View Full Version : Interesting take on Ringo Starr
montesquieu
03-07-2015, 23:51
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/arts-feature/9571372/ringos-no-joke-he-was-a-genius-and-the-beatles-were-lucky-to-have-him/
Makes some interesting observations.
walpurgis
03-07-2015, 23:56
I disliked McCArtney. Regarded Ringo as 'just a drummer'. Thought of Harrison as talented. But Lennon as a genius!
I grew up listening to this lot!!
Genius? I have socks with more talent.
Lennon and McCartney were the songwriters; Harrison provided the rhythm and Starr the beat. The Beatles were the sum of the whole.
However after the split, I was only really interested in following the careers of John Lennon and George Harrison.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 05:11
Genius is a somewhat overused term.
I have always thought that Ringo was under rated. Not in the technical sense, if you look at his technique.....well, what technique? However there is a huge difference between mere technical ability and musicianship. It helps to have both obviously but we are not talking deep, meaningful music here, especially not in the early days. He was, as it says in the article, exactly right for the Beatles, providing a solid base and drive. For the same reason, I reckon McCartney was an under rated bass player. There were flashier players out there but listen, really listen to the Beatles and what they are is musical first and foremost. And they wrote some cracking tunes Grommit.
I don't listen to them that much these days but when I do, it brings the times back and I still think they were the bees knees.
The Black Adder
04-07-2015, 08:15
A music industry friend said to me once.
If you like Oasis, there is something wrong with you,
If you don't like The Beatles, there is something wrong with you.
As a MASSIVE Beatles fan. Like many things the word, Genius is an over used and misconstrued term. I'm sure Johm, Paul, George and Ringo wouldn't think of themselves as Genius's so why would anyone else?
If I could pin anything on anyone to be remotely near a status of 'genius' it would be George Martin.... without him the whole of the 60's would still have been in beetle crushers dipped in Bry-Cream doing Elvis and Cliff Richard rip-off's which would be very bad indeed.
Another example, I heard someone call Jeremy Clarkson a 'genius' the other day to which completely verifies the term being used out of hand (and to the hilt). Same as the term 'it's a tragedy' for explaining the 'long awaited' demise of said program.
orbscure
04-07-2015, 08:47
If you like Oasis, there is something wrong with you,
If you don't like The Beatles, there is something wrong with you.
I loved Oasis, so I always wondered why there was something wrong with me :) but I do love the Beatles too, so its not all doom and gloom! I always considered them a sum of their parts, very much like the members of Pink Floyd patchy solo material compared to the groups output, but I digress...
If I could pin anything on anyone to be remotely near a status of 'genius' it would be George Martin.... without him the whole of the 60's would still have been in beetle crushers dipped in Bry-Cream doing Elvis and Cliff Richard rip-off's which would be very bad indeed.
A slight exaggeration there. The British were re-discovering black American blues, r 'n b and soul at the time the Beatles emerged (and the Beatles themselves covered several Motown tracks). There was also a burgeoning folk scene. So the '60s would certainly have been different, but I doubt it would have been Elvis and Cliff Richard rip-offs we'd have been listening to.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 09:39
A slight exaggeration there. The British were re-discovering black American blues, r 'n b and soul at the time the Beatles emerged (and the Beatles themselves covered several Motown tracks). There was also a burgeoning folk scene. So the '60s would certainly have been different, but I doubt it would have been Elvis and Cliff Richard rip-offs we'd have been listening to.
The very thought.
The worrying thing is that I realise I have two Cliff tracks in my collection:eek:
I can't remember ever playing them so how did they sneak in?:scratch:
Yikes, I just checked and there are six!!! It must be a conspiracy, perhaps they reproduce asexually (well, it is Cliff:D)
The very thought.
The worrying thing is that I realise I have two Cliff tracks in my collection:eek:
I have two Cliff tracks too. Even more worryingly, one of them is on an LP entitled 'Savile's Time Travels'!
Stratmangler
04-07-2015, 09:58
The very thought.
The worrying thing is that I realise I have two Cliff tracks in my collection:eek:
I can't remember ever playing them so how did they sneak in?:scratch:
Yikes, I just checked and there are six!!! It must be a conspiracy, perhaps they reproduce asexually (well, it is Cliff:D)
Move It is a great song and recording!
Unfortunately things went downhill quickly afterwards, and Cliff bowed to the experienced opinion of his manager and also of his record producer, and started to make the transition into being a variety performer, because this Rock and Roll thing was just a fad :rfl:
There are a few decent tunes along the way, Devil Woman and Carrie immediately springing to mind, and The Cliff Richard Band were all top notch players and were all very highly regarded, both as individual musicians and as The Cliff Richard Band as a whole.
I think you're giving Cliff a hard time, and I don't understand why :scratch:
Before you ask, I don't have any Cliff stuff in my collection, but I have always had a quiet regard for some of his music.
Move It is a great song and recording!
