Beatles!!
Sort:
earltony15
Sep 21, 2007
0
#21
what I find amazing about the Beatles is that much of their material will still get air play decades from now, if not longer. And how about all the other artists that have done covers of their material? I once heard "Yesterday" has been recorded by more artists than any other song. I don't know if that's true but it certainly could be. I also know someone who thinks the Beatles are overrated. But to put out all that stuff in just six years? to me it's amazing.
Sep 21, 2007
0
#22
Imagine music today had the Beatles not existed...
I'm not sure Elvis had such a profound effect... maybe Dylan.
the beatles influenced a lot of today's modern bands. without them i don't know what would be today's rock. maybe there would be more people who listen to rap and those other things.
Sep 21, 2007
0
#24
An interesting aspect was the sharing of the lead singing chores. And since Lennon and McCartney did not collaborate on the songs they wrote in the later years, it guaranteed each album would have so much variety. Listen to any Beatles album...a tremendous variety of tunes on each album, and you can really trace how they changed through the years. Listen to "Beatles '65" and then two years later "Sgt. Pepper." Amazing.
The Beatles chose to spend practically all of their musical lives in the studio (where they produced some great music) as opposed to developing their talent onstage, and can thus be labelled a "studio band." The best live acts of the day were The Who, followed by Humble Pie. I believe the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness.
I never saw the beatles in concert, so I can't really comment on that.. however Paul McCartney live is phenomenal. There are few performers I have really been impressed with live, far too many have disappointed... but Pink Floyd is by far the best live show I've ever seen.
Me singing Bungalo Bill is impressive thinks me... my kids singing yellow submarine is a poor showing indeed.
Sep 21, 2007
0
#27
jona004 wrote:
The Beatles, good but overrated
The Kinks, very underrated
the stark truth, about the beatles, they opened the gates but most of there early stuff was throw away, l.s.d. my fav. nowhere man too
I used to like all the Beatle songs. When I say all I mean most. memorized lyrics like little kids will when they hear a song 100-1000 times. I even found a torrent that has all of their albums but of course I would never steal music... well not their music anyway.
I guess I outgrew it because all those wonderful songs of the 60s, 70s, and mostly 80s are just to slow for me now. Then the 80s ended and they stopped making music. Okay, maybe a couple of songs a year.
Still I like the mellow, cool-down tunes like: Let It Be, and My Sweet Lord. Repetitive as can be but oh so soothing after aerobics.
Sep 22, 2007
0
#29
"The Beatles chose to spend practically all of their musical lives in the studio (where they produced some great music) as opposed to developing their talent onstage"
say what? I think you must be thinking about their middle to later years. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess they spend nearly 10 years on stage before working almost strictly in the studio.
Yes! They honed their skills playing six to seven hours a night, seven days a week in that shithole -the Indra club - in Hamburg. They did that for a month and a half. No live show? Can you blame them? They had to be a bit burned out.
batgirl wrote:
"The Beatles chose to spend practically all of their musical lives in the studio (where they produced some great music) as opposed to developing their talent onstage"
say what? I think you must be thinking about their middle to later years. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess they spend nearly 10 years on stage before working almost strictly in the studio.
The Beatles we have all come to know and enjoy, for all practical purposes, were together from 1962 (the initial year of their English recording contract) until they disbanded in 1970; John and Paul met in 1957, forming the band's nucleus. They weren't together that long (even pre-Ringo) to spend 10 years onstage. Onstage is also a relative term. The onstage you are referring to is a very small venue as opposed to The Who performing at Woodstock or Isle of Wight before tens of thousands. A band's talent continues to develop long after they initially form: it's part of the creative/artistic process they have embarked upon. The Beatles matured in the studio, not onstage, and are thus a studio band. In addition, as prolific as they were, compared to The Who or the Rolling Stones (who perform live to this day), in terms of longevity and with all due respect they were a "flash in the pan"--albeit, a very influential one. Speaking of influences, John said there wouldn't have been The Beatles if it weren't for Elvis. Oh yeah....George, Abbey Road, Polythene Pam, yeah, yeah, yeah....
jona004 wrote:
The Beatles, good but overrated
The Kinks, very underrated
I agree, jona004. The Beatles were good (great in the studio) but overrated. They really weren't together that long to become great outside the studio in regard to live performances, as the studio was indeed their medium of choice. I believe this limited their artistry. I also agree that The Kinks were underrated, as were The Yardbirds (at least here in the states) and The Animals. Thanks to Mother England for all the British Invasion music that laid the groundwork for that great period in rock history 1967-1972. Highly underrated Detroit rock band of that era: The MC5. I may post a new forum topic on Detroit rock bands....a lot of great stuff coming out of my hometown, to include Motown.
MC5!! Great choice!
reti2rumble wrote: The Beatles chose to spend practically all of their musical lives in the studio (where they produced some great music) as opposed to developing their talent onstage, and can thus be labelled a "studio band." The best live acts of the day were The Who, followed by Humble Pie. I believe the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness.
The Who! now your talking great Bands.
silentfilmstar13 wrote: MC5!! Great choice!
Kick Out the Jams!!!
Favorite Beatle: John
Favorite album: The Beatles (The White Album)
Favorite song: Blackbird & Across The Universe
FYI: I've never cared for The Who
batgirl wrote:
say what? I think you must be thinking about their middle to later years. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess they spend nearly 10 years on stage before working almost strictly in the studio.
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps this person is aware of what I personally call the Beatles' Rickenbacker period.
Sep 22, 2007
0
#38
One of the big reasons the Beatles didn't give live concerts after, I think it was 1965, was the logistic mess. Remember the Shea Stadium concert? No one could hear them. In one of Lennon's biographies it said the guys couldn't hear themselves. It just wasn't worth it to give a live concert. Plus,let's face it, they certainly didn't need the cash.
queenie wrote: reti2rumble wrote: The Beatles chose to spend practically all of their musical lives in the studio (where they produced some great music) as opposed to developing their talent onstage, and can thus be labelled a "studio band." The best live acts of the day were The Who, followed by Humble Pie. I believe the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness.
The Who! now your talking great Bands.
Without a doubt, my favorite band of all time, and the best live act of their day. Each member of the band was probably the best at their respective instrument at the height of their act (early 70s), including vocalist Roger Daltrey, who possessed the perfect rock and roll voice. Live at Leeds will attest to the above with such cuts as Young Man Blues and My Generation. The Who were, of course, equally talented in the studio: Who's Next remains a rock masterpiece.
