Beatles!!
Sort:
batgirl
Sep 22, 2007
0
#41
I went back and did some reading. It seems John, Paul and George were together as early as 1958. That's basically the Beatles. Like any group, they played wherever they could, small venues, of course. After they gained a recording contract, they continued to tour. It wasn't until 1966 that they mostly retired from live perfomances. They performed at Shea Stadium in 1965 to an audience of 55,600. It seems they toured the world several times. Like most bands, they cut their teeth on live performances (for 8 years, not 10). Pure studio work came much later. It could be argued that their work after 1966 was somehow different than that before, a bit less vibrant, a bit more controlled. Probably their best musicwas recorded after 1966, but not necessarily their most exciting music. I'm not sure of the significance in trying to compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones or to the Who, or in bring up the subject of longetivity. None of that either adds or detracts.
0
#42
Generally I would say longevity does count. However, in this case, the Beatles poured out so much high quality material in such a short period of time that they more than made up for lack of longevity. I don't agree that much of their early stuff was "throw away" material; ;but that's okay, that's part of the beauty of music...we all have varying opinions. The group also deserves credit for putting many tracks on most of their albums so that even if some of the cuts were not outstanding, there was plenty to make up for it. As Paul once said, or words to the effect, "we put alot of songs on each album to give the fans a value for what they pay." Trivia: the group had ALL FIVE songs in the top five at one point in 1964. And this on the Rolling Stones: I do give them high marks and one reason is longevity. I think it's almost unbelievable that a band of that quality can record for about four decades, even if the albums vary by quality. The Rolling Stones are a great, great band by any standard that I can think of. But again, that's only my opinion. And the Who? Super. Anyone who has not had the pleasure of listening to the rock opera "Tommy" is doing themselves a great disservice. On the basis of pure originality, that album is legandary.
batgirl wrote: I went back and did some reading. It seems John, Paul and George were together as early as 1958. That's basically the Beatles. Like any group, they played wherever they could, small venues, of course. After they gained a recording contract, they continued to tour. It wasn't until 1966 that they mostly retired from live perfomances. They performed at Shea Stadium in 1965 to an audience of 55,600. It seems they toured the world several times. Like most bands, they cut their teeth on live performances (for 8 years, not 10). Pure studio work came much later. It could be argued that their work after 1966 was somehow different than that before, a bit less vibrant, a bit more controlled. Probably their best musicwas recorded after 1966, but not necessarily their most exciting music. I'm not sure of the significance in trying to compare the Beatles to the Rolling Stones or to the Who, or in bring up the subject of longetivity. None of that either adds or detracts.
My initial premise in post #26 is that "I believe the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness." The only thing outstanding about the Beatles 1965 Shea Stadium performance is that they could not be heard above screaming fans owing to inadequate sound tech of their choosing: the amps were Vox Ac-30s, the equipment that they had always used. In essence, you are rejecting my initial premise (opinion) and that's fine because after all, this is a forum. However, sound tech being equal and each band at the height of their talents, The Who or Humble Pie would rock the Beatles off the stage during the late 60s or early 70s. For that matter, so could Detroit bands the MC5 or Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes. The Beatles' last concert was at Candlestick Park in San Francisco in August 1966; it lasted thirty-five (35) minutes. After that they retreated to the studio for four years (their choice) until their break-up in 1970, a time when other bands were honing their craft onstage. Doubtless, the Beatles were a great presence and groundbreakers for other bands; perhaps they arrived just a bit too early on the scene to be true stadium rockers. Their legacy remains as a great studio band.
freezenyr wrote:
Generally I would say longevity does count. However, in this case, the Beatles poured out so much high quality material in such a short period of time that they more than made up for lack of longevity. I don't agree that much of their early stuff was "throw away" material; ;but that's okay, that's part of the beauty of music...we all have varying opinions. The group also deserves credit for putting many tracks on most of their albums so that even if some of the cuts were not outstanding, there was plenty to make up for it. As Paul once said, or words to the effect, "we put alot of songs on each album to give the fans a value for what they pay." Trivia: the group had ALL FIVE songs in the top five at one point in 1964. And this on the Rolling Stones: I do give them high marks and one reason is longevity. I think it's almost unbelievable that a band of that quality can record for about four decades, even if the albums vary by quality. The Rolling Stones are a great, great band by any standard that I can think of. But again, that's only my opinion. And the Who? Super. Anyone who has not had the pleasure of listening to the rock opera "Tommy" is doing themselves a great disservice. On the basis of pure originality, that album is legandary.
