Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
If you are referring to the use of sitar, tape loops, and other gadgetry, sure it was neat that the Beatles used those elements in their music, but it seems to me that credit really should go to the engineers for most of that stuff, or even their producer George Martin. It was great that the Beatles had the idea to utilize innovative technology (which they themselves did not actually manufacture) in their music, but to be honest, are the results really so fantastic that no one has done it better since? It seems to me that while the Beatles pioneered certain aspects of studio technique, other bands did a better job later on, and achieved far more excellent results with those methods. For example, Pink Floyd honed their studio chops over many albums, to create some of the most amazing-sounding music ever recorded on "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here."
As far as legendary musicians go, we elevate the Beatles to a very high status that I am not sure they deserve. What about a guy like Brian May, who built his own guitar from scratch as a young man? Or Robert Fripp, who invented a totally original methodology of guitar, named after himself? Its not like the Beatles could have done something like that, as famous or "fab" as they were.
Excuse me, sitar is gadgetry? Are you really quite aware of what you are talking about here? And I can count on my fingers the number of Western rock artists I have heard to blend Indian and Western elements well, so if that's neat for you, it's a rather exalted definition of the term.
And you are simply trying to distract focus from your weak arguments by bringing Fripp into the picture here. You have claimed before, if I am not much mistaken, that Beatles were more or less the 60s equivalent of a boy band singing love songs and you don't have a sliver of evidence to back up that outrageous claim. Once again, have you actually watched those videos that Dean posted? Do you actually believe Penny Lane is just a typical rock song like thousands of others? Because if you do, you are biased beyond belief and there's not much point in presenting counter-arguments to you because your points aren't founded in any logic or reason.
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
The best post and comment so far. Absolutely puts the whole thing in context.
Indeed, but I said innovation and/ or origination. I deliberately phrased so that one could answer yes or no depending on one's focus/ tact. I was being rather ambiguous. Thought it would be more fun. I still think I made my ideas on the topic quite clear over a few posts. I'd like to assume that people were trying to understand what I was getting at (my intent).
It makes little difference - taking two dispartate concepts and melding them together is still being original even if the starting points weren't.
Most people vote first read/post later, we kinda established that some time ago so any later elaboration is moot when it comes to voting, though subsequent comments may indeed take your clarifications into account.
Until you list a lot of things fans claimed the Beatles "invented" of course
In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.
When I listen to an "experimental" band, I don't necessarily expect wonderful vocals. I expect music that I can puff to if I have the inclination to do so. I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible. However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches. Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record.
When I listen to a pop/rock group like the Beatles, I expect great vocals because that is clearly the focus of what a typical rock band is trying to accomplish within the confines of normal song structures. The voice becomes the most important aspect of their sound, since it is at the forefront of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "Let It Be." However, like I said before, I come away disappointed with the Beatles very prominent and noticeable vocal sound. Just a matter of taste.
The point I am addressing is it's a fundamental misconception of what is experimental or innovative or creative in music and unfortunately, be it through the dodecaphony or the acid rock worship later on (ironically spawned in part by Beatles), something that is encouraged and endorsed. If you actually confronted the substance of Beatles music instead of going by what is apparent on the surface, you'd get a better perspective but the myth that melodic is staid and 'generic' is perpetrated time and again in rock circles to the point where people believe it to be the truth,
If you are referring to the use of sitar, tape loops, and other gadgetry, sure it was neat that the Beatles used those elements in their music, but it seems to me that credit really should go to the engineers for most of that stuff, or even their producer George Martin. It was great that the Beatles had the idea to utilize innovative technology (which they themselves did not actually manufacture) in their music, but to be honest, are the results really so fantastic that no one has done it better since? It seems to me that while the Beatles pioneered certain aspects of studio technique, other bands did a better job later on, and achieved far more excellent results with those methods. For example, Pink Floyd honed their studio chops over many albums, to create some of the most amazing-sounding music ever recorded on "Dark Side of the Moon" and "Wish You Were Here."
As far as legendary musicians go, we elevate the Beatles to a very high status that I am not sure they deserve. What about a guy like Brian May, who built his own guitar from scratch as a young man? Or Robert Fripp, who invented a totally original methodology of guitar, named after himself? Its not like the Beatles could have done something like that, as famous or "fab" as they were.
All that the word "cosmopolitan" indicates is that they were worldly and international, a term that perfectly describes the Beatles. The way I used the word was extremely accurate, in that the Beatles traveled to India and used multicultural influences in their music. Holly did NOT utilize those influences in his music, therefore, he is not cosmopolitan!
Oh I see - you were not talking about a cosmopolitan singing style. Okay - why bring it up at all then? What relevance can it have possibly have? They didn't sing in faked American accents, or mock Indian accents, or some neutral cosmopolitan / mid-atlantic accent. Their vocal style didn't change a great deal from Please Please Me to Let It be and they were far from worldly and international during the recording of their early albums (erm, Liverpool & Hamburg ... don't hear much of a German accent there then)
Barking Weasel wrote:
You don't think that they used affected accents, or at least affected their vocals on purpose? How about listening to "A Day In The Life," where an "intrusive R" sound is inserted in lyrics between "saw" and "a,"' so as to result in, "I saw-r-a film today, oh boy." That sound was used to link the two similar words. It makes perfect sense, because "saw" and "a" sound almost exactly alike and without an "affect," the Beatles might not have been able to properly relay the lyrics (Not that I really care, that song was never my cup of tea anyway). So there are verifiable sources of the Beatles "affecting" their accents, at least in the way they sang.
Okay - you hear affected pronouncation, I hear their natural regional accent. McCartney used the same Liverpudlian "sawr" four years earlier on I Saw Her Standing there - including the typical lazy dropped "H" of Her that is common in many British dialecs, so it becomes "I sawr 'er standin' there" - that's not affected (assumed artificially; unnatural; feigned) - that's how they spoke and sang.
Barking Weasel wrote:
Well, if you are not hearing the Buddy Holly influence that's fine. But their singing definitely reminds me of his style, despite your claims. The one who sounds most like Holly to me is Lennon, if that helps at all.
He sounds more like Dylan at times and Cochran at times and like Lennon the most of the time, but hey-ho, it doesn't matter, if you hear Holly then you hear Holly, but that doesn't mean they deliberately emulated his singing style.
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
The best post and comment so far. Absolutely puts the whole thing in context.
Indeed, but I said innovation and/ or origination. I deliberately phrased so that one could answer yes or no depending on one's focus/ tact. I was being rather ambiguous. Thought it would be more fun. I still think I made my ideas on the topic quite clear over a few posts. I'd like to assume that people were trying to understand what I was getting at (my intent).
In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.
When I listen to an "experimental" band, I don't necessarily expect wonderful vocals. I expect music that I can puff to if I have the inclination to do so. I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible. However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches. Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record.
When I listen to a pop/rock group like the Beatles, I expect great vocals because that is clearly the focus of what a typical rock band is trying to accomplish within the confines of normal song structures. The voice becomes the most important aspect of their sound, since it is at the forefront of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "Let It Be." However, like I said before, I come away disappointed with the Beatles very prominent and noticeable vocal sound. Just a matter of taste.
The point I am addressing is it's a fundamental misconception of what is experimental or innovative or creative in music and unfortunately, be it through the dodecaphony or the acid rock worship later on (ironically spawned in part by Beatles), something that is encouraged and endorsed. If you actually confronted the substance of Beatles music instead of going by what is apparent on the surface, you'd get a better perspective but the myth that melodic is staid and 'generic' is perpetrated time and again in rock circles to the point where people believe it to be the truth,
In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.
When I listen to an "experimental" band, I don't necessarily expect wonderful vocals. I expect music that I can puff to if I have the inclination to do so. I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible. However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches. Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record.
When I listen to a pop/rock group like the Beatles, I expect great vocals because that is clearly the focus of what a typical rock band is trying to accomplish within the confines of normal song structures. The voice becomes the most important aspect of their sound, since it is at the forefront of songs like "A Hard Day's Night" or "Let It Be." However, like I said before, I come away disappointed with the Beatles very prominent and noticeable vocal sound. Just a matter of taste.
In any case, some of the most adventurous and experimental bands have not had particularly great or appealing vocals, so you are literally clutching at straws now.
Speaking of Buddy Holly, I always get the sense that the Beatles were directly emulating his vocal style in their songs. Perhaps this is a "no-duh" moment on my part. However, I don't really like Holly's cutesy brand of singing. This must predispose me to not liking the Beatles, in that I think they sound eerily similar to Holly when vocalizing.
Don't see it myself. MacCartney's vocal style was too melodic to be a Holly immitation (there is a YouTube clip of him singing Peggy Sue and it's not even close to Holly in style, or even phrasing) and Lennon's singing style was too Dylan influenced working class hero, even when he did cover Peggy Sue, it was more like Gene Vincent than Buddy Holly. For a Brit clearly emulating Holly you would have to look to Adam Faith, and the Beatles sound nothing like Adam Faith.
Interesting...while Buddy Holly sang in a slightly twangy and inflected manner without accent, the Beatles were obviously very British in the way they sang, and more cosmopolitan than Holly. The only real difference I hear is in the Beatles affected English accents; when they sing, it sounds so obviously British and so distinctive that I could never mistake their singing for anything other than Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr. The other day on the radio, a Beatles song came on and I did not know what it was called, but I knew it was the Beatles because their vocals are so distinct, especially those of McCartney and Lennon. This is very similar to Buddy Holly, in that I couldn't mistake him for anyone else if I tried. My point was not that they sound exactly alike vocal-wise (which I could have done a better job of emphasizing in my earlier post), but rather that the Beatles were so obviously influenced by Holly as a singer that they emulated his style in a way that a listener with rudimentary knowledge of Holly's singing (which I possess) could discern if they chose to connect the dots. If you had not mentioned it, I would never have known that the Beatles did covers of Holly singles; it doesn't surprise me, I just wasn't aware of it until now because I'm not a fan, and I don't care about minute details that pertain to bands that I am not that interested in. However, by simply listening to the Beatles I can trace the origins of their vocal sound (especially when they harmonize on songs like "She Loves You") to Holly. Their style is pure Holly through and through, filtered through the lens of British accents and harmonized distortion of voices that occur when they sing together all at once.
M'kay - affected accents means putting on a fake accent - singing in your native accent is not "affected" - one of the defining features of The Beatles was that they didn't affect fake American accents to sing rock and roll. Also you can't be very British and cosmopolitan, that's an oxymoron - and the Beatles singing with Liverpudlian accents (not British or English) were a long way from being cosmopolitan. Displaying a rudimentary knowledge of Holly's singing, and of accents in general, probably isn't sufficient to analyse anyone's singing style roots. In the begining the Beatles were a cover band, covering every popular 50s artist imaginable, from Holly to Vincent, From Richard to Berry - that's where they learnt their music craftsmanship - covering Peggy Sue isn't significant nor is it proof of a Holly influence.
All that the word "cosmopolitan" indicates is that they were worldly and international, a term that perfectly describes the Beatles. The way I used the word was extremely accurate, in that the Beatles traveled to India and used multicultural influences in their music. Holly did NOT utilize those influences in his music, therefore, he is not cosmopolitan!
You don't think that they used affected accents, or at least affected their vocals on purpose? How about listening to "A Day In The Life," where an "intrusive R" sound is inserted in lyrics between "saw" and "a,"' so as to result in, "I saw-r-a film today, oh boy." That sound was used to link the two similar words. It makes perfect sense, because "saw" and "a" sound almost exactly alike and without an "affect," the Beatles might not have been able to properly relay the lyrics (Not that I really care, that song was never my cup of tea anyway). So there are verifiable sources of the Beatles "affecting" their accents, at least in the way they sang.
