someone care to explain the beatles to me?

[razoredge]

Regardless, Im saying in those times no one thought much of that, at least those listening to the less commercial or more experimental music in those times.

I actually dont have an opinion about which is better, today or then, I listen happily to both and both have their benefits. I will say I dont hear todays bands... that I listen to, doing acoustic folk type stuff on the same albums with their heavy music like most of the bands I mentioned. One would be hard pressed to find the variance heard on LZ III, IV and Houses of the Holy, or early Tull for that matter. Humble Pie did a record that was half acoustic folky, half electric boogie.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Regardless, Im saying in those times no one thought much of that, at least those listening to the less commercial or more experimental music in those times.

I still don't get what you mean. How is it different now?

I actually dont have an opinion about which is better, today or then, I listen happily to both and both have their benefits. I will say I dont hear todays bands... that I listen to, doing acoustic folk type stuff on the same albums with their heavy music like most of the bands I mentioned. One would be hard pressed to find the variance heard on LZ III, IV and Houses of the Holy, or early Tull for that matter. Humble Pie did a record that was half acoustic folky, half electric boogie.

Quick list off the top of my head of more current bands that do multiple styles:

Faith No More
Radiohead
Ween
Beastie Boys
Mars Volta

And that's only the more popular stuff, there's also more underground bands like Mr. Bungle, Secret Chiefs 3, Estradasphere, The Melvins, Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, Regurgitator and Naked City that specialise in as much variety as possible.

 

[razoredge]

Thats good, I have never listened to any of them, is that considered alternative? My girlfriend does have an old Beastie Boys tape around here, never held my interest at the time, come to think of it that might have some silly stuff, I think there was also a rap element... so we dont need to talk about that... lol and a wink

To the first question refering to songs not really correlating to each other with in an album, if its no different today, I guess I dont get what the concern was, I was only trying to shed some understanding of some of the musical atmosphere at that time.

 

[Einherjar86]

Those 3 guys came afterwards pretty much so your understanding of the Beatles music at the time is obviously ignorant... and with the exception of Waters/Pink Floyd... i would hardly call Anderson and Gabriel as monumental and revolutionary songwriters... that is just your opinion and fanboy mind speaking... Anyways for the younger generation to fully understand the Beatles music they would have to have been there because listening to too music from after the Beatles up to the present time clouds their judgement about the Beatles...

Don't call me ignorant.

The Beatles made mediocre music. I understand their influence, it's undeniable. What is deniable is how good their music was. Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Jethro Tull all had better and more complicated songs.

 

[Satanstoenail]

To the first question refering to songs not really correlating to each other with in an album, if its no different today, I guess I dont get what the concern was, I was only trying to shed some understanding of some of the musical atmosphere at that time.

The concern was more with the quality of some of the songs rather than the variety of material (at least on my part anyway). I think some of McCartney's kooky material is great, but some of it just fails miserably. And unfortunately the most annoying of his work seemed to be the most popular. And how any of Ringo's songs ever ended up on any of their albums is beyond me. Abbey Road would be a much better album without the inclusion of Ringo's Octopus's Garden and McCartney's Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

 

[razoredge]

I hear that, Octopus's Garden always inspired a strange expression from me.People still love Ringo though. But Maxwell was entertaining.... when I was young.

thank.... somebody... anybody for Jimi and Led Zeppelin is what I say... not to ignore all the other serious artists.

Now that we are thinking about it, that stuff must have drove Lennon nuts... is that what brought the demise to the band ? Was easy to blame Yoko I bet, but I know better... then again.... she was some singer no? ....... lol The 60's!

I forget if I already posted it on this topic but when "Yellow Submarine" the movie was in the theaters we went to see it. Im guessing I was between 10-12 years old. It actually made me feel sick, I was psyced to go see it too, when I walked out of the theater me and the Beatles were, for the most part done. Even at that age I no longer had a use for that nursery rhyme kind of music. To this day I will nearly become violent in an attempt to not hear that song.... and now, I cant get it to stop playing in my head...... should'nt have gone there... shouldnt have gone there... must break away... must shut the radio off thats playing in my head... I gotta get out of here... I... I gotta get out of here...

LOL

 

[Lord Kur]

have you ever killed anyone?

 

[razoredge]

yep...... but after a little while they got up and walked away...

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Don't call me ignorant.

The Beatles made mediocre music. I understand their influence, it's undeniable. What is deniable is how good their music was. Pink Floyd, Genesis, and Jethro Tull all had better and more complicated songs.

'better' is subjective and more complicated is irrelevant

 

[razoredge]

Yes that is true.