If you liked Tommy, give a listen to Live at Leeds, Who's Next, and Quadrophenia. In his day, Pete Townshend was the Mozart of rock and roll. He's still a great performer onstage, doing his trademark "windmills" on guitar at age 60+.
0
#45
I'll respectfully beg to differ with reti2rumble that ..."the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness." I would say that I like to look at the artist's entire body of work instead of one aspect such as live performances. You do have an excellent point that the Beatles did not do alot in that area. You are also correct that they chose not to do live acts in the later years. But I can't blame them,what with fans storming the stage, etc. They didn't need the hassle; their choice. But when I look at the big picture, I see something different. We'll agree to disagree on this one and thanks for the recommendations regarding the Who.
"I believe the ability of a band to give an outstanding live performance is the true measure of its greatness."
Yes, you're right, I wouldn't agree with that premise. Or rather, that wouldn't be a main criterion in my personal definition. Putting on a show involves many things other than the music and the musicians, which may be important to some folks, but less so to me. Such an ability, I would consider as measure of a great Act rather than a great Band. I wasn't even born yet when the Beatles disbanded, so, of course, I don't know anything first-hand, but my impression is that they could rock with the best of them, especially in their earlier years as a group. But, at the same time, I seriously doubt if they could have put on a show with the best of them.
Maybe one measure of a great band might be how they could perform without all the accoutrements, in a small acoustically-challenged, venue. But how I would measure a band's greatness is through their legacy - who they influenced, what changes they induced or pioneered, how their music held up over time.
Nice discussion. In my opinion the Beatles are the best because the other bands didn't even go over here. From Wikipedia: "In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles #1 on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. Their innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today." One thing that impacts me is their songwriting (good lyrics).
I hope the Beatles' experience in my country didn't contribute to their few live appearances. In the same article: "In July 1966, when The Beatles toured the Philippines, they unintentionally snubbed the nation's first lady, Imelda Marcos, who had expected the group to attend a breakfast reception at the Presidential Palace. When presented with the invitation, Brian Epstein politely declined on behalf of the group, as it had never been the group's policy to accept such official invitations. The group soon found that the Marcos regime was unaccustomed to accepting no for an answer. After the snub was broadcast on Philippine television and radio, all of The Beatles' police protection disappeared. The group and their entourage had to make their way to Manila airport on their own. At the airport, road manager Mal Evans was beaten and kicked, and the band members were pushed and jostled about by a hostile crowd. Once the group boarded the plane, Epstein and Evans were ordered off, and Evans said, 'Tell my wife that I love her.' Epstein was forced to give back all the money that the band had earned while they were there before being allowed back on the plane." In behalf of all my people, I apologize for such bad treatment... 