Well, if you are not hearing the Buddy Holly influence that's fine. But their singing definitely reminds me of his style, despite your claims. The one who sounds most like Holly to me is Lennon, if that helps at all.
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
Curiously enough, even I admire them purely as composers. As Goodall demonstrated, Penny Lane, for just one example, is such a great composition. But somehow, as a listening experience, their work isn't at the top of my favourites, barring Abbey Road. I guess I desire some more energy and verve in their rendering. Unfortunately, two of the most amazing composers in rock/pop music did not always do adequate justice to their own compositions.
I have the same regard for Dylan. Often I prefer the cover to the original in both cases.
(sorry for the extensive snip Greg but I wanted to focus on this one comment alone)
Logan wrote:
One minds the same with some Thomas Eddison fans, which irks me no end.
This irks me too, but not as much as it irks me to defend Edison.
Edison is credited with many inventions that were not his own, (the lightbulb being the most infamous) but the was the innovator, instigator, businessman (a very shrewd one) and entrepreneur that produced many innovations and engineering developments, if not by his own hand (or mind), but by the people he employed. He may not have been the first [invention] but he (ie the name above the door) did improve and perfect [innovate] many of those prior inventions. It was those innovations that put those inventions into the public consciousness and why he is erroneously credited as being their inventor. This is a common occurance - Steve Jobs didn't invent the GUI PC, he didn't invent the portable mp3 music player, he didn't invent paid music downloads, he didn't invent the smart-phone, he didn't invent the tablet PC, but he (and his company) is recognised as the innovator of those products.
The difference between The Beatles and Edison is that the claims made by Edison fans were also made by Edison himself, this isn't the case with the Beatles (as Scott [Mr Cub] intimated earlier).
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
Curiously enough, even I admire them purely as composers. As Goodall demonstrated, Penny Lane, for just one example, is such a great composition. But somehow, as a listening experience, their work isn't at the top of my favourites, barring Abbey Road. I guess I desire some more energy and verve in their rendering. Unfortunately, two of the most amazing composers in rock/pop music did not always do adequate justice to their own compositions.
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
The best post and comment so far. Absolutely puts the whole thing in context.
No, I also don't think there's much high brow jazz influence in their music. Possibly, I just missed it because their music is an ocean of diverse influences. But my point was more regarding the preface with which Goodall opened his talk. I think jazz to a great extent was already reinforcing the idea that there were fertile pastures left to explore through more conventional means and without getting too far outside the boundaries of tonal music. Although, your explanation does account for why Beatles as a band may have bypassed that chapter and gone straight for classical composers.
The Beatles interest in classical comes directly from George Martin, who was a producer (and composer) of classical recordings before he produced The Beatles. There is one anedotal reference where Martin said that this piece could do with an oboe, "Which one's that?" said a Beatle, so he played them a classical piece featuring oboe
Interesting post; thanks for that. Excuse me if I go off on tangents and follow my own MO a little too much.
I watched the Howard Goodall one, it was interesting. Of course "With any popular artist there is a degree of hyperbolic exaggeration attached to any claims of their achievements by their fans, that's kinda why they're called fanatics". I do recognise that, but it has seemed to me that hyperbolic, or downright erroneous, are quite commonplace even outside Beatlemaniacs. How commonplace, I don't know, but common enough for me to feel comfortable voting yes, it is, at least, reasonably common for individuals to overstate the Beatles inventiveness/ originating musical styles and techniques. Of course the more popular and revered, and influential and important, the more one can expect it. One minds the same with some Thomas Eddison fans, which irks me no end.