Unfortunately things went downhill quickly afterwards, and Cliff bowed to the experienced opinion of his manager and also of his record producer, and started to make the transition into being a variety performer, because this Rock and Roll thing was just a fad :rfl:
And to be fair to his manager/producer, this was received wisdom at the time. Elvis, Buddy Holly and other 'rockers' were moving into ballads at the same time as Cliff. That was also why Decca turned down the Beatles; they were seen as old-fashioned.
Stratmangler
04-07-2015, 10:07
And to be fair to his manager/producer, this was received wisdom at the time. Elvis, Buddy Holly and other 'rockers' were moving into ballads at the same time as Cliff. That was also why Decca turned down the Beatles; they were seen as old-fashioned.
All very true.
Strange, but true.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 10:07
Move It is a great song and recording!
Unfortunately things went downhill quickly afterwards, and Cliff bowed to the experienced opinion of his manager and also of his record producer, and started to make the transition into being a variety performer, because this Rock and Roll thing was just a fad :rfl:
There are a few decent tunes along the way, Devil Woman and Carrie immediately springing to mind, and The Cliff Richard Band were all top notch players and were all very highly regarded, both as individual musicians and as The Cliff Richard Band as a whole.
I think you're giving Cliff a hard time, and I don't understand why :scratch:
Before you ask, I don't have any Cliff stuff in my collection, but I have always had a quiet regard for some of his music.
I like to be fashionable!! In fairness, some of the music isn't too bad at all but I guess his image just overwhelms what talent he has/had. The real reason of course is that my brother in law likes Cliff and he.........might read this:lol:
There you go, these are they.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 10:11
I never liked Cliff Richards. He made my skin crawl.
hornucopia
04-07-2015, 10:15
George Harrison, Paul macca.....and ME!.....all went to same school! John was next door at the Art School.
George had Sat job at my friend's Dads butchers -graffit-ed the loo door.
He wishes he 'd kept that door now!
Stratmangler
04-07-2015, 10:33
I never liked Cliff Richards. He made my skin crawl.
Who he?
It's Cliff Richard.
And the choice and spelling of the name was deliberate - everyone who announced that the next act was Cliff Richards was corrected, which meant he got his name mentioned twice in succession (well, almost).
As for making your skin crawl - there were plenty of folk on the TV in the 60s and 70s who had something about them that didn't sit right.
Haselsh1
04-07-2015, 10:43
I have an original copy on vinyl of 'Rock N Roll Juvenile' by Cliff Richard and to be honest, I quite like it as well. It is a damn fine recording and good quality vinyl. His reference to Einstein being science fiction is slightly misguided though but then what do you expect for a member of the God squad...?
When it comes to deciding who was the prime mover in the Beatles, I always refer to the body of work each created once they had split. It thus seems pretty obvious to me that Paul McCartney was the most talented by far.
I would further add, that the second most talented was George Martin!
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 11:37
Hmm. Quantity does not equate to quality. I wasn't keen on McCartneys stuff after the Beatles broke up. I loved Lennon's albums. Starr and Harrison did nothing that appealed to me.
Mull of Fucking Kintyre is enough to damn him to Hell for eternity!
Hmm. Quantity does not equate to quality. I wasn't keen on McCartneys stuff after the Beatles broke up. I loved Lennon's albums. Starr and Harrison did nothing that appealed to me.
I agree with the premise, but think it was quantity and quality.
You also have to remember that Lennon/McCartney was lyric/tune, so the Beatles compositions with the exception of the Harrison output was also Paul's.
Mull of Fucking Kintyre is enough to damn him to Hell for eternity!
Could a moderator please remove the profanity from this outburst, it does not serve the site well, when even a guest can read it.
It does not offend me, but children use the internet and it simply does not make the point any more coherently anyway
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 11:46
Hmm. Quantity does not equate to quality. I wasn't keen on McCartneys stuff after the Beatles broke up. I loved Lennon's albums. Starr and Harrison did nothing that appealed to me.
I can't say I was that impressed with any of their solo output. The occasional tune was good but in general they seemed to be living on past glory. I have a couple of Lennon's albums and never listen to them. Band on the run gets an occasional play but only a couple of tracks. When I listen to the Beatles, I listen right through the albums.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 11:46
Mull of Fucking Kintyre is enough to damn him to Hell for eternity!
I don't seem to have that version. Was it a special release?
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 11:47
Could a moderator please remove the profanity from this outburst, it does not serve the site well, when even a guest can read it.
It does not offend me, but children use the internet and it simply does not make the point any more coherently anyway
That means they would have to delete my post too and I would object.
I can't say I was that impressed with any of their solo output. The occasional tune was good but in general they seemed to be living on past glory. I have a couple of Lennon's albums and never listen to them. Band on the run gets an occasional play but only a couple of tracks. When I listen to the Beatles, I listen right through the albums.
I agree that it comes down to taste obviously.
My point was the 'industry' concerned.
Paul McCartney did not retire, he only left the Beatles because he was the only one who wished to go on tour.
With the odd moment, the other three practically retired, they were 'spent' as it were.
That means they would have to delete my post too and I would object.
Then you should edit it sir, it serves no one in it's present state and I should not really have to tell you that should I?
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 11:51
Then you should edit it sir, it serves no one in it's present state and I should not really have to tell you that should I?
But you have told me and I disagree.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 12:01
Box. Whilst continued swearing is not acceptable. The forum does (though not exclusively) to an extent have a 'Laddish' slant, so the occasional expletive gets by (and is tolerated). You read the 'Ethos' and will have seen this. The intent is what counts. No offence was meant in this context.
Box. Whilst continued swearing is not acceptable. The forum does (though not exclusively) to an extent have a 'Laddish' slant, so the occasional expletive gets by (and is tolerated). You read the 'Ethos' and will have seen this. The intent is what counts. No offence was meant in this context.
I see, I personally think that the use of such language actually diminishes the point, but then I am a gentleman.
I will use the ignore facility in future, sorry to have spoilt things by having high ideals for the forum.
I don't seem to have that version. Was it a special release?
Yeah; a picture disc with the Frog Sodding Chorus on the B side.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 12:59
Yeah; a picture disc with the Frog Sodding Chorus on the B side.
Aha, it's good that you appreciate his finest hours:lol:
Aha, it's good that you appreciate his finest hours:lol:
It's coz I'm a gentleman, unlike some of the scruffs around this place.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 13:07
It's coz I'm a gentleman, unlike some of the scruffs around this place.
You have the better of me then. I am a man of poor birth from a working class background. I have tried to claw my way up the social ladder but my choice of language seems to have held me back. To be a gentleman does seem to be a matter of luck in the gene pool.
You have the better of me then. I am a man of poor birth from a working class background. I have tried to claw my way up the social ladder but my choice of language seems to have held me back.
I use English myself. Tried Russian once, but no-one could understand me.
not even the Russians
I tried it out on the school groundsman, on the basis that his nickname was 'Boris', but it turned out he was actually Polish and hated the Russians.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 13:19
I tried it out on the school groundsman, on the basis that his nickname was 'Boris', but it turned out he was actually Polish and hated the Russians.
Sadly, I am a natural mimic and whoever I speak to eventually thinks I am taking the p...... sorry.... extracting the Michael, as I start talking in the same accent they do. Great accent but the words are wrong. I guess I needed a silver spoon to shape the palette correctly.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 13:21
How did we get from Ringo to here?:)
Ringo did the same. ..as long as it was Liverpudlian
orbscure
04-07-2015, 13:26
How did we get from Ringo to here?:)
It seems to be the nature of the beast at the moment Gordon ... AOS version of Chinese whispers :D
I see, I personally think that the use of such language actually diminishes the point, but then I am a gentleman.
I will use the ignore facility in future, sorry to have spoilt things by having high ideals for the forum.
If you're a gentleman, why are you shouting?
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 14:10
How did we get from Ringo to here?:)
It's easily done! :D
Haselsh1
04-07-2015, 15:01
Tried Russian once
In that case mate you really should slow down. Russian around is never a good idea :eyebrows:
The Black Adder
04-07-2015, 16:23
A slight exaggeration there.
I beg to differ... lol.. but hey! :)
George Martin was the driving force behind The Beatles. Something that he never really too credit for. Even though he was announced as the 5th Beatle.
Without his input there would have been mediocre output, and most probably no output at all. He of course produced and discovered other artists at the time. His technical knowledge and design input in the (at the time) newly EMI REDD mixing desk was phenomenal. And then his feel for how music should sound and be crafted was everything, especially to the FAB 4.
This will be heresy to some but I never really got the Beatles, a few good songs and one good one (I Feel Fine), all in my opinion of course. Same with Lennon.
I do like quite a bit of Wings output but I think he did a lot of dire material after the Beatles. As for his collaborations with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson I can't really make my mind up, Ebony and Ivory is ok and I quite like The Girl is Mine until that ridiculous spoken interchange.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 17:13
This will be heresy to some but I never really got the Beatles, a few good songs and one good one (I Feel Fine), all in my opinion of course. Same with Lennon.
I do like quite a bit of Wings output but I think he did a lot of dire material after the Beatles. As for his collaborations with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson I can't really make my mind up, Ebony and Ivory is ok and I quite like The Girl is Mine until that ridiculous spoken interchange.
Not heresy. Strange of course but not heresy:lol:. Different tastes abound. I find most prog rock to as boring and simplistic as hell but I understand there are those that are wise to its charms.
Much as I like/d the Beatles, music has moved on as things do (or should) I now find that the likes of Paul Simon and Joni Mitchell far more satisfying. No doubt there must be someone later than them that is good but I'm an old man so stuff stops at a certain time and everything becomes "gawd, the crap young people listen to these days" (sorry dictionary owners, I meant 'to which young people listen' of course)
Not heresy. Strange of course....
Certainly not the first time myself and my musical tastes have been called strange :lol:
montesquieu
04-07-2015, 20:36
How did we get from Ringo to here?:)
I was thinking the same myself? Cliff sodding Richard?
Anyway I had very little time for Lennon post Beatles break-up, I think he lost his way (as in, disappeared up his own backside) in all that pseuds corner stuff with Yoko Ono. I also think his comments on politics, economics, foreign policy etc betrayed the fact that he might have musical and lyrical talent, but in other ways he was a bit thick (and easily led). The result was extremely patchy. (I mean, 'Imagine' FFS! Nice tune but the lyrics are toe-curling.) Very little of his post 1970 work stands up to scrutiny (I seem to recall that the greatest hits album Shaved Fish which came out before he died, contained just about everything decent he did, out of goodness knows how many albums.
McCartney by contrast continued his astonishing musical output, tune after tune, multi-instrumental albums, though he did lose sharpness from not having the others to help polish his material. Compare their musical output 1970-80 and there's no contest at all. Lennon loses big time.
As to their contribution to the Beatles, it's far more even and I think McCartney is right to insist that it was the equality of the band that made it work - it's truly indivisible. I've spent time working out some of the guitar parts over the years and Harrison's output needs to be honoured as well - so inventive.
Oh and back to Ringo, he does some nice subtle work in lots of places. The sound wouldn't have been the same without him, that's a fact.
montesquieu
04-07-2015, 20:39
This will be heresy to some but I never really got the Beatles, a few good songs and one good one (I Feel Fine), all in my opinion of course. Same with Lennon.
I do like quite a bit of Wings output but I think he did a lot of dire material after the Beatles. As for his collaborations with Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson I can't really make my mind up, Ebony and Ivory is ok and I quite like The Girl is Mine until that ridiculous spoken interchange.
You are Alan Partidge and I claim my £5.
http://blogs.virginmedia.com/files/6213/7595/1220/15_wings.jpg
Haselsh1
04-07-2015, 21:01
The only track I ever liked by the Beatles was 'The Things We Said Today'. I thought the rest of it was total drivel. That is of course just my own personal opinion because whilst the Beatles were on full song I was about eight years old.
Haselsh1
04-07-2015, 21:05
I find most prog rock to as boring and simplistic as hell but I understand there are those that are wise to its charms.
Prog Rock is intensely complex when compared to the subject of this thread. I don't think a single track by the Beatles even came remotely close to the complexity of a King Crimson track, indeed any King Crimson track.
Gordon Steadman
04-07-2015, 21:11
Prog Rock is intensely complex when compared to the subject of this thread. I don't think a single track by the Beatles even came remotely close to the complexity of a King Crimson track, indeed any King Crimson track.
:lol::lol:
You like it then?
I'm surprised I only had one reaction:eyebrows:
montesquieu
04-07-2015, 21:37
Prog Rock is intensely complex when compared to the subject of this thread. I don't think a single track by the Beatles even came remotely close to the complexity of a King Crimson track, indeed any King Crimson track.
I disagree. The complexity in terms of layering and production of parts of St Pepper or the White Album are actually right up there with a lot of prog (especially when you consider the primitive tools they were working with). King Crimson is often very rythmically complex, but there are other sorts of complexity. The White Album certainly expanded the possibilities of the pop/rock genre and opened a lot of doors for the next generation prog audience (notwithstanding what the likes of early Floyd and Zappa were up to).
Speaking having covered it on stage, lot of Yes and Genesis is actually pretty simplistic musically (the complexity is in the structure and narrative) compared to some prog at the more jazz end of the spectrum.
People say they don't 'get' the Beatles it's a bit of a puzzle. I'm not a huge fan of some of the early poppy stuff myself but nearly every track from Revolver onwards is a classic.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 22:00
People say they don't 'get' the Beatles it's a bit of a puzzle. I'm not a huge fan of some of the early poppy stuff myself but nearly every track from Revolver onwards is a classic.
I agree. But tastes vary and so does the ability to appreciate and understand music. Not sure why "complexity" in particular has a specific merit.
If you want complex and layered, try some Eat Static. Or if you want simple (but beautiful) June Tabor. Yes. I know neither are 'Prog'.
Prog started well. But eventually became generally formulaic and stuck. Good Prog has as much musical value as any other genre.
montesquieu
04-07-2015, 22:11
I agree. But tastes vary and so does the ability to appreciate and understand music. Not sure why "complexity" in particular has a specific merit.
If you want complex and layered, try some Eat Static. Or if you want simple (but beautiful) June Tabor. Yes. I know neither are 'Prog'.
Prog started well. But eventually became generally formulaic and stuck. Good Prog has as much musical value as any other genre.
I didn't bring up the complexity issue! I suspect what was being got at was that the Beatles' music was somehow simplistic and of lesser value - which is patently not the case.
I was a big prog fan in my 70s high school/early uni days (in parallel with my interest in classical, baroque and renaissance) but 'moved on' to jazz rock ... I don't listen to much prog these days, except for the odd day of nostalgia when an old mate from the time comes round.
I went to see Yes a couple of years back at the Hammersmith Odeon (about a decade since last going to see them) with one of my old mates, and was reminded how 'thin' some of their stuff was musically - it all worked better on my old cheap and cheerful system back then which made it feel like there was more going on than their really was!
The later Beatles stuff was mostly very good, well thought out and technically brilliant. Initially I much preferred the Stones as they're music had more to it and suited my blues/jazz upbringing, but moved to the Beatles around revolver. abbey road time. Another of the to[p quality and technical bands of the day were the Kinks.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 22:20
I didn't bring up the complexity issue!
I was responding to both you Tom and to Paul.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 22:22
Another of the to[p quality and technical bands of the day were the Kinks.
Oh dear. Next you'll be mentioning the 'Animals'. ;) :D
Laugh if you wish Geoff, but Ray Davis was, and indeed still is a genius .....possibly the most talented writer of his generation;)
Laugh if you wish Geoff, but Ray Davis was, and indeed still is a genius .....possibly the most talented writer of his generation;)
Indeed he was. Waterloo Sunset is quite possibly the best song ever written.
The point about the Beatles was that Lennon and McCartney spurred each other on, and also acted as a 'sanity check' for each other's songs. Once the group split, that aspect went, so they both recorded some absolute shite and only a few gems. Lennon at least had the sense/dignity to stop releasing records for a while when his inspiration ran dry.
Prog Rock is intensely complex when compared to the subject of this thread. I don't think a single track by the Beatles even came remotely close to the complexity of a King Crimson track, indeed any King Crimson track.
And I don't think King Crimson or any prog band would have existed except for the Beatles.
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 22:58
Waterloo Sunset is quite possibly the best song ever written.
Was that a serious statement?
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 23:07
And I don't think King Crimson or any prog band would have existed except for the Beatles.
Hardly. In the mid sixties you had Zappa, Moody Blues, Byrds, Velvet Underground, Ted Nugent, Jefferson Airplane, Beefheart and many more!
I suppose it proves music is subjective, a bit like this forum :eyebrows: at least some folk agree
A London FM radio poll in 2004 named this the "Greatest Song About London", while Time Out named it the "Anthem of London". It holds spot #42 on Rolling Stone* 's list of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Musicians Paul Weller and Damon Albarn cite the song as their favourite of all time.Pitchfork Media named it the 29th best song of the 1960s.
Pop music journalist Robert Christgau has called the song "the most beautiful song in the English language". Pete Townshend of The Who has called it "divine" and "a masterpiece". Allmusic senior editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine concurred, citing it as "possibly the most beautiful song of the rock and roll era". On his album "The Interpreter: Live at Largo" Old 97's frontman Rhett Miller calls it "the greatest song ever written by a human being."
Was that a serious statement?
Of course. It's 42 in Rolling Stone's top 500 singles of all time, if that means anything.
Interestingly, the song was originally about Liverpool.
Hardly. In the mid sixties you had Zappa, Moody Blues, Byrds, Velvet Underground, Ted Nugent, Jefferson Airplane, Beefheart and many more!
You think those groups would have formed without the inspiration of the Beatles? The Byrds for example were formed as a direct result of Roger McGuinn seeing the film 'A Hard Day's Night'.
my post 66 is not showing in latest posts but is there...odd
walpurgis
04-07-2015, 23:25
You think those groups would have formed without the inspiration of the Beatles? The Byrds for example were formed as a direct result of Roger McGuinn seeing the film 'A Hard Day's Night'.
Of course. No Beatles influence in the work of Zappa, Beefheart or Jefferson Airplane for instance. Many bands were influential back then. Pink Floyd (that nobody has mentioned yet) were 'doing their own thing', so were the Small Faces. The Beatles, being a mega 'cash cow' just got more exposure. I believe Lynyrd Skynyrd kicked of around then too. Their brand of 'Southern States Rock' can hardly be regarded as Beatles influenced.
very true. Some of the blues artists from the states probably had a bigger influence, or at least as much. Not taking anything from the Beatles though, but they set of more of a pop culture and social revolution, than on heavy rock or underground, as it was then called. Groundhogs, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Family et al were all influenced by the black blues scene, and the likes of Jimmi Hendrix
You think those groups would have formed without the inspiration of the Beatles? The Byrds for example were formed as a direct result of Roger McGuinn seeing the film 'A Hard Day's Night'.
if you like him this is a great double album
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61Z7wmQ0xrL.jpg
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 04:55
I suppose it proves music is subjective, a bit like this forum :eyebrows: at least some folk agree
A London FM radio poll in 2004 named this the "Greatest Song About London", while Time Out named it the "Anthem of London". It holds spot #42 on Rolling Stone* 's list of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Musicians Paul Weller and Damon Albarn cite the song as their favourite of all time.Pitchfork Media named it the 29th best song of the 1960s.
Pop music journalist Robert Christgau has called the song "the most beautiful song in the English language". Pete Townshend of The Who has called it "divine" and "a masterpiece". Allmusic senior editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine concurred, citing it as "possibly the most beautiful song of the rock and roll era". On his album "The Interpreter: Live at Largo" Old 97's frontman Rhett Miller calls it "the greatest song ever written by a human being."
Well, it's OK init!
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 06:32
Gawd, that word genius again. Ray Davies a genius:doh:
There are lots of extremely talented people about, not all of them famous or recognised. Genius however, is extremely rare although you wouldn't think so considering its common usage nowadays.
On the complex thing..... lots of notes and layers doesn't make it musically complex. I have constant arg....discussions with a friend of mine about Joe Bonamassa . My mate calls him a genius and a brilliant guitarist whereas I think he is just a flash technician who 'plays too many notes'. I remain deeply unimpressed with everything of his I have seen and heard. Listening to BB King, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy and Jim Vaughn playing together highlights the problem. BB King probably plays less than half the notes the other jam in but every one is carefully thought out and meaningful in terms of the music. When it comes to it they are all playing round three chords and that is pretty simple musically.
Haselsh1
05-07-2015, 06:50
And I don't think King Crimson or any prog band would have existed except for the Beatles.
I may well be wrong but the evolution of Prog Rock is well documented and had nothing to do with the Beatles. In fact it had a lot to do with the Yardbirds and the Moody Blues, probably a lot more than the Beatles. In fact The Yardbirds directly evolved into Renaissance didn't they. Here we have one of the 70's greatest Prog Rock bands. The Moody Blues produced wonderful 'flowery' concept albums in keeping with most of Prog. The Beatles, if anything, were just a 60's ABBA.
Haselsh1
05-07-2015, 07:03
Also of course Prog Rock evolved over a few years and was never of the boy band format being a conceptual version of 'real' music. In fact whilst said Beatles were singing about some fucking yellow submarine, Prog Bands were indeed creating real music :eyebrows:
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 08:01
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Write_a_Progressive_Rock_Song
:D
Also of course Prog Rock evolved over a few years and was never of the boy band format being a conceptual version of 'real' music. In fact whilst said Beatles were singing about some fucking yellow submarine, Prog Bands were indeed creating real music :eyebrows:
Now you're just trolling. On the same album as Yellow Submarine is 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Name me some prog bands who were producing that sort of music in 1966. Most weren't even in existence then!
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 08:07
Now you're just trolling. On the same album as Yellow Submarine is 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Name me some prog bands who were producing that sort of music in 1966. Most weren't even in existence then!
.
Now come on Joe, don't rise to the bait:)
The Black Adder
05-07-2015, 08:33
Prog rock is rubbish!
:argument:
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 08:40
Prog rock is rubbish!
:argument:
Don't mention King Crimson:lol:
I beg to differ... lol.. but hey! :)
George Martin was the driving force behind The Beatles. Something that he never really too credit for. Even though he was announced as the 5th Beatle.
Without his input there would have been mediocre output, and most probably no output at all. He of course produced and discovered other artists at the time. His technical knowledge and design input in the (at the time) newly EMI REDD mixing desk was phenomenal. And then his feel for how music should sound and be crafted was everything, especially to the FAB 4.
I agree totally, though you must remember that the compositions were McCartney's.
The only track I ever liked by the Beatles was 'The Things We Said Today'. I thought the rest of it was total drivel. That is of course just my own personal opinion because whilst the Beatles were on full song I was about eight years old.
There's the crux of the matter Hasel. If you are too young to remember the time, you don't fully realise what a musical revolution the Beatles heralded. There will never be the equal.
I disagree. The complexity in terms of layering and production of parts of St Pepper or the White Album are actually right up there with a lot of prog (especially when you consider the primitive tools they were working with). King Crimson is often very rythmically complex, but there are other sorts of complexity. The White Album certainly expanded the possibilities of the pop/rock genre and opened a lot of doors for the next generation prog audience (notwithstanding what the likes of early Floyd and Zappa were up to).
Speaking having covered it on stage, lot of Yes and Genesis is actually pretty simplistic musically (the complexity is in the structure and narrative) compared to some prog at the more jazz end of the spectrum.
People say they don't 'get' the Beatles it's a bit of a puzzle. I'm not a huge fan of some of the early poppy stuff myself but nearly every track from Revolver onwards is a classic.
Totally agree.
But eventually became generally formulaic and stuck.
Try some Airbag, Porcupine Tree, Transatlantic and Panic Room and you will change your mind.
[FONT=Tahoma]I may well be wrong but the evolution of Prog Rock is well documented and had nothing to do with the Beatles.
The widely held belief is that Sergeant Pepper is the first Progressive Rock record ever made and the genre started with it.
Prog rock is rubbish!
To make such a sweeping statement without qualification is just non sequitur
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 09:48
To make such a sweeping statement without qualification..........
Jo - Original post deleted.
Apart from the narrow definition of 'genius' as someone with an IQ over 145, the term is so nebulous as to be meaningless. Someone might be a genius in his/her chosen field; e.g. George Best was a footballing genius, but a total numbskull otherwise.
In music terms, where do you draw the line? If Bach was a genius, what about Mozart, or Schubert? If Dylan was a genius, how about Leonard Cohen, or Joni Mitchell? Where should the line be drawn between genius and talent? To suggest that Ringo was/is a genius is however simply laughable. He was a good drummer in a great band.
To make such a sweeping statement without qualification..........
Well, quite. Why Hitler and not Stalin? Why Hawking and not Crick? Why that German philosopher whose name I can't spell and not Wittgenstein?
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 10:01
Any list that includes composers as genius that doesn't include Bach is a non sequitur.
Hitler proved himself rather less than a genius. Bowie and Hendrix were both extremely talented as is McCartney. Genius? Not according to my dictionary.
walpurgis
05-07-2015, 10:20
Where exactly are we going with all this?
Where exactly are we going with all this?
Personally, I'm going to Sainsbury's.
walpurgis
05-07-2015, 10:24
Personally, I'm going to Sainsbury's.
Can I come? I need some teabags. :)
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 10:24
Personally, I'm going to Sainsbury's.
:) I've already been to SuperU. Got some sugar for the apricot jam but forgot the lemons. Twit.
Those criticising Lennon's solo output would do well to aquire a copy of 'Lennon Legend' which is a best of compilation. It is reasonable to say all his post- Beatles work of any value would fit on one double and this is it. Although you still will want to skip over 'Imagine' and 'Beautiful Boy'
The Black Adder
05-07-2015, 14:56
To make such a sweeping statement without qualification is just non sequitur
It was in jest.
Those criticising Lennon's solo output would do well to aquire a copy of 'Lennon Legend' which is a best of compilation. It is reasonable to say all his post- Beatles work of any value would fit on one double and this is it. Although you still will want to skip over 'Imagine' and 'Beautiful Boy'
Personally I wasn't criticizing it, just saying that I don't get it. To be fair that is only going on the popular work that I've heard on radio and TV. However, these were singles and would have been deemed by someone involved with their release to be the best or most commercial tracks. On this basis I have no desire to investigate further when there is so much other music that I do want to try and hear. I might be missing out on some great music but there isn't time to listen to everything.
Those criticising Lennon's solo output would do well to aquire a copy of 'Lennon Legend' which is a best of compilation. It is reasonable to say all his post- Beatles work of any value would fit on one double and this is it. Although you still will want to skip over 'Imagine' and 'Beautiful Boy'
Why? I rather like them both. He might have been somewhat hypocritical in writing 'Imagine' ("Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can ....", written by someone who was a multi-millionare and readily amassed possessions), but the thesis, whilst impossibly idealistic, does make you think "What if?".
'Beautiful Boy' is just a sweet lullaby.
Would agree that 'Lennon Legend' is probably all the Lennon you need, but I have a soft spot for 'Double Fantasy'.
Gordon Steadman
05-07-2015, 16:46
Personally I wasn't criticizing it, just saying that I don't get it. To be fair that is only going on the popular work that I've heard on radio and TV. However, these were singles and would have been deemed by someone involved with their release to be the best or most commercial tracks. On this basis I have no desire to investigate further when there is so much other music that I do want to try and hear. I might be missing out on some great music but there isn't time to listen to everything.
How very true. I already have more than I can listen to in this lifetime. I thought Lennon was pretty good but in general I tend to like melodic music so McCartney suited me better. At least when they were together Lennon reigned in the more saccharine McCartney. I think I've heard just about the entire output including all the American releases of the Beatles but there is very little indeed apart from a couple of tracks from Double Fantasy that I ever listen to post Beatles.
Canetoad
06-07-2015, 00:54
Some of Yoko's work on Double Fantasy is tripe! Shame on Lennon for letting it happen! Artist? Hah! She latched onto Lennon's vulnerability like The Alien latches onto a head!
McCartney's real genius was his ability to write so many beautiful melodies. His lyrics could be a little bit "out there" though. There is some great music in his Wings work, which I like very much.
All this is, of course, my opinion... ;)
The Black Adder
06-07-2015, 05:45
Band on the run is a great album... and anyone who can write a track like Live and Let Die has to be worth a lot. It's a superb track.
But I simply don't like his latest stuff.
walpurgis
06-07-2015, 08:42
I find it ugly and contrived.
Gordon Steadman
06-07-2015, 09:04
Some of Yoko's work on Double Fantasy is tripe! Shame on Lennon for letting it happen! Artist? Hah! She latched onto Lennon's vulnerability like The Alien latches onto a head!
McCartney's real genius was his ability to write so many beautiful melodies. His lyrics could be a little bit "out there" though. There is some great music in his Wings work, which I like very much.
All this is, of course, my opinion... ;)
Which is as valid as anyone else's:)
Gordon Steadman
06-07-2015, 09:04
I find it ugly and contrived.
Baby I'm amazed:eyebrows:
Or I would have been in 1985.
Two decent tracks on a couple of LPs. Not a lot to show really.
PS. I stopped listening to pop after Band on the Run - just a coincidence - so I have no idea what he produced after that. Who knows, there may be some gems in there.
'Band on the Run' does of course include the amazing Lennon pastiche 'Let Me Roll It', which kind of rescues the album.
Canetoad
06-07-2015, 10:49
Venus and Mars is very good. :)
Gordon Steadman
06-07-2015, 11:17
I've just downloaded Wing's Greatest Hits.
The best thing on it is Mull of 'Kin Tyre!!! Who knows what the misses were like.
Also have yet to listen to Flaming Pie, also downloaded. That will be the first solo McCartney LP I have listened to since his first. Let's hope for a few surprises.
Gordon Steadman
06-07-2015, 12:19
I have just listened to Flaming Pie.
As far as I can see, there is very little evidence of Genius. Some talent but very, very, very average pop music with no standout tracks to say that there is something special trying to get out.
He seems to be just going through the motions (Marco, stop that )
I think I shall pop back to Bach.
Pierre De Grenoble
06-07-2015, 18:46
I never liked Cliff Richards. He made my skin crawl.
Saw him in Pantomine one time with Helen Shapeiro... now she was a voice and a hunny... :eyebrows:
walpurgis
06-07-2015, 18:52
My gawd! How old are you?
I suppose she was a "hunny", if you like funny looking midgets with moustaches. :eek:
Pierre De Grenoble
06-07-2015, 18:57
The widely held belief is that Sergeant Pepper is the first Progressive Rock record ever made and the genre started with it.
Nope that was Crimson's "Court Of.."
Pierre De Grenoble
06-07-2015, 19:03
My gawd! How old are you?
I suppose she was a "hunny", if you like funny looking midgets with moustaches. :eek:
hirsute ladies... :whistle: think I was 7 or 8...:scratch:
Pierre De Grenoble
06-07-2015, 19:08
I kinda think that Pepper was the album that broke the mould for the recording industry.. George Martin was the catalyst perhaps but it was the Beatles that had the imagination and the desire to spend large amounts of Studio time ( = their cash) on putting their vision out there.... it's far to easy to forget jest what a omg moment that album was.. :D
Yes Macca went on to long but Ram, Band On The Run and Venus and Mars are stunning. Lennon's POB is seminal and Imagine is pretty good. Those that "don't get" The Beatles are either too young or don't get history. Even Stones supporters who disliked The Beatles got the The Beatles.
Haselsh1
08-07-2015, 13:17
Nope that was Crimson's "Court Of.."
Saying that Sgt Pepper was the first ever Prog Rock album is like saying Led I gave way to ABBA. The very early Moody Blues albums featuring Justin Hayward were considerably more Prog Rock than was Sgt Pepper. Mix these in with the Nice and you have the making of the quintessentially excellent music that is Prog Rock. It's a real shame that headbangers never learnt from the much more educated rock that was Prog ;)
Saying that Sgt Pepper was the first ever Prog Rock album is like saying Led I gave way to ABBA. The very early Moody Blues albums featuring Justin Hayward were considerably more Prog Rock than was Sgt Pepper. Mix these in with the Nice and you have the making of the quintessentially excellent music that is Prog Rock. It's a real shame that headbangers never learnt from the much more educated rock that was Prog ;)
The Moody Blues should have packed it in after 'Go Now!'.
Gordon Steadman
08-07-2015, 14:44
I still don't understand why people need all these labels to describe music. I have all the these PR bands just shoved in 'rock' with all the other stuff. There is a huge amount of crossover. Most of the Prog rockers merit one or two tracks in my collection but to concentrate on that one genre seems very limiting to me. I've heard it called pretentious quite often and although that is a bit unkind I suppose, I certainly found a lot of it that way at the time and still do. Tull I liked because they didn't take themselves so damned seriously as some. I like some of Yes's stuff but I'd rather not worship at their altar.
As in all things, there is good music to be found there as well as crap.
Haselsh1
08-07-2015, 14:58
Yes Gordon, I have avoided any mention of ELP because I always thought that their music epitomised the pompous nature of certain Prog Rock. I loved Brain Salad Surgery and still have a fully sealed vinyl version I bought in 2000 but I never fully caught the ELP thing. One other band I loved was Rush in their 2112 era. I also loved their 'Fly by Night' album as the music back then was sublime but my alltime favourites were early Genesis. In saying that though I think 'A Trick of the Tail' is one of their finest hours.
Back in that time period I also loved bands like Bad Company, Thin Lizzy and Golden Earing but my favourite was always going to be Prog Rock because it wasn't so musically simplistic. I am deeply saddened by the passing of Chris Squire as he was one of the driving forces behind this music type and I have seen him play live so many times but as with all things I guess, it has to come to an end and all we have are memories and recordings.
montesquieu
19-07-2015, 20:25
Another take on the Ono retrospective ... I'm 100% with this view actually, Ono brought out the poseur in Lennon ... and not in a good way ....
http://www.capx.co/capx-reviews-yoko-ono-at-the-museum-of-modern-art-new-york/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.