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.
Post getting bogged down by barking balderdash, beamed in from another universe to planet prog with no knowledge of the big bang Beatles.
really? Would you like to be more specific about that?
More specific?!!!! You're winding me up; a quick glance at the posts shows that barking has scant understanding of how rock developed in the first place; and 2011 SHOULDN'T compare to 1967 unless you're from outer space. Then again, perhaps posts like that give you something to chew on, being so off beam sure gives plenty of scope. Maybe you special contributors and senior members are specially trained to be as controversial as the fruit cakes who float through the serving tray. It's quite simple: No Beatles = No prog or any life as we know it Jim.
Given that your post immediately follows a series of posts from Alex and myself on recording limitations of the 1960s then I don't think I'm out of line by asking for you to be more specific to ensure that everybody knows which posts (and poster) you are referring to.
(since you are a "Senior Member" yourself, I guess your special training starts about now)
Here we follow the principle of "the argument, not the man", that necessitates refuting what is said, not denigrating the person saying it.
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."
I suggest you read the Wiki article on Flanging, an audio effect freely credited to studio engineer Ken Townsend. While it is pretty obvious that Lennon did not invent this effect, it was his request that it be invented and he was the first recording artist to use it. If no one ever uses it then it doesn't matter who invented it. Rest assured, the Beatles gave credit where credit was due, that's why so many studio engineers became "famous" for working with the Beatles (Townsend, Emerick, Smith, etc).
One issue with the article you cite, is that there are actually many competing claims for the first official use of the effect you describe. Doubtless, the Beatles were innovative in their pioneering use of it. But as you say, they did not actually invent it. Why should the band members get individual credit for this, if it was the engineers who designed it in the first place? I don't find it incredibly impressive that all Lennon had to do was name it a "Flanger," without actually contributing anything to it personally. My earlier point was that all Lennon and company had to do was get one of their engineers to do the dirty work for them. The article proved that this is exactly what occurred.
All the article shows is that a relatively simple effect had multiple origins - this is not uncommon. That the "competing" claims used different methods for the same audio effect indicates that they are not competing at all, they were all exploiting a natural phenomenon of sound, and used tape recorders to do it because that was the only resource available in the studio to do it with and because old tape decks had a tendency to produce this effect even when it wasn't wanted (re: Thick As A Brick).
The point is, no one credits Lennon with its invention and he never claimed it for himself, he called it "Ken's flanger", which, no matter how you argue against it, refutes your argument.
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Whether anyone perfected the use of these exotic instruments, studio effects and techniques after the event is immaterial. That's not the question, the question is "do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?" - and when it comes to using all these, the Beatles were either the first to use them, or the first to popularise them, which means they were innovative in using them, and at the time, originators of using them.
The key phrase was "innovation and origination," meaning it must have been invented or created before being utilized. However, the band members did not actually invent anything original on their own; their engineers either created it, or it was procured elsewhere. Sitar from India, tape looping from Stackhausen, clothes from the circus. Again, there are conflicting reports of where these innovations actually originated from, whether it was with the Beatles organization or somewhere else. It doesn't sound like there are definitive conclusions yet on the subject.
The Beatles could have elected not to do any of those things and just remained a typical Beat Group, going into the studio and letting the engineers and producer do whatever they liked without any input from themselves (which, again was typical of bands at that time). All documented accounts from people who actually worked with the Beatles say the contrary. Harrison took the Sitar into the studio during the recording of Rubber Soul because he saw some Indian musicians using one while filming Help! Stockhausen certainly influenced the Beatles use of tape loops, no one denies that, but they took it into Mainstream music. In both these examples The Beatles did not invent any of these things, but they were the people who "originated" their use in mainstream western popular music, and that is "innovation" no matter how you care to define it.
Clothes are irrelevant to music.
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
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?