Perhaps the poll results and responses would be very different if instead of posing the question "do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?", I had posed "do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination from Beatles fanatics?" ;)
No matter how innovative and revolutionary the Beatles were, even in this thread at a site where the denizens sometimes pride themselves on their erudition, at least in comparison to crustacean Crunk fans on crack, people have claimed that the Beatles deserve every shred of credit... I guess those people are Beatles fanatics themselves if they automatically agree with every claim to greatness that has been made about the Beatles, but it's not like a huge amount of people have posted in this topic, so I think it supports my view that it is at the least quite commonplace for people to overstate the Beatles' inventiveness. On the flip-side, one can also say that others understate that, so its not a really interesting an avenue of discussion, but I did think it would be fun to see how people tackled it, and many people have made very interesting and informative posts along the way.
I was hoping that by showing the innovation and originality of the Beatles at a fundamental level would cut through the fan-hyperbole and reveal that even their claims are underpinned by non-exaggerated music theory observation. Using the common adage of no smoke without fire, the claims that the Beatles "invented" this that and the other are based on some level of truth, delving deeper finds what and where that truth is.
Innovation does not mean invention, it means to renew or change, so to answer your OP accurately, even I, who doesn't particularily enjoy listening to them so can't be a Beatles fanatic, can recognise that "No" is a valid answer since while the Beatles didn't "invent" all those things they did renew and change them to such an extent to actually make a difference.
Speaking of Buddy Holly, I always get the sense that the Beatles were directly emulating his vocal style in their songs. Perhaps this is a "no-duh" moment on my part. However, I don't really like Holly's cutesy brand of singing. This must predispose me to not liking the Beatles, in that I think they sound eerily similar to Holly when vocalizing.
Don't see it myself. MacCartney's vocal style was too melodic to be a Holly immitation (there is a YouTube clip of him singing Peggy Sue and it's not even close to Holly in style, or even phrasing) and Lennon's singing style was too Dylan influenced working class hero, even when he did cover Peggy Sue, it was more like Gene Vincent than Buddy Holly. For a Brit clearly emulating Holly you would have to look to Adam Faith, and the Beatles sound nothing like Adam Faith.
Interesting...while Buddy Holly sang in a slightly twangy and inflected manner without accent, the Beatles were obviously very British in the way they sang, and more cosmopolitan than Holly. The only real difference I hear is in the Beatles affected English accents; when they sing, it sounds so obviously British and so distinctive that I could never mistake their singing for anything other than Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, Starr. The other day on the radio, a Beatles song came on and I did not know what it was called, but I knew it was the Beatles because their vocals are so distinct, especially those of McCartney and Lennon. This is very similar to Buddy Holly, in that I couldn't mistake him for anyone else if I tried. My point was not that they sound exactly alike vocal-wise (which I could have done a better job of emphasizing in my earlier post), but rather that the Beatles were so obviously influenced by Holly as a singer that they emulated his style in a way that a listener with rudimentary knowledge of Holly's singing (which I possess) could discern if they chose to connect the dots. If you had not mentioned it, I would never have known that the Beatles did covers of Holly singles; it doesn't surprise me, I just wasn't aware of it until now because I'm not a fan, and I don't care about minute details that pertain to bands that I am not that interested in. However, by simply listening to the Beatles I can trace the origins of their vocal sound (especially when they harmonize on songs like "She Loves You") to Holly. Their style is pure Holly through and through, filtered through the lens of British accents and harmonized distortion of voices that occur when they sing together all at once.
M'kay - affected accents means putting on a fake accent - singing in your native accent is not "affected" - one of the defining features of The Beatles was that they didn't affect fake American accents to sing rock and roll. Also you can't be very British and cosmopolitan, that's an oxymoron - and the Beatles singing with Liverpudlian accents (not British or English) were a long way from being cosmopolitan. Displaying a rudimentary knowledge of Holly's singing, and of accents in general, probably isn't sufficient to analyse anyone's singing style roots. In the begining the Beatles were a cover band, covering every popular 50s artist imaginable, from Holly to Vincent, From Richard to Berry - that's where they learnt their music craftsmanship - covering Peggy Sue isn't significant nor is it proof of a Holly influence.
