McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, BathRam72 said: Not exactly what you said though to be honest As I explained to @Boycie, they were all part of the popular music scene and all played in a band setting, not as solo performers. You're just splitting hairs over the fact that their bands were named after them. If I was slagging off Joni Mitchell, then fair enough (she is overrated too btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 On 15/06/2018 at 07:44, BaaLocks said: We were obviously not teenagers at the same time. All I will say is that, along with Claire Grogan, I thought about her quite a lot as I lay in my bed during those times. It actually was quite an emotional experience, so much so that I always needed to make sure I had a box of tissues on the bedside table. Would now be a good time to mention that in 1994, on a very small Greek island, Claire Grogan plus "friend" were sunbathing nude at the end of the small beach our party were on.........shall I pass the Kleenex? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Lambchop said: Yes. Nothing of significance produced after 1970. PSML, yeh Woman and Imagine really sucked. What an overrated loser John Lennon was. And both tracks are roundly hated and ignored by the industry. And 'What Is Life' - what a load of trash that was. Why didn't George just quit whilst he was ahead? Band on the Run pfft, Mili Vanilli could have done better. And even though I hated Mull of Kintyre it is the track that was (at the time) the longest to ever stay at #1 and #1 in a bunch of countries. You seem to be confusing longevity with success. Both Dylan and Young have turned out a lot of crap in between their good stuff and you ignored the fact the Byrds copied the band you said are overrated. Oh, and did you know that Brian Wilson wrote Pet Sounds in an attempt to keep up with The Beatles. Pet Sounds and Sgt Pepper (although I personally think Revolver was far better) are often considered the 2 seminal albums of the 60's. One written by The Beatles and the other written in an attempt to be The Beatles. Let me toss you some straws for you to clutch at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: You seem to be confusing longevity with success. You seem to be confusing success with intrinsic merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Lambchop said: You seem to be confusing success with intrinsic merit. Is that the best you've got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Proof that Lennon was a genius far beyond 1970! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Lambchop said: You seem to be confusing success with intrinsic merit. I get you don't like The Beatles. I rarely listen to The Stones, Led Zep, AC/DC and plenty of others, but I recognize their influence and don't think they are overrated. Lennon and McCartney dominated British and world music for decades (a lot of which I personally didn't care for), but to say they're overrated is just myopic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: yeh Woman and Imagine really sucked. What an overrated loser John Lennon was. And both tracks are roundly hated and ignored by the industry. Oooooh, well well, do do do do do. The same lyrical genius that gave us yeah yeah yeah, and na na na na na na naaaa. I'd say calling Lennon a loser is a bit harsh, but he certainly wasn't the saintly genius he was made out to be. As for the opinion of the 'industry', the day I take that as my criterion for relevance will probably be the day I stop listening to music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 And it's cliched but f/me it doesn't get any better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lambchop said: Oooooh, well well, do do do do do. The same lyrical genius that gave us yeah yeah yeah, and na na na na na na naaaa. I'd say calling Lennon a loser is a bit harsh, but he certainly wasn't the saintly genius he was made out to be. As for the opinion of the 'industry', the day I take that as my criterion for relevance will probably be the day I stop listening to music. Ooooh I see what you did there. You quoted a previous poster. They wrote over 200 songs and you focus on 2. And over a dozen artists took their songs to #1. Yesterday (which was McCartney) has been covered over 200 times - obviously because it sucked. You are so out of your depth you need flippers and a snorkel. If The Chemical Brothers had released this in 2007 nobody would have battered an eye. 30 years ahead of it's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: I get you don't like The Beatles. It's not a question of personal taste, and I'm not saying there weren't some good songs, but overrated in the sense of being this huge cultural influence, certainly. Most of that was due to being in the right place at the right time. Musically I just don't rate them that highly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Crappy video, boring track and not at all inventive. <Yawan> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Thanks @Lambchop _ - had forgotten just how brilliant and groundbreaking in every conceivable way they were. I read the news today oh boy - 4,000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob The Badger Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: Crappy video, boring track and not at all inventive. <Yawan> It was another 30 years before a band made a better video. Oh and the track was fairly good too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said: 30 years ahead of it's time. Psychedelia was hardly unique to the Beatles. Sgt Pepper was recorded at the same time as Piper, but Floyd went much further in experimenting beyond the confines of three minute song structures into the avant garde, utilising different sounds and rhythms. Again, if we're talking musicianship, someone like Miles Davis was in a different league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 The Beatles are the best group ever to have lived, no-one has ever been close to what they achieved, in one hundred years time they will still be played and enjoyed, can't say that about many others. There, i've said it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 This sums it up pretty well: "The Beatles are what they always were - the safe, money-spinning, housewives' choice. Their albums are easy listening (fine for 50-somethings, but the Beatles were cardigan-wearing duffers in their 20s). Sgt. Pepper, their much-trumpeted "psychedelic" album was as mindbending as an Asda mushroom pie. Give or take Helter Skelter, they never even rocked, really. Next to the Stones, the Who or the Troggs, the Beatles are the low alcohol lager of the 60s." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/nov/18/thebeatles.popandrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Lambchop said: Oooooh, well well, do do do do do. The same lyrical genius that gave us yeah yeah yeah, and na na na na na na naaaa. I'd say calling Lennon a loser is a bit harsh, but he certainly wasn't the saintly genius he was made out to be. As for the opinion of the 'industry', the day I take that as my criterion for relevance will probably be the day I stop listening to music. This I can agree with, genius yes, saintly definitely not. It's all on display in his music though, so at least he was honest. Time for a musical interlude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ketteringram Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, Lambchop said: This sums it up pretty well: "The Beatles are what they always were - the safe, money-spinning, housewives' choice. Their albums are easy listening (fine for 50-somethings, but the Beatles were cardigan-wearing duffers in their 20s). Sgt. Pepper, their much-trumpeted "psychedelic" album was as mindbending as an Asda mushroom pie. Give or take Helter Skelter, they never even rocked, really. Next to the Stones, the Who or the Troggs, the Beatles are the low alcohol lager of the 60s." https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/nov/18/thebeatles.popandrock I don't think many 50 somethings, were into the Beatles at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRainy Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 On the Beatles supposed influence on everyone else and changing the course of music, this has been disproven by musical analysis: "The conventional wisdom has it that the Beatles altered the trajectory of rock 'n' roll, quickly shifting from their early, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" teen pop to harder, more sophisticated work that changed the way we think about rock 'n' roll. Music scholars at Queen Mary University of London and Imperial College London, however, found this viewpoint to be dramatically overstated. They used recent data-crunching advances to study "distinctive chord progressions, beats, lyrics and vocals" and analyzed the Billboard Hot 100 list from 1960 on. "For the first time we can measure musical properties in recordings on a large scale," study co-author Matthias Mauch said. "We can actually go beyond what music experts tell us, or what we know ourselves about them, by looking directly into the songs, measuring their makeup, and understanding how they have changed." The researchers' conclusion: the sound we associate with the British invasion had arrived before the Beatles." https://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2015/05/beatlemania_is_overrated_new_s.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.