Brian May was 16 when he and his father, Harold, built their first guitar. This is impressive, but not outstandingly so - a guitar is just a plank of wood with strings and pickup, my dad made my first accoustic guitar for me, and I made another semi-accoustic when I was 16 or so, including winding my own pick-ups - it really isn't difficult or complicated, even for a 16 yo. What is impressive is May making one that sounds that good and has lasted 48 years (okay, it's since been rebuilt by lutier Greg Fryer). One minor but relevant fact is that May had Fryer build three exact replica's of the original Red Special - which were named John, Paul and George... (I wonder why?)
May also has a doctorate in Astrophysics and is a consummate gentleman, or at least he comes across that way in interviews. Unlike the sound obtained by the Beatles (who have never demonstrated the capability to ever match a feat of Brian May's undertaking with regards to building a guitar from scratch), May's guitar sounds gritty and savage on record during classic era of Queen (before the synth-heavy era). The Beatles? Piano driven scales and accents with violin on "Eleanor Rigby," elegant sitar on "Within You, Without You," but no glamorized power chords or adventurous high-octane riffs, such as can be found on "I Want It All" or "Bohemian Rhapsody." It really is like comparing weak tea with a frappaccino, as far as I'm concerned.
May's extra curricular qualifications and assumptions of his character are irrelevant. Then discussing May at all is pretty irrelevant as he was not a contemporay of the Beatles - you could have picked Roy Wood as a better example, but you didn't.
/edit: weak tea and frappuccino are abominations, it's more like comparing espresso with cappuccino (ie just a matter of taste).
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
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.
Are you confusing Guitar Craft (a guitar and personal development course devised by Fripp) with Frippertronics? Frippertronics is simply live overdubbing using very long tape loops and two tape decks - innovative sure, especially in a live setting, but the Beatles had used tape-loops, twin head decks (see flanger article above) and overdubbing in the studio six years earlier (after Terry Riley's first use of tape-loops in the 60s). So it is like the Beatles could have done something like that, because in parts, they did.
I was actually talking about Frippertronics, but Guitar Craft is also a good example of what I am trying to point out. Like you said, while the Beatles may have been innovators with tape-loops (despite the fact that they got the idea from avant-garde composers in the London music scene; I did see your documentary BTW), Fripp really stretched the bounds of the guitar as an instrument not only in the studio, but also in concert, with the tape-loop system he personally developed. The Beatles mostly relied on their engineers for innovation; Fripp was personally involved with the systems he developed, both in Guitar Craft and Frippertronics. Also, his celebrity and ego do not overpower his ability to connect with students to help spread knowledge about the instrument. I can't imagine McCartney or Starr becoming actively involved with music study and teaching, in the way that Fripp has often demonstrated.
Again, I fail to see what relevance this has. Fripp's Guitar Craft and Frippertronics came years after The Beatles had split. Frippertronics is not major technical innovation, it's a simple development of existing techniques (it's a homemade variant of the Watkins Copicat delay unit from 1958 - using longer tapes just means the delay is measured in minutes not milliseconds). /edit: Fripp says he learnt it from Eno
Fred Frith is Professor of Composition in the Music Department at Mills College in Oakland, California, he is arguably far more innivotave in terms of playing, technique and development than Fripp and uses home made and treated guitars (notably a double-neck 8-string) putting him ahead of May who only made a standard 6-string guitar.
The typical public dialogue that is often used to describe the origins of the innovative technology that was utilized by the Beatles, almost never directly credits the engineers in an obvious fashion, but instead discusses the band members as being primary contributors. To me this gives a false overview of the situation, and a misleading one.
From what I have read, Abbey Road engineers are readily credited for their contributions to everything that was created in Abbey Road Studios (which wasn't called that then, it was called EMI Studios - it was renamed Abbey Road Studios after the release of... ... 'Abbey Road' - you can check that on the sleeve-notes of any album recorded there prior to that, like on 'Saucerful of Secrets' for example). Even the use of two 4-track tape decks to emulate an 8-track (as used on Sgt Pepper) is freely attributed to Ken Townsend, not The Beatles themselves:
"1968 will be remembered as a year of technological progress, pioneered largely due to the creative demands of The Beatles Sergeant [sic] Pepper album, done the year before. Acutely aware of the limitations which four track recording imposed, Ken Townsend invented a system whereby two four track machines could be linked together, and multitrack recording entered a new era"
Many of the studio engineers that worked with The Beatles became famous in their own right. Ken Townsend went on to become Chairman of EMI Studios Group, Alan Parsons and Norman Smith became successful recording artists in their own right, Chris Thomas went on to become a successful producer and session musician, Geoff Emerick also became a famous and successful producer that earned him a Grammy Lifetime Achievement award. Ken Scott went on to become famous as a producer (Bowie and Supertramp - so there is even a Beatles connection to Crime Of The Century ). Even Sir George Martin (oft called the 5th Beatle) while being moderately famous as a producer of classical music before, is more famous now for his work with the Beatles - it should be remembered that up until 1965 Martin was just an employee of EMI, (just like all the other now famous ex-studio engineers that worked with them). All these people are freely acknowledged and credited on the sleeve notes of Beatles albums, and that they have there own entries in Wikipedia is proof enough of their recognition within the recording industry and beyond.
..an off topic aside, but relevant since you brought up the subject:
"Towards the end of the 1960’s a new band were [sic] fast emerging as a powerful force in the world of underground music. Pink Floyd recorded albums which were technically every bit as adventurous as those of their famous predecessors and they were soon to take over the mantle of Abbey Road’s ‘house band’, spending hour upon hour in the studio. In June 1972 the band began work on the innovative and inventive Dark Side Of The Moon which was released in March 1973"
That is definitely a primary reason for my argument, but as you elaborated further, my posts go further than that. You may think that character and personality of said band mates does not matter in this debate, and that is your prerogative. However, it does matter to me so that is why I mention that aspect, because I am trying to illustrate a broader point about why I dislike the Beatles on a personal level, and why I think the band is overrated. Obviously, if the character comparisons were ALL that I were using to back up my argument, I would have a very weak argument indeed. However, I do also explain my issues with the Beatles' music and cultural mystique, and with the overblown fawning that they receive.
That's all personal opinion, personal assumption and personal prejudice clouding a fact-based issue. I count that as equal to fanatics claiming The Beatles invented Rock'n'Roll - which is equally preposterous since it is evident that they did not. I see little point in arguing against fanatics who will say almost anything about their heroes. What I will discuss is experts and non-fanatics who make less exaggerated and more fact-based claims.
Barking Weasel wrote:
I will elaborate further by giving a rebuttal to the documentary posted earlier on this thread, in that I think Goodall is misleading in his summation of the Beatles, and especially in his perception of avant-garde classical music of the 40's and 50's being a legitimate threat to the traditional framework of western classical music. I think he draws ridiculous conclusions, and I would love to explain my reasoning at length right now, but unfortunately I have to go. I look forward to continuing the debate later on, however.
I posted the Goodall documentary as a discussion point and for no other reason. I also disagree with some of what he says regarding Western Classical influence on the Beatles - it is evident for me that their influences came from more "working-class" roots, even down to the use of the Plagal Cadence in many of their songs that was unknown in Pop music at the time - it's very common in hymns. And as I have either mentioned here or elsewhere, the use of Indian raga scales is not necessarily of Indian origin as they are parallelled in Western (Church) Modes. Where I do agree with Mr Goodall is that The Beatles used these when no one else was and produced song structures and chord progressions that were not directly traceable to 50s Rock'n'Roll, Jazz or Blues (R&B) origins.
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."
I suggest you read the Wiki article on Flanging, an audio effect freely credited to studio engineer Ken Townsend. While it is pretty obvious that Lennon did not invent this effect, it was his request that it be invented and he was the first recording artist to use it. If no one ever uses it then it doesn't matter who invented it. Rest assured, the Beatles gave credit where credit was due, that's why so many studio engineers became "famous" for working with the Beatles (Townsend, Emerick, Smith, etc).
