Ginscpy's everlasting gobstopper Beatles thread - 69 threads combined!

[Douger]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnCegy8ZyJM&feature=related]RAIDMAX.mpg - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Synthaholic]

The Beatles weren't a rock band, they were a pop band.

 

[ginscpy]

OK Revisionists - a challenge...................................................

Why aren't The Beatles the best rock group of all time - awsome body of work in 10 years......................

Will never be duplicated ..

Was the reason Elvis and Sinatra and society in general went to long hair.......................

Had individual short -comings to be sure

Establishment =types wore longhair caise of the Beatles

like Warren Beatty lol ..............

 

[bayoubill]

OK Revisionists - a challenge...................................................

Why aren't The Beatles the best rock group of all time - awsome body of work in 10 years......................

Will never be duplicated ..

Was the reason Elvis and Sinatra and society in general went to long hair.......................

Had individual short -comings to be sure

Establishment =types wore longhair caise of the Beatles

like Warren Beatty lol ..............

lol... you still seem to insist that it's all about stylistic stuff that has nothing to do with music... i.e., the hair, etc...

would you mind please telling us once and for all how old you are, ginscpy...?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Yeah -the Fab 4 was really a flop in Ed Sullivan and the 2 concerts in Shea Stadium..........................

~400 concerts vs. ~2300 The GD were clearly a more prolific live group.

The Beatles were a pop band. I'm not denigrating them. They're one of my favorite bands and their artistry in the studio is unmatched in history. But rock n roll is played on a stage, live, in front of the audience, in person.

I get what you're saying, but to me "real" rock n roll is played with instruments, a band, and an audience-that's it. The Dead had a big stage production that quite frankly isn't very rock n roll to me. The whole videos the Dead had going on. And quite frankly to be blunt: Jerry Garcia was a very overrated guitar player.

There are many bands that are awful at live shows, but are great actual musicians, then there are bands that are the opposite. Doesn't mean one is more rock n roll over the other.

As for the Dead, I think they improvised WAY too much on stage-and not to mention it's easier than playing everything perfectly and to a tee every night. You mess up improvising/jamming and not many people will notice. You mess up on a song that you play often-everybody knows.


edit: But on another note I don't think there's anybody (except for maybe Elvis) you can argue as being more influential to music (not just rock) in the 20th century than The Beatles.

 

[editec]

I'd say that in terms of advancing rock or pop?

The BEACH BOYS might take the silver medal.

 

[ginscpy]

OK Revisionists - a challenge...................................................

Why aren't The Beatles the best rock group of all time - awsome body of work in 10 years......................

Will never be duplicated ..

Was the reason Elvis and Sinatra and society in general went to long hair.......................

Had individual short -comings to be sure

Establishment =types wore longhair caise of the Beatles

like Warren Beatty lol ..............

lol... you still seem to insist that it's all about stylistic stuff that has nothing to do with music... i.e., the hair, etc...

would you mind please telling us once and for all how old you are, ginscpy...?

recently turned 58

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I get what you're saying, but to me "real" rock n roll is played with instruments, a band, and an audience-that's it. The Dead had a big stage production that quite frankly isn't very rock n roll to me. The whole videos the Dead had going on. And quite frankly to be blunt: Jerry Garcia was a very overrated guitar player.

I never rated Garcia among the guitar greats - Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, etc. - he's a band leader not a guitar great. You can have the greatest band without having the best musicians in history - all you need is competent musicians and the ability the rock out.

The dead definitely were not exclusively a rock band - they were a folk band as well - and to be honest, I've never actually seen them live. But I've seen Phil & Friends and if the Truckin' they play is anything close to how it was back in the day I can't see how that's not rocknroll.

There are many bands that are awful at live shows, but are great actual musicians, then there are bands that are the opposite. Doesn't mean one is more rock n roll over the other.

Music - in general - is about live performance. It always has been. The recording industry is an aberration that has popped up over the last 100 years. This is why I love the pirated music industry. By making it harder for bands to make $$$$ in the studio - you drive them to the stage to make up the difference. Those that can't keep a live act going shouldn't be around anymore. The Beatles maybe are the exception that proves that rule as their studio work was almost like an entirely different art onto itself.


(in reference to other poster above- the Beach Boys are in a class all their own)

As for the Dead, I think they improvised WAY too much on stage-and not to mention it's easier than playing everything perfectly and to a tee every night.

INSTRUMENTAL IMPROVISATION IS THE HEART OF ROCK N ROLL.

You mess up improvising/jamming and not many people will notice.

???? Maybe people who don't understand what kind of music they think sounds good won't notice.

You mess up on a song that you play often-everybody knows.

If you want to go a concert where you can, with enough familiarity, predict exactly what the next note will be - try the symphony. Live performance isn't a fucking exam that the band takes and the audience grades - its something that is.... well... ALIVE. If you're uncomfortable with not knowing what to expect next from a band - don't go to live performances.

edit: But on another note I don't think there's anybody (except for maybe Elvis) you can argue as being more influential to music (not just rock) in the 20th century than The Beatles.

That depends on how you define "influential to music". If you ask people who play in bands I doubt most of them would consider the beatles their main influence. They'd mention the led zepelin, stones, jimi hendrix, bands like that (maybe that list is a little dated - but you get my point). Bands who didn't have as many "catchy" tunes as the Beatles (though quite a few) - but who quite frankly could rock out harder.

That's the difference between pop and rock. Pop is about creating static art with music. You get a lot of time to put some real creative thought into it, and you produce masterpieces like "let it be" that people everywhere can cue up in their head any time they want. But its a static work of art - like a painting or a sculpture. Rock n Roll is performance art. It evolves even as it is played. Yes - a lot of creative forethought is also put into it - and yes some bands improvise more than others, sure, but as an audience member at a rock concert you will hear things that you didn't expect to happen.