It would be better worded as

"wrote superior, inspired and more thought thru music as a whole"

 

[Einherjar86]

'better' is subjective and more complicated is irrelevant

You're right, I was annoyed.

I acknowledge that The Beatles were the inspiration for bands such as Floyd, Tull and Genesis, etc. They essentially paved the way for classic rock. However, I believe that the inspiration felt by men like Waters and Anderson amounted to much more mature and interesting music than Lennon or McCartney ever wrote. Again, yes; this is my opinion. But it is definitely true I think that bands like Jethro Tull and Pink Floyd composed and created much more mature music. Lennon occasionally even wrote songs that were gibberish and nonsensical. That to me is cheap and pure tripe. I prefer intelligence and poetry in my songwriting.

And songs like "All You Need Is Love" and "Imagine?" That's just silly.

 

[ramses]

Once again...you have to remember that when the Beatles were making popular music, there weren't any bands that took that mass attention, and decided to do something different. Albums such as the White Album, Sgt. Pepper's, Revolver, and Abbey Road were doing experimental stuff that noone did then. As a result, those young teens that wanted to start bands, heard (at the time)their weird stuff that wasn't the norm. If any other unknown upstart band did this back then, it wouldn't have been on radio. The Beatles opened the door to other ways of making music. These bands, such as Yes(who covered a Beatle song on their first album)Pink Floyd, and Tull were taking their ideas, but doing them of course way better. It doesn't matter if they're not good to anyone...it's what they started. Without them taking their status and trying new things, we'd have to wait another 5 to 10 years for the likes of our cerebral, musically talented bands to arrive.

 

[Vimana]

No offense to any Beatles fans, but in my opinion a big element of The Beatles remembrance was their timing. They made the right music at the right time. If they came about in the mid 70's no one would care at all.

And I know that the type of music I make wouldn't get anywhere today, but might in the mid 80's through mid 90's. Different times like different styles, and I agree with what many people have said, don't judge their effect on music on what people think of them today, look at the time. Even though we would still have Metal and Punk without them, the entertainment industry would be a whole lot different.

And songs like "All You Need Is Love" and "Imagine?" That's just silly.

I know its weird for me to be defending them on this. But those songs were powerful at the time. Those songs aren't in the least bit silly. Those songs had what everyone was thinking and feeling in them.

 

[razoredge]

I like Imagine but "All you Need" is like that circus music sound. but yes they reflect the atmosphere of the times in their lyrics.

Not sure I agree with you Ramses on this one. I said it in another post once but I really didnt hear the Beatles influence in much of the 70's music... of the bands I listenend to or much of the radio music for that matter. Things were changing quickly between the time of the Monterey and Woodstock music festivals. The Beatles and other already established bands were becoming "old school" and there was a new sound going on that was to inspire young people and influence new younger musicians. Blues, R&B, and straight up (or down right) rock were the big influences and thats a connection I dont really make with the Beatles sound.

Maybe if I sat and listened closely today and made comparisions I would here it... I dont know

 

[ramses]

You're missing the point...."influence" in the way of those upstart bands realizing after hearing the experimental weird stuff the Beatles put out, that they could do anything they wanted. If they can do it, hell, we can do that too! And we can play way better than them! Who else could have gotten away with it in the mid 60's? Yes, Floyd, Zeppelin, etc...don't play 50's style music. They really rarely sound like Motown groups. They are more melodic, heavy, instrumental...Somebody had to get the ball rolling so to say. If a new band in 66' would have approached a radio station with the type of stuff the Beatles were starting, they would have been told "nobody likes or will listen to this!" But the Beatles then were instant cash cows, they could do no wrong in the eyes of the public, and record companies/radio. In 66-67, there were no Zep, Yes...etc. So in 68-and on- the new bands, because the Beatles were showing there are no rules in music, could do what they wanted as well. And the new FM radio format gave the new bands with more than just pop music in mind, a place to be heard. Oh yeah, for the 2nd time....saying nobody would listen to them today cracks me up. Remember the Beatle clones Oasis? That was just a few years ago. History lesson for you...Do some research on the band Klaatu,(BIG Beatle clones!!) especially their first album, where they didn't tell anyone who they were when they got airplay on the radio. It sold really well back in 77'. Oh, and ELO were very Beatle-esque. Are they my favorite band? No, not by a longshot! But it's all there, back in the mid 60's...all they had then was radio, nothing else. And radio really took no chances with something outside the box then! Unless, it was the biggest band of the day.

 

[razoredge]

I agree with some of that... but then there was The Doors and The Who and this one crazy assed dude called Arthur Brown... would like to hear a few of his albums.