One issue with the article you cite, is that there are actually many competing claims for the first official use of the effect you describe. Doubtless, the Beatles were innovative in their pioneering use of it. But as you say, they did not actually invent it. Why should the band members get individual credit for this, if it was the engineers who designed it in the first place? I don't find it incredibly impressive that all Lennon had to do was name it a "Flanger," without actually contributing anything to it personally. My earlier point was that all Lennon and company had to do was get one of their engineers to do the dirty work for them. The article proved that this is exactly what occurred.
All the article shows is that a relatively simple effect had multiple origins - this is not uncommon. That the "competing" claims used different methods for the same audio effect indicates that they are not competing at all, they were all exploiting a natural phenomenon of sound, and used tape recorders to do it because that was the only resource available in the studio to do it with and because old tape decks had a tendency to produce this effect even when it wasn't wanted (re: Thick As A Brick).
The point is, no one credits Lennon with its invention and he never claimed it for himself, he called it "Ken's flanger", which, no matter how you argue against it, refutes your argument.
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
Whether anyone perfected the use of these exotic instruments, studio effects and techniques after the event is immaterial. That's not the question, the question is "do you think/feel that the Beatles commonly get too much credit and/or consideration in terms of innovation and origination?" - and when it comes to using all these, the Beatles were either the first to use them, or the first to popularise them, which means they were innovative in using them, and at the time, originators of using them.
The key phrase was "innovation and origination," meaning it must have been invented or created before being utilized. However, the band members did not actually invent anything original on their own; their engineers either created it, or it was procured elsewhere. Sitar from India, tape looping from Stackhausen, clothes from the circus. Again, there are conflicting reports of where these innovations actually originated from, whether it was with the Beatles organization or somewhere else. It doesn't sound like there are definitive conclusions yet on the subject.
The Beatles could have elected not to do any of those things and just remained a typical Beat Group, going into the studio and letting the engineers and producer do whatever they liked without any input from themselves (which, again was typical of bands at that time). All documented accounts from people who actually worked with the Beatles say the contrary. Harrison took the Sitar into the studio during the recording of Rubber Soul because he saw some Indian musicians using one while filming Help! Stockhausen certainly influenced the Beatles use of tape loops, no one denies that, but they took it into Mainstream music. In both these examples The Beatles did not invent any of these things, but they were the people who "originated" their use in mainstream western popular music, and that is "innovation" no matter how you care to define it.
Clothes are irrelevant to music.
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
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?
Brian May was 16 when he and his father, Harold, built their first guitar. This is impressive, but not outstandingly so - a guitar is just a plank of wood with strings and pickup, my dad made my first accoustic guitar for me, and I made another semi-accoustic when I was 16 or so, including winding my own pick-ups - it really isn't difficult or complicated, even for a 16 yo. What is impressive is May making one that sounds that good and has lasted 48 years (okay, it's since been rebuilt by lutier Greg Fryer). One minor but relevant fact is that May had Fryer build three exact replica's of the original Red Special - which were named John, Paul and George... (I wonder why?)
May also has a doctorate in Astrophysics and is a consummate gentleman, or at least he comes across that way in interviews. Unlike the sound obtained by the Beatles (who have never demonstrated the capability to ever match a feat of Brian May's undertaking with regards to building a guitar from scratch), May's guitar sounds gritty and savage on record during classic era of Queen (before the synth-heavy era). The Beatles? Piano driven scales and accents with violin on "Eleanor Rigby," elegant sitar on "Within You, Without You," but no glamorized power chords or adventurous high-octane riffs, such as can be found on "I Want It All" or "Bohemian Rhapsody." It really is like comparing weak tea with a frappaccino, as far as I'm concerned.
May's extra curricular qualifications and assumptions of his character are irrelevant. Then discussing May at all is pretty irrelevant as he was not a contemporay of the Beatles - you could have picked Roy Wood as a better example, but you didn't.
/edit: weak tea and frappuccino are abominations, it's more like comparing espresso with cappuccino (ie just a matter of taste).
Barking Weasel wrote:
Dean wrote:
Barking Weasel wrote:
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.
Are you confusing Guitar Craft (a guitar and personal development course devised by Fripp) with Frippertronics? Frippertronics is simply live overdubbing using very long tape loops and two tape decks - innovative sure, especially in a live setting, but the Beatles had used tape-loops, twin head decks (see flanger article above) and overdubbing in the studio six years earlier (after Terry Riley's first use of tape-loops in the 60s). So it is like the Beatles could have done something like that, because in parts, they did.
I was actually talking about Frippertronics, but Guitar Craft is also a good example of what I am trying to point out. Like you said, while the Beatles may have been innovators with tape-loops (despite the fact that they got the idea from avant-garde composers in the London music scene; I did see your documentary BTW), Fripp really stretched the bounds of the guitar as an instrument not only in the studio, but also in concert, with the tape-loop system he personally developed. The Beatles mostly relied on their engineers for innovation; Fripp was personally involved with the systems he developed, both in Guitar Craft and Frippertronics. Also, his celebrity and ego do not overpower his ability to connect with students to help spread knowledge about the instrument. I can't imagine McCartney or Starr becoming actively involved with music study and teaching, in the way that Fripp has often demonstrated.
Again, I fail to see what relevance this has. Fripp's Guitar Craft and Frippertronics came years after The Beatles had split. Frippertronics is not major technical innovation, it's a simple development of existing techniques (it's a homemade variant of the Watkins Copicat delay unit from 1958 - using longer tapes just means the delay is measured in minutes not milliseconds). /edit: Fripp says he learnt it from Eno
Fred Frith is Professor of Composition in the Music Department at Mills College in Oakland, California, he is arguably far more innivotave in terms of playing, technique and development than Fripp and uses home made and treated guitars (notably a double-neck 8-string) putting him ahead of May who only made a standard 6-string guitar.
Post getting bogged down by barking balderdash, beamed in from another universe to planet prog with no knowledge of the big bang Beatles.
really? Would you like to be more specific about that?
More specific?!!!! You're winding me up; a quick glance at the posts shows that barking has scant understanding of how rock developed in the first place; and 2011 SHOULDN'T compare to 1967 unless you're from outer space. Then again, perhaps posts like that give you something to chew on, being so off beam sure gives plenty of scope. Maybe you special contributors and senior members are specially trained to be as controversial as the fruit cakes who float through the serving tray. It's quite simple: No Beatles = No prog or any life as we know it Jim.
Given that your post immediately follows a series of posts from Alex and myself on recording limitations of the 1960s then I don't think I'm out of line by asking for you to be more specific to ensure that everybody knows which posts (and poster) you are referring to.
(since you are a "Senior Member" yourself, I guess your special training starts about now)
Here we follow the principle of "the argument, not the man", that necessitates refuting what is said, not denigrating the person saying it.
Fair comment; I should have ensured that my post was linked to stuff I was moaning about, and not immediately following your discussion with Alex. I'm mortified that it may have sounded like I was complaining about THAT content - far from it, I wish all the posts were as interesting and informed. I must be more careful, especially now that I'm a "Senior Member" - something else I was unaware of, hadn't noticed my elevation, thank you for that too. I'll try to live up to living down what I said and failed to do on this occasion.
I refuse to comment on the grounds that it might incriminate me. Some things are only TOO clear.
Hmmm...you weasel around a definitive answer like a politician.
Needs must, you are obviously oblivious to the Prog Patrol who are capable of sending us into the ether, never to be seen again. But of course, they might do it on a whim anyway. Nice name by the way.
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 0.215 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 26 2011 at 21:06
... 'Abbey Road' - you can check that on the sleeve-notes of any album recorded there prior to that, like on 'Saucerful of Secrets' for example). Even the use of two 4-track tape decks to emulate an 8-track (as used on Sgt Pepper) is freely attributed to Ken Townsend, not The Beatles themselves:
Topic Options
giselle wrote:
really? Would you like to be more specific about that?
