you have any recordings of your mother's playing the piano?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Spiritual Journeys · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus