DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Ħ on October 20, 2010, 04:52:14 PM
-
So, it has come to my attention that I ought to listen to each Beatles album at least once before I make any judgment call on this legendary band. So many people I know love the Beatles, including my dad, and including Mike Portnoy.
I've worked my way through Revolver, and honestly, I can't see the merit. Their songs are so bland and tasteless. The lyrics all revolve around the same concepts. Aside from some of the bass lines, I probably could learn how to play any of their songs on each instrument in about a month or two, and I don't even play with those instruments.
What am I missing? What is so great about these guys?
-
Aside from some of the bass lines, I probably could learn how to play any of their songs on each instrument in about a month or two, and I don't even play with those instruments.
You could learn to play songs of much higher technical difficulty in a month or two even starting off playing an instrument. What a dumb criticism.
-
You don't have to like them, but at least understand that they are the pioneers of music. Without the Beatles, many of the great artists that are around today wouldn't exist. Dream Theater being one of them.
-
I might have come off as too harsh. I don't mean to make any "dumb" claims, but I am concerned that I am missing out on something great. Sometimes, I'll hate a band, but when I catch onto the enthusiasm from other people, I'll end up liking them. That's what happened with Opeth. I just want to know what exactly the Beatles do for those that like them. Is it a feeling of nostalgia that keeps you coming back?
-
It sounds like you're looking at the band like a science experiment.
-
It sounds like you're looking at the band like a science experiment.
Well The Beatles are often regarded as a band you're required to like to have any sort of taste in music, so I don't think its that surprising.
-
I can understand a lot of people not liking the Beatles the way people liked the Beatles back in the day. I'm not big on a lot of their really old stuff, like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." Pass on that. But from "Revolver" on, everything got so much better. I still need to buy Rubber Soul, because that's an awesome one too (so I've heard). If you don't see the merit in Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road you might be a robot. Just a warning.
Basically, their merit is that they could write fantastic pop/rock tunes. Catchy melodies, great riffs, awesome basslines...everything just came together (zomgnuggetz) and they made great music. That music earned them bajillions of fans everywhere, and the respect of nearly every rock band to follow them. They are the most famous, most influential rock band ever for a reason.
-
I used to think The Beatles were nothing special, back when I was obsessed with power metal bands, whose lyrics where dealing with dragons and shit. As long as there were flashy guitar solos and epic vocals, I was down with it.
The greatest thing about The Beatles is IMO the songwriting. They're just great songs. Music and lyrics go hand in hand.
Just bought the remaster of 'Sgt. Peppers', great record.
-
Yes, I do remember Mike Portnoy specifically praising Sgt. Pepper's. I think it's the next one in their discography that I'm working my way through. My mind is still open and hopeful that The Beatles turn it around.
-
There's no one thing that makes the Beatles great; it really is a combination of several factors related to their music in varying degrees. Lately I've been weighing the idea of doing some legitimate research into this, and writing about as many factors as I can ascertain as to why the Beatles became as big as they did, and why they retain such a godlike status.
Also, I can understand someone not being a diehard fan of the Beatles and I know it's harsh to essentially say that someone who doesn't like the Beatles lacks musical taste, but I've yet to hear a valid argument for disliking them.
-
Well, based on what I do like, I think you could establish that I have good taste. I like Dream Theater. I like Transatlantic. I like Queen, Pink Floyd, and Frank Zappa. I even like guys like B. B. King and Al Di Meola. Those are all musically respectable.
Now, even though I dislike the Beatles (as of now, at least), does that automatically disqualify me from having good musical taste? My point is, I don't think you can draw a line between the two.
EDIT: And yes, Super Dude, I even enjoy Zelda music. (Have you checked out zreomusic by the way? Some great orchestrations there.)
-
There's no one thing that makes the Beatles great; it really is a combination of several factors related to their music in varying degrees. Lately I've been weighing the idea of doing some legitimate research into this, and writing about as many factors as I can ascertain as to why the Beatles became as big as they did, and why they retain such a godlike status.
Also, I can understand someone not being a diehard fan of the Beatles and I know it's harsh to essentially say that someone who doesn't like the Beatles lacks musical taste, but I've yet to hear a valid argument for disliking them.
I don't like how they sound.
-
:P
I guess what I meant is there's no valid argument for saying that the Beatles were not a good band.
And I like some Zelda music.
-
I will say, they're definitely a band you can't pass judgment on if you've only heard their earlier stuff. It was around Revolver where they started to get interesting, and Sgt. Pepper where they really take off.
If you listen to their later albums and still don't like them, then that's that. Just be sure to give the later albums a chance before making a final decision.
-
I could speak for hours on this topic. For now, check out my thread https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=6718.0 (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=6718.0) for a good place to start.
-
I'll echo everyone who said that you're just now getting to the really good stuff. The Beatles started with hit after hit, a seemingly endless stream of perfectly-crafted pop songs, but later pushed rock to it's limits in many ways.
Keep going, and work your way through the entire catalog, and listen to everything at least twice. There's all kinds of stuff going on, brilliant stuff.
-
Songwriting is more important than everything, including playing difficult music, and the Beatles wrote many of the best songs ever. While they had tons of good stuff prior to it, once Revolver came out, they pretty much wrote nothing but gold the rest of the way.
-
Super Dude, you wanna know why the Beatles were so important? I made a post months back in another thread:
I honestly don't think there will be another turning point in music as drastic as there was when the Beatles were around to capitalize on it. You gotta compare nowadays to the early 60s. Nowadays rock music is so oversaturated and broad that it's incredibly tough for one band to actually have a huge enough impact outside of a subgenre or two. Back then rock music had pretty much disintegrated by the end of the 50s when all the huge rockers of the time either died (Buddy Holly), got arrested (Chuck Berry), or committed career suicide (Jerry Lee Lewis) which left the mainstream music scene with teen idol shit like Pat Boone, Neil Sedaka, and Paul Anka. While they weren't the first, The Beatles really resurrected rock music in terms of popularity by not only bringing back the styles Buddy Holly helped invent but really turn rock music as something not to dance to but into an art form, another Buddy Holly trait. So unless rock music suddenly goes away (not happening), the next Beatles will never really come around.
Adding on top of that they were one of the first bands to take a step back from their popularity and utilize the studio to its full advantage. With the help of George Martin they created techniques and sounds with a 4 track recorder that no one had been able to get before them. Plus they help popularize the idea that albums could be created as a cohesive piece of art instead of just a medium for hit singles strewn together with no real purpose.
-
Super Dude, you wanna know why the Beatles were so important? I made a post months back in another thread:
I honestly don't think there will be another turning point in music as drastic as there was when the Beatles were around to capitalize on it. You gotta compare nowadays to the early 60s. Nowadays rock music is so oversaturated and broad that it's incredibly tough for one band to actually have a huge enough impact outside of a subgenre or two. Back then rock music had pretty much disintegrated by the end of the 50s when all the huge rockers of the time either died (Buddy Holly), got arrested (Chuck Berry), or committed career suicide (Jerry Lee Lewis) which left the mainstream music scene with teen idol shit like Pat Boone, Neil Sedaka, and Paul Anka. While they weren't the first, The Beatles really resurrected rock music in terms of popularity by not only bringing back the styles Buddy Holly helped invent but really turn rock music as something not to dance to but into an art form, another Buddy Holly trait. So unless rock music suddenly goes away (not happening), the next Beatles will never really come around.
Adding on top of that they were one of the first bands to take a step back from their popularity and utilize the studio to its full advantage. With the help of George Martin they created techniques and sounds with a 4 track recorder that no one had been able to get before them. Plus they help popularize the idea that albums could be created as a cohesive piece of art instead of just a medium for hit singles strewn together with no real purpose.
I wholeheartedly agree with that observation, but I hardly believe there's only one reason that the Beatles became that big.
-
I might have come off as too harsh. I don't mean to make any "dumb" claims, but I am concerned that I am missing out on something great. ... I just want to know what exactly the Beatles do for those that like them. Is it a feeling of nostalgia that keeps you coming back?
No nostalgia is involved for me. The band had been broken up for seventeen years when I was born, and for twenty-three years when I fell in love with them. I heard them at a young age and came to the determination that I had never heard anything like that music. It immediately appealed to me. Almost twenty years later, I have never looked back.
It sounds like you're looking at the band like a science experiment.