Barking Weasel, have you actually checked out those Howard Goodall audio-essays? Or do you apprehend that on doing so, the house of cards that is your ant-Beatles propaganda will collapse in a trice?
Dean, one point that was not satisfactorily explained to me - or perhaps was outside the scope of the discussion - in those videos was the role of jazz. Maybe Goodall is more interested in classical music and in Beatles's use of classical compositional techniques in a rock/pop context, I am just firing blank darts because I don't know anything about Goodall. But jazz opened up interesting harmonic possibilities and arguably demonstrated before the Beatles came along that you did not necessarily have to turn the conventional melody-harmony system upside down and there was still fertile ground waiting to be explored. Even jazz began to go avant garde by and by but that phase was almost contemporaneous to the Beatles anyway. Anyway, a very interesting series of videos and very lucidly explained by Goodall, thanks for posting.
It depends on what kind of Jazz you're referring to. In the late 50s 4 working class lads in Liverpool would not have been exposed to a huge amount of "high-brow" Jazz, though they would have known a lot of popular Jazz from film and radio. Certainly they were interested in the Beat Generation (as their name indicates), but there isn't much evidence I could find regarding their use of Jazz. Looking through Allan W. Pollack's extensive song analysis there aren't that many Jazz references ("Gershwinesque Jazz/Blues hybrid ", "a jazz-like stream of triads", "continual stream of syncopation against the steady four-in-the-bar jazz beat of the accompaniment").
(As well as being a classical composer of choral works, Goodall wrote the theme tunes to Red Dwarf and Black Adder)
No, I also don't think there's much high brow jazz influence in their music. Possibly, I just missed it because their music is an ocean of diverse influences. But my point was more regarding the preface with which Goodall opened his talk. I think jazz to a great extent was already reinforcing the idea that there were fertile pastures left to explore through more conventional means and without getting too far outside the boundaries of tonal music. Although, your explanation does account for why Beatles as a band may have bypassed that chapter and gone straight for classical composers.
Barking Weasel, have you actually checked out those Howard Goodall audio-essays? Or do you apprehend that on doing so, the house of cards that is your ant-Beatles propaganda will collapse in a trice?
Dean, one point that was not satisfactorily explained to me - or perhaps was outside the scope of the discussion - in those videos was the role of jazz. Maybe Goodall is more interested in classical music and in Beatles's use of classical compositional techniques in a rock/pop context, I am just firing blank darts because I don't know anything about Goodall. But jazz opened up interesting harmonic possibilities and arguably demonstrated before the Beatles came along that you did not necessarily have to turn the conventional melody-harmony system upside down and there was still fertile ground waiting to be explored. Even jazz began to go avant garde by and by but that phase was almost contemporaneous to the Beatles anyway. Anyway, a very interesting series of videos and very lucidly explained by Goodall, thanks for posting.
It depends on what kind of Jazz you're referring to. In the late 50s 4 working class lads in Liverpool would not have been exposed to a huge amount of "high-brow" Jazz, though they would have known a lot of popular Jazz from film and radio. Certainly they were interested in the Beat Generation (as their name indicates), but there isn't much evidence I could find regarding their use of Jazz. Looking through Allan W. Pollack's extensive song analysis there aren't that many Jazz references ("Gershwinesque Jazz/Blues hybrid ", "a jazz-like stream of triads", "continual stream of syncopation against the steady four-in-the-bar jazz beat of the accompaniment").
(As well as being a classical composer of choral works, Goodall wrote the theme tunes to Red Dwarf and Black Adder)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.180 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote 
Posted: April 23 2011 at 12:00
to if I have the inclination to do so. I love Can, but I will also be the first to claim that Damo Suzuki's outlandish vocals are not the greatest or most accessible. However, his singing is unique in that it is NOT at the forefront of the music, like it so often is with the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Just listen to an album like "Tago Mago," where the compositions meander without vocals for large stretches. Compare that to "Sergeant Pepper," where the singing is constant and inescapable throughout the entire record. 
Topic Options
Barking Weasel wrote: