The Critic Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 ...I like MY lyrics better.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 The Beatles changed the pop music world like none before or after. Guitar-oriented, harmony-rich power pop would not exist as it does without the influence of the Beatles. The were in the right place at the right time, but there's wayyy more to it than that. They were also the right people with the right genius. Do you think if Herman's Hermits of Jerry and the Pacemakers landed that big record deal before the Beatles the result would have been the same? PA, every one of the first three songs you listed (I'm Down, Paperback Writer, Rocky Raccoon) is a McCartney composition (the "Frer-A-Jaque-Aah" backing vocal on PBW is pure Jogh, though). John and Paul agreed early on they would share credit on all their compositions regardless of who wrote whhat or how much of a collaboration it actually was. Recall Paul just last year gitting into a Row with Yoko for changing the "Lennon-McCartney" credit to "McCartney-Lennon" on his signature songs for a recent album release? In defense of the 'simplicity' of tthe early stuff, much of it is not as straightforward as it sounds. Some of the early harmonies use really strange intervals, especially the third parts that George got. And George's guitar was a fusion of pop/skiffle, jazz, and R&B nearly from the start. Some of the really straight sounding stuff has got amazingly cool inversions/diminished/11ths/13ths, etc., that just were not the standard for a band coming out of the schoolgroup skiffle world. Rubber Soul was certainly the point where the "Later Beatles" sound really took full hold, but those elements are alrready bubbling under the surface on "Beatles For Sale." If you haven't put that one on in a while you should. It will astound you, and it's a great bridge between the early and later albums. Yeah, they had met Dylan right around that time and were elistening to all kinds of diferent stuff for inspiration, but I think the big change was they decided to screw formula and write non-conventional (for pop) forms. A pop song didn't have to be 1:50 in length and follow verse/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/out any more. I'm sure the weed and the LSD didn't hurt either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 ...I like MY lyrics better.... Don't hurt yourself with those pats on the back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Don't hurt yourself with those pats on the back! My elbow is double-jointed, so the PATS just keep on comin'!! :headbang ME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 The beatles drew influences from many sources too. I never doubted their abilities (at least as far as the song writing goes) but anyone that argues their musicianship obviously never picked up a guitar before. John has major rhythm issues, ringo's four of the floor drumming...eck. The best guitar tracks ever done in a beatle's song is "while my guitar gently weeps" of course done by Slow hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 The beatles drew influences from many sources too. I never doubted their abilities (at least as far as the song writing goes) but anyone that argues their musicianship obviously never picked up a guitar before. John has major rhythm issues, ringo's four of the floor drumming...eck. The best guitar tracks ever done in a beatle's song is "while my guitar gently weeps" of course done by Slow hand. I love Eric's guitar on that song too. But, I would not for a moment chuck the collective body of George's guitar work in favor of that solo. I love Billy Preston's piano solo on Get Back, the pocket trumpet part on Penny lane by the london Philharmonic's first chair, and even Mal Evan's killer (?) anvil playing on Maxwell's Silver Hammer. The Beatle albums had solid musicianship from members and non-members, and brilliant prodcution from George Martin (the true "Fifth Beatle", thank you). Your point is well taken that none of the four Beatle's were virtuosi, or musically (mechanically-speraking) the most gifted talents ever recorded. Yeah, John's rhythm guitar abilities were lacking sometimes, and I admit that some of my favorite Beatles drumming is the stuff Paul snuck in to do while Ringo wasn't looking. It's what they did with those limited abilities that makes it all the more amazing. Technically proficient bassists will bash Paul for playing with a pick. But he completely revolutionized the way bass is played in pop music. His novel intervals and walking lines are the most emulated bass lines ever recorded, period. Similar arguments can be made for George's guitar work, although the influence is not as readily traced. I'm not an apologist for the Beatles. The post-breakup solo work of all four is very uneven and often uninspired. But that's because there will always be only one Beatles, and the whole was vastly more than the sum of its parts. The right people with the right talent (mostly as songwriters), at the right time and place. I enjoy the film American Graffiti on a lot of levels. In particular I love the time setting. It's not set in the 50s like most people think. It's set in the early 60s, just before the Beatles changed the face of music. The old guard was leary of the new sounds of the Beach Boys, and there really is nothing else on the horizon. It invokes a kind of Orwellian precience as to where modern music would end up if the Beatles didn't come along when they did to steer the course. The most innovative Beach Boys stuff from the late 60s, Brian Wilson's "Pet Sounds," would not have been made if the Rubber-Soul era Beatles hadn't made them evolve. Ironically, Pet Sounds is always referenced as a huge influence for Sgt. Pepper, so there's a great inspirational synergy there. That's the way musical forms evolve, and there is no way to reasonably argue that anyone ever had more influence on that evolution in pop music than the Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I appreciate the history lesson. I'm actually a big beach boys fan. I also don't buy into the Pink floyd, Rolling stones, Led Zepplin Hype either... Although you can't f*** with Hendrix, Joplin or the doors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 I appreciate the history lesson. I'm actually a big beach boys fan. I also don't buy into the Pink floyd, Rolling stones, Led Zepplin Hype either... Although you can't f*** with Hendrix, Joplin or the doors. I didn't like anything by any of those artists you named. To be honest, I don't care for 60s music that much at all. Kinda before my time, although some of my friends, as well as "classic rock" stations, made sure that stuff was bludgeoned into my brain. My timeline and preference pretty much begins with 76-77 punk and stays harder-edged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 For all of the other Beatle fans out there, I found this website the other day. It has a lot of good stuff on it, including full lyrics and explanations of each song. Very Cool http://www.iamthebeatles.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.