Nice discussion, indeed. Off Topic Forum at its finest! Freezenyr and batgirl, your points are well-taken. Do pardon my pontification, as I am rather passionate about the music of this era: I was in high school from 1967-1971, during the zenith of all this great stuff, to include what was going on in this country socially and politically. We were all sweating out the Viet Nam lottery draft and listening to protest music. We watched the war (the wounded and the body bags), the Democratic National Convention, Woodstock, the Watts and Detroit (40 miles from home) race riots, the Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, Kent State, and the lunar landing on TV. This music was a great escape for a high school kid back then. In addition, my hometown of Detroit was not only putting together some great cars, but some great rock bands: The MC5 (Motor City 5), Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes, Alice Cooper, Brownsville Station, Frijid Pink, The Frost, Grand Funk Railroad, Jagged Edge, Rare Earth, The Rationals, Mitch Ryder, Bob Seger, Iggy and the Stooges, Savage Grace, The Unrelated Segments, and the Woolies, to name a few. Then there's Motown Music: The Supremes, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, The Four Tops, etc. I spent some very formative years literally surrounded by this great music. I saw some outstanding concerts: The Who, The J. Geils Band, The Allman Brothers, Spirit, Edgar Winter, Montrose, The Doobie Brothers, Procol Harum, Bachman-Turner Overdrive (opened by Bob Seger!), and later Ted Nugent, Kiss, and Aerosmith....And I did watch The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show back in 1964. I was ten years old and remember being shocked by their "long hair." In any case, all of this stuff (including Abbey Road) sounds better than ever because, of course, I switched out all my original vinyl albums for CDs. Long Live Rock and Kick Out the Jams, Brothers and Sisters! ( :^ )
It was mentioned in a post that The Who were a collection of the most talented musicians of their time. I would have to disagree. While I think they are one of the greatest bands of all time, I think they were each out-matched individually(with the exception of Roger) by Cream. Clapton is a better guitarist, Bruce is a better bassist, and Baker is a better drummer. The Who wrote better songs, though.
batgirl wrote:
Imagine music today had the Beatles not existed...
I'm not sure Elvis had such a profound effect... maybe Dylan.
Imagine music today had the sex pistols not existed...
silentfilmstar13 wrote: It was mentioned in a post that The Who were a collection of the most talented musicians of their time. I would have to disagree. While I think they are one of the greatest bands of all time, I think they were each out-matched individually(with the exception of Roger) by Cream. Clapton is a better guitarist, Bruce is a better bassist, and Baker is a better drummer. The Who wrote better songs, though.
Cream, definitely one of my favorite "power bands." Clapton, great soloist, but I prefer Townshend's power chords and showmanship. Bruce, good bassist and vocalist, but Entwistle could transform his bass into a lead guitar. Baker, great drummer; however, nobody played drums like Keith Moon, whom I saw play with the rest of his mates at the Pontiac Silverdome back in 1975.
batgirl wrote: How would you rate two of my favorite bands from that era, CCR and the Guess Who?
Credence had the image as a bayou rythm and blues band, but were actually four guys from Berkeley, CA. How they managed to achieve that sound while hailing from northern California (same area as Jefferson Airplane) is beyond me. They were good musicians and wrote some good stuff; I had one of their albums, but they were not in my top ten. The Guess Who--definitely in my top ten. Four guys from Winnipeg, Canada. They could do ballads or hard rock with great musicianship. I have their greatest hits on CD. I don't want to give the impression I'm a music critic or an expert on rock music. I just know what I like and happened to be around at the time all of these bands formed and played; and was fortunate to see some of them in concert.
"I just know what I like ."
Well, most everyone knows what they like, but fewer can explain why, and fewer still actually have the experiences essential in making their opinion a valuable commoditiy.
0
#57
Unfortunately a tight deadline for tomorrow means I ain't got time to read all this thread even though it looks excellent.
I just wanted to boast, however, that my parents (both scousers) used to go and watch the Beatles in The Cavern. My mother said it was horrible in there :-)
0
#59
Ar eh! Dunno wha scouse iz?? Betta lirn yerself how ti speek if yous go te d 'Pool like...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouser
batgirl wrote:
"I just know what I like ."
Well, most everyone knows what they like, but fewer can explain why, and fewer still actually have the experiences essential in making their opinion a valuable commoditiy.
What I like continues to become more refined as I grow with experience. I could explain why I like something at a given time in great detail, but I've spent enough time here on this subject: I'm not a professional music critic and this is a general forum. We are all entitled to our opinions; but then, regardless of experience or expertise, we all know what they say about opinions.... :^)
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.