Do the Beatles get too much credit..

I suspect they'd rather have money than credit.

Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers.

giselle wrote: overmatik wrote: Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers. What a staggering comment, staggering because of its blindness about history; the Beatles were playing with state of the art amplification for the times; in fact, as has been said by historians, not just me, the Beatles invented the modern touring era. It wasn't like it is now, by any means. Check it out!

Edited by The Dark Elf - April 14 2011 at 21:31

giselle wrote: overmatik wrote: Come on guys, this excuse for not playing live because they couldn't hear themselves is ridiculous. You could always put more speakers. What a staggering comment, staggering because of its blindness about history; the Beatles were playing with state of the art amplification for the times; in fact, as has been said by historians, not just me, the Beatles invented the modern touring era. It wasn't like it is now, by any means. Check it out!

     anyway it just needs to watch Let it be , when the fab four play Get back on the flat roof, the Beatles were good playing live and the reason is very simple,they 've been playing together for a long time, so many gigs

I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust.

If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre.

I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.          

giselle wrote: This is a windup as usual. The Beatles constructed the stage the whole rock business is setting up on. If that hadn't produced technological and musical advance, that would be disgraceful, but it took leaders, not followers to show the way.

 

The Beatles changed the music world, what could i say more.......

Barking Weasel wrote: I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust. If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre. I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.

Ignoring the slightly offensive last statement, I have to disagree with the "White Album" statement. If anything that was more of a back to roots album than the previous 2. The experimentation really started after they gave up touring and started on Revolver.

Barking Weasel wrote: I provide a solid critique in my posts, explaining why I think the way I do.  I can accept the fact that other people have differing views, which is a policy that I suggest you adopt.

A solid critique? The same kind of logic that says the Holocaust never happened.

Barking Weasel wrote: I don't understand why the Beatles are regarded as an extraordinarily "experimental" pop group...most of that reputation seems derived from "The White Album," but the more esoteric aspects of that record are not highly praised amongst lots of true Beatles fans, or many casual fans.  I myself enjoy "Revolution #9," and have fond memories of doodling in art class while trying to make the drawings match the imagery of the music I was hearing.  That track sounds like a highly magnified version of something Faust would make, which really intrigues me despite my general apathy towards Faust. If anything, the Beatles were far less experimental than their potential showed.  Despite the inclusion of various eclectic sound collages and instrumental noodling, these few experimental tracks seem like an afterthought in the larger picture of their work.  Instead, jangly guitars and poppy commercial tracks are the main staple of the Beatles oeuvre. I am surprised at the level of Beatles adoration that is still pervasive today.  Lots of musicians have outstripped them technologically, and have also reached far greater heights of musicality.  The Beatles are a cretaceous-era bubble-gum pop band.

I'll be honest here, you may have topped the comment that The Beatles quit playing live because they were lousy musicians and couldn't play live. When you say lots of musicians outstripped the Beatles technologically what do you mean? They revolutionized recording technology, doing more with four track recordings than many now days do with upwards to 24 tracks. Many times they were ahead of the technology that was available (who else was touring stadiums in 64 and 65? The Stones???...no) Some bands may have achieved far greater heights of musicality as you say...but I'll take superior songwriting and damn solid playing over musicians trying to impress me with their musical skills.  Criticize them all you want but I really don't think Paul or Ringo care all to much about it; the response their music has had on a great many people speaks for itself. Cretaceous era bubble gum pop??? How many other bands that started out like the Beatles (paying pop tunes and the like) suddenly became the face of an entire social movement and legitimized rock and roll as a serous art form? I'm pretty sure you can count them on one hand




Edited by mr.cub - April 19 2011 at 23:04