Well The Beatles are often regarded as a band you're required to like to have any sort of taste in music, so I don't think its that surprising.
I don't think anybody should be required to like the Beatles. That's a silly thing to say... no music is objectively good or bad. What pisses me off on occasion is how people immediately dismiss them because their taste lies far away from the Beatles' style, without stopping to look at history and seeing how ALL POPULAR MUSIC since they entered the scene has been shaped DIRECTLY by the Beatles' music.
Let me give a few examples:
-breakaway from a strict 14-songs-per-LP format
-breakaway from the A and B-sides of the single being included as part of the LP
-breakaway from the "pop single must be 3 minutes or less" rule
-song lyrics printed on the record sleeve/liner notes
-use of the double-LP format
-songs on albums segue into one another, instead of having three seconds of silence inbetween
-recording studio trickery (not relying on extensive number of tracks, session musicians, or Wall-of-Sound)
-use of the iii chord
-extension of popular song forms
-the idea that the artist themselves write the songs, and the product must be high-quality
-use of the music video for promotional purposes
-live concerts in outdoor stadiums
I disagree with those folks saying the early music of the Beatles is nothing special. Yes, their sound matured tremendously as the 60's went on. But the early singles are what made them famous, and there are some darn good "deep cuts" on the early albums.
Part of what made the Beatles so famous (aside from shrewd management strategies by Brian Epstein and just plain good fortune!!) is the universal appeal of their music. It was popular, literally, ALL OVER THE WORLD. Even today, they continue to have surges of popularity (Anthology TV series, McCartney's world tours, The Beatles 1, Rock Band and the 2009 remastered CDs). They just won't go away!! The only other band since then with anything close to that kind of worldwide appeal, IMO, is U2.
-
I'm more than well aware of what The Beatles did for music history and I respect them for it. I just don't find any of their music that interesting, early or later era Beatles or not. But there are heaps of people that insist that if you don't have The Beatles as your all-time favorite band, you're mentally ill or just retarded.
-
I'm more than well aware of what The Beatles did for music history and I respect them for it. I just don't find any of their music that interesting, early or later era Beatles or not.
All well and good!
But there are heaps of people that insist that if you don't have The Beatles as your all-time favorite band, you're mentally ill or just retarded.
Those people who insist that are mentally ill or just retarded.
-
I highly doubt there of a lot of people like that. It's just baffling to hear someone say they don't like any Beatles stuff. If someone can't find something that clicks in their entire discography there's something troubling.
-
I highly doubt there of a lot of people like that. It's just baffling to hear someone say they don't like any Beatles stuff. If someone can't find something that clicks in their entire discography there's something troubling.
My parents literally played their discography daily it seemed when I was a child, so perhaps overexposure to them when I was young simply burned me off of them. I'm sure I heard every song by them by the time I was 3 years old a million times over. Past that however, I don't hate their music. I just don't find anything that really sucks me into it. But bleh, I dislike radiohead so I suppose I just have bad taste in music :lol
-
I never created this thread so that people could bash each other on liking one band that happens to be a soft spot for many people. I think we all need to be a little more respectful of other people's opinions.
Now, I need to bring this up. I understand that the Beatles were extraordinarily revolutionary, and set many standards for how bands do things today. It's probably the main reason they are so big. That said, there have been many more advancements in songwriting and stye. Let me ask you guys--supposing the Beatles never existed, and just released Please Please Me today, would they still be as good? They certainly wouldn't be as big, but that's not a requirement for being good.
-
Yes, because it's a fantastic song.
-
I meant the album, by the way.
-
Yes, because it's a fantastic album.
-
But bleh, I dislike radiohead so I suppose I just have bad taste in music :lol
You said it. :biggrin:
Now, I need to bring this up. I understand that the Beatles were extraordinarily revolutionary, and set many standards for how bands do things today. It's probably the main reason they are so big. That said, there have been many more advancements in songwriting and stye. Let me ask you guys--supposing the Beatles never existed, and just released Please Please Me today, would they still be as good? They certainly wouldn't be as big, but that's not a requirement for being good.
Yes.
Also, you do realize that the Beatles had a massive hand in the direction songwriting took, right? So, if you take the Beatles out of rock music history, like they never existed, the entire equation from that point till now changes.