Regardless of what anybody says, I will maintain that Hendrix was the Axis on which music pivoted. And there was no stopping Hendrix, he was coming regardless the Beatles or the Stones or the Who. Buddy Holly could have lived, the Beatles never happened and in 67 Hendirx still would have arrived and set things straight. He WAS the barrier breaker. (not downing Holly at all, love his stuff). Joplin would have still stepped up to the microphone and shown "this is how you sing with ass". Steve Marriott would have still shreaked into the microphone and put the boogie into rock.

People that are into the Beatles and also like progressive and somewhat off the wall music as well as a good share of heavy rockin, really need to check out "Crack the Sky" - their first three albums - self titled('75), Animal Notes ('76) and Safety in Numbers ('78) IM TELLIN YA! your missing some real interesting stuff. If you dont like any of the qualities I mentioned dont bother, they will annoy you but to me the band was unique and extremely creative. Some real decent guitar work as well. Their self titled album was voted ? best new band of the year in 75 or something like that by Rolling Stone. I know... Rolling Stone but I believe in this case they were correct.

 

[ramses]

Yeah, I heard one Crack the Sky song...albiet on a Genesis Tribute album. It's funny Raz, I look for them when I go to this one music store. Unfortunately, along with a certain Caravan album, they're not there!
As for Rolling Stone magazine, I still fucking laugh at them. They never mentioned Rush, ever, (or Yes)until a few years ago when they were doing their anniversary tour. Those pompous asses(R.S. mag)really don't get it! They think they do. And when they review albums...uh, better stop before I get pissed and snap at my girlfriend.

 

[razoredge]

I just checked Amazon, and Cracks website, it appears they are out of print and WAY over priced for used. So you wont find them unless your talking about one of those used trade in CD stores. Maybe there. Its rare to run across someone thats heard them, they were fairly obscure and not for everyone. Most people I have met that know their music are local rock musicians of that period or music fanatics. I do know a way you could come up with a CD of the self titled and Safety in Numbers....... Any of the others you should probably avoid because you just wont get a reasonable insite of why Crack Heads rave about the band. "From the Greenhouse" from the late 80's is pretty good in a Floydish kind of way but still not the old Crack. Dog City from the early 90's was decent, a bit gloomy but the production was dodgy at least on the cassette I bought.... still not the old Crack. "Live Sky" is AWSOME and shows their progressive and quirky side the best in some interesting live jams. Not extreme viruosos like you hear today but creative.

Tell me about this cover of a Crack song ???? Who da thunk it ??

Rolling Stone - yea they have always sucked, they dont jump on the band wagon until a bands dead and gone. I just learned about this "award" a few years ago... so maybe I should through out a disclaimer that it may not be true... In the mid 70's they were still worried about what Bob Dylan was doing and if the Beatles would get back together......

**now playing Safety in Numbers.....
edit: DAMN! Dream Theater should do a live cover of this song Nuclear Apathy

 

[Perdition's Light]

I started listening to The Beatles at about 12 or so, and I still love them. I wasn't hopping on some kind of bandwagon since none of my friends or anyone I knew listened them, other than my parents, who I don't recall playing The Beatles around me before then (they probably did, but it wasn't any sort of deciding factor when it came to my decision). I think their songs wouldn't do so well today because they came, as someone else noted, from an entirely different generation which means an entirely different state of mind. None of the bands from back then would do well today (I'm talking like '65 to '71, but I'm sure I could increase the latter many many more years) because the sounds have become cliche now, and the concepts seem silly.

And about the Beatles' sillier songs, so what? I love those songs, they make me happy. What's wrong with a happy song? Not dark enough for you? I feel that plenty of Beatles songs are quite deep, the band's history and evolution is fascinating, and what they did in such a short amount of time is remarkable. Basically what I'm saying is, you suck if you think the Beatles suck.

 

[ramses]

The song that C.T.S. did for the Genesis tribute Raz, was-I Know What I Like(in your waredrobe) from 1973's Selling England By the Pound album. They sounded as if they were using a drum machine on the song, but the song was done tastefully. My mistake with CTS is that years ago, I was curious about the band upon seeing a few of their ablums in a record store, but assuming that they'd be there next week when I had some money to spend. As for the Beatles, they were the first band I remember at 3 hearing on the radio...the song was Magical Mystery Tour, and I've been hooked ever since. They are one of the few bands in my collection that I don't get tired of, and still listen to, at least once a month, despite that they are a lot more simplistic in approach, as to the more current metal/prog bands I listen to today. I have a few other bands in my collection that are more straightfoward in lyrical and musical approach as well, but, they just don't stand the test of time as the Beatles do.