-
But bleh, I dislike radiohead so I suppose I just have bad taste in music :lol
You said it. :biggrin:
Now, I need to bring this up. I understand that the Beatles were extraordinarily revolutionary, and set many standards for how bands do things today. It's probably the main reason they are so big. That said, there have been many more advancements in songwriting and stye. Let me ask you guys--supposing the Beatles never existed, and just released Please Please Me today, would they still be as good? They certainly wouldn't be as big, but that's not a requirement for being good.
Yes.
Also, you do realize that the Beatles had a massive hand in the direction songwriting took, right? So, if you take the Beatles out of rock music history, like they never existed, the entire equation from that point till now changes.
My question assumes that nothing else changed--as if you just "plucked" the Beatles out of history, but left the rest.
-
The Beatles wrote some memorable, catchy and well-writen songs. To me, them and Pink Floyd are the bands of our time that will stand the test of time and will be remembered in the future generations.
-
But there are heaps of people that insist that if you don't have The Beatles as your all-time favorite band, you're mentally ill or just retarded.
There are people that will claim similar things for any band or type of music. They're called the fandumb.
-
But bleh, I dislike radiohead so I suppose I just have bad taste in music :lol
You said it. :biggrin:
Now, I need to bring this up. I understand that the Beatles were extraordinarily revolutionary, and set many standards for how bands do things today. It's probably the main reason they are so big. That said, there have been many more advancements in songwriting and stye. Let me ask you guys--supposing the Beatles never existed, and just released Please Please Me today, would they still be as good? They certainly wouldn't be as big, but that's not a requirement for being good.
Yes.
Also, you do realize that the Beatles had a massive hand in the direction songwriting took, right? So, if you take the Beatles out of rock music history, like they never existed, the entire equation from that point till now changes.
My question assumes that nothing else changed--as if you just "plucked" the Beatles out of history, but left the rest.
If you took a random Beatles album and released it now (as if the band never existed before), the answer is: Yes it will still be as good. Will it make as big a splash as it did in the 60's? Probably not, but as someone mentioned already, that will be due to the over-saturation of pop music these days (thanks to the Beatles :P). I'm not the biggest fan, but I just feel that their music has a heightened sense of melody, harmony and craftsmanship that is difficult to deny.
-
But bleh, I dislike radiohead so I suppose I just have bad taste in music :lol
You said it. :biggrin:
He doesn't like Crack the Skye either. He speaks the truth.
BrotherH, if you took out the Beatles from history, you CAN'T "leave everything the same." For one, and this is just one example, you'd have no King Crimson, because there'd be no Sgt. Pepper to inspire Fripp to make an album like that. Without Fripp, a biiiiig chunk of prog music today goes away.
Again, that's a relatively small example of what happens. I have no idea where rock and pop music would be without the Beatles today, but if the Beatles had started their careers now, I do think PPM would have an enormous impact. Maybe not AS big as it did back in the day, but still pretty big.
-
The Beatles is one of my favorite classic-bands, the music is amazing because it has great melodies and catchy sing-along moments. ;)
-
call me old.. but they are one of ther greatest bands of all time, they changed the face of rock music..
-
I'm currently reading a book called "The 100 Best Beatles Songs". I know, with a title like that, it has a really high potential to be lame and cheesy, but it's actually very good. They picked the 100, of course, but for every song, they give the reasons why it was chosen, analyze both the lyrics and music, provide session information (from the original studio logs where available), give relevant quotes from the band members, George Martin, etc., and there's a section for each simply titled "Why this song is so great".
They point out all kinds of things in the song that you may or may not have noticed before, but which make it great, and man, when you add it all up, you can see why people say that they were the greatest of all time, they changed rock music forever, and things like that.
"Eleanor Rigby" is three voices (Paul, John, George) and a double string quartet. No guitars, basses, or drums.
"She's Leaving Home" has a freakin' harp!
"When I'm Sixty-Four" has two clarinets.
"Savoy Truffle" has six saxophones. Four tenor and two baritone, heavily distorted.
Why? Because that's what those songs needed, that's why.
Structural things, like songs which begin a capella with the chorus rather than a verse. People just didn't do that back then.
And of course all the studio wizardry. Laying down 23 tracks on a four-track machine by laying down three at a time, mixing them down to the fourth, then laying down three more, and repeating as necessary. Physically slowing down the tape because it turns out that the song sounds better in E-flat than E and it was too late to re-record it all. The "Abbey Road Medley" with its dozen or so short songs which all segue together perfectly.
There were so many things that The Beatles were the first to do, musically, lyrically, and technically. Things that we take for granted today. But don't make the mistake that many do; just because these things are common today does not mean that The Beatles were "nothing special". They were most definitely special. Someone had to do each of these things first, and they were the first to do all of these things.
At one point, the Top 5 songs in the Billboard Hot 100 were all Beatles songs, there were 5 more elsewhere in the charts. 10 of the top 100 songs, all by the same band. How many bands or artists today have even two songs on the charts at the same time? And if they do, one is on the way up while the other is on the way down. Sure, you can be popular and even score a Number 1 hit with no talent, but the Top 5, all five of them? No way. Their ability to craft pop songs is unrivalled. There will never be another band that totally owned the music world the way The Beatles did.
-
Oh I definitely understand why people worship them, but I just don't seem to like them. I've never said they were "nothing special" its just they never appealed to me musically.
-
I'm currently reading a book called "The 100 Best Beatles Songs".
That's a fun book to read. Lots of little tidbits hidden in there that I never knew before I read it.
-
Yeah, it's pretty amazing. Lots of great stuff in there.
Oh I definitely understand why people worship them, but I just don't seem to like them. I've never said they were "nothing special" its just they never appealed to me musically.
That's cool. Your personal taste in music just doesn't go that way.
I was responding more to the people who listen to them and pronounce them "nothing special". I don't remember exactly who it was, and won't call them out now. I just felt like gushing about them some more.
-
I'm currently reading a book called "The 100 Best Beatles Songs".
That's a fun book to read. Lots of little tidbits hidden in there that I never knew before I read it.
Is it this book: https://www.amazon.com/100-Best-Beatles-Songs-Passionate/dp/1579128424/ref=pd_sim_b_1
or this: https://www.amazon.com/Here-There-Everywhere-Beatles-Songs/dp/1579123694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287782202&sr=1-1
-
The first one. Waykool stuff.
-
For anybody looking for definitive Beatles reading material, you must read Mark Lewisohn.
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions-1962-1970/dp/0600612074/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287784635&sr=1-2 (https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Recording-Sessions-1962-1970/dp/0600612074/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287784635&sr=1-2)
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Chronicle-Day---Day/dp/1569765340/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287784635&sr=1-3 (https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Beatles-Chronicle-Day---Day/dp/1569765340/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287784635&sr=1-3)
Mark does meticulous research. If he writes it, you can basically count on it being the truth. He's in the process of writing a three-volume history (no mere biography) on the band. When it comes out, it will be the end-all-be-all.
-
I like The Beatles, but I'm actually not a super-huge fan of the band, and don't read a lot of books about bands. Yeah I know, hard to believe after that novella I just posted, but this is music discussion; I'll ramble like that about any subject.
The point is that this particular book is not huge, and was sitting on the discount shelf at Borders along with a dozen other Beatles books, and I took a look. What struck me was the amount of detail they went into for this particular book, and by devoting only three or four pages to each song, they keep it from being overwhelming. It's a small book, but packs a ton of interesting information in it relevant to the songs they've chosen, and along the way I've gained a greater appreciation for what The Beatles did. You hear all the time about the amazing stuff they supposedly did; this book gives you the specifics and backs it up with the research. It was like $7.99, a hell of a value.
-
Beatles = epicness. End of discussion.
-
"Eleanor Rigby" is three voices (Paul, John, George) and a double string quartet. No guitars, basses, or drums.
Funny story about that song: I remember seeing a guitar magazine in the store many years ago, and in the part of it where it has guitar and bass tabs for songs, I remember seeing the bass tab for "Eleanor Rigby" and I remember thinking, "Where in the hell is the bass guitar in that song?" :lol :lol
-
Yeah, for some reason I'm always partial to songs with non-standard instrumentation. Just throwing in horns or a string section won't do it, because it's too common, but stuff like "Eleanor Rigby" amazes me. Not just that a 20-something pop singer wrote it, but that he was in a band that had the balls to put it on a record and it scored a hit!