Its all really a matter of opinion anyway. I just don't get why people go to concerts expecting to hear a tune exactly the same way it comes off on the album. If that's what you want - why bother even going?

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I get what you're saying, but to me "real" rock n roll is played with instruments, a band, and an audience-that's it. The Dead had a big stage production that quite frankly isn't very rock n roll to me. The whole videos the Dead had going on. And quite frankly to be blunt: Jerry Garcia was a very overrated guitar player.

I never rated Garcia among the guitar greats - Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, etc. - he's a band leader not a guitar great. You can have the greatest band without having the best musicians in history - all you need is competent musicians and the ability the rock out.

The dead definitely were not exclusively a rock band - they were a folk band as well - and to be honest, I've never actually seen them live. But I've seen Phil & Friends and if the Truckin' they play is anything close to how it was back in the day I can't see how that's not rocknroll.

I agree with this.

There are many bands that are awful at live shows, but are great actual musicians, then there are bands that are the opposite. Doesn't mean one is more rock n roll over the other.

Music - in general - is about live performance. It always has been. The recording industry is an aberration that has popped up over the last 100 years. This is why I love the pirated music industry. By making it harder for bands to make $$$$ in the studio - you drive them to the stage to make up the difference. Those that can't keep a live act going shouldn't be around anymore. The Beatles maybe are the exception that proves that rule as their studio work was almost like an entirely different art onto itself.

I disagree-the pirating of music is what's wrong with the music scene right now. It's a lack of respect of music in my opinion. And outside of my opinion-it's extremely hard for many bands out there to make it anymore. The internet has stunted the development of new bands-not enhanced it.

INSTRUMENTAL IMPROVISATION IS THE HEART OF ROCK N ROLL.



???? Maybe people who don't understand what kind of music they think sounds good won't notice.

You mess up on a song that you play often-everybody knows.

If you want to go a concert where you can, with enough familiarity, predict exactly what the next note will be - try the symphony. Live performance isn't a fucking exam that the band takes and the audience grades - its something that is.... well... ALIVE. If you're uncomfortable with not knowing what to expect next from a band - don't go to live performances.

There's a difference between improvising, and keeping your show fresh. Very few bands actually improvise on stage together, and it's easier to improvise than it is to play actual songs with structure. Improvising a 20 minute song though isn't rock n roll.

edit: But on another note I don't think there's anybody (except for maybe Elvis) you can argue as being more influential to music (not just rock) in the 20th century than The Beatles.

That depends on how you define "influential to music". If you ask people who play in bands I doubt most of them would consider the beatles their main influence. They'd mention the led zepelin, stones, jimi hendrix, bands like that (maybe that list is a little dated - but you get my point). Bands who didn't have as many "catchy" tunes as the Beatles (though quite a few) - but who quite frankly could rock out harder.

That's the difference between pop and rock. Pop is about creating static art with music. You get a lot of time to put some real creative thought into it, and you produce masterpieces like "let it be" that people everywhere can cue up in their head any time they want. But its a static work of art - like a painting or a sculpture. Rock n Roll is performance art. It evolves even as it is played. Yes - a lot of creative forethought is also put into it - and yes some bands improvise more than others, sure, but as an audience member at a rock concert you will hear things that you didn't expect to happen.

Its all really a matter of opinion anyway. I just don't get why people go to concerts expecting to hear a tune exactly the same way it comes off on the album. If that's what you want - why bother even going?

Well The Beatles were extremely influential in one major regard: nobody before them actually wrote their own lyrics/music (outside of Buddy Holly), and after them nobody dared not to. Paul McCartney on the bass had a lot of bass lines and fills-which wasn't done before that time. And a lot of young bands out there today will cite The Beatles as an influence. Just because somebody doesn't name a group as an influence-doesn't mean their influence isn't there. Most people who play the electric guitar for example are influenced by Les Paul-even if they never cite him as one.

And also not all of their music was "pop" (while I certainly agree a lot of it was). I Want You (She's So Heavy) was also one of the heaviest (pun not intended) riffs at that time. I would argue it's heavier than what Zeppelin was doing at that time. Revolution No.9 is anything but pop, very very strange "song".

Also when Rock n Roll records are recorded, it's not spontaneous. You have to decide what key to play in, what type of scales you're going to use, any time changes, etc. But overall I agree bands/players need to mix it up a bit. I've played in tons of shows (guitar), and it's boring doing the same solos all the time-so I'll switch it up every now and then and just solo over whatever scale was used.

I think you do need some things in a show that the audience doesn't expect. But I've been to tons of concerts where the show ends, and everybody kind of looks at each other and like is wow they didn't play......(whatever song).... So I do think you need to balance that out.

I guess my overall point (that I probably made very poorly), is "rock n roll" is different to everybody. That's what makes it so great-there are no real rules.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I could name the members of the Beatles for $10 million - I couldnt name one member of the Gratefull Dead except for Jerry Garcia

Even namingthe Stones is a challenge

could it be because your a little obsessed with them?......you think that might be it?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

You don't have to name them for them to be good.

Stones have also played in excess of 2k shows.

and you don't have to name 'em all for them to suck...

I can name all the Stones... and they've sucked for the last 35 years...

Your criticism is so original, in depth, and Earth shattering.


I'm not a big stones fan myself. But they are a real live rock n roll band - vs. a studio pop band.

if you like 65+ year old Rock n Rollers.....the Stones should have called it a day a long time ago....its not to appealing seeing a 68 year old guy with a midriff on prancing around the stage....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The Beatles weren't a rock band, they were a pop band.

if you want to call them that.....knock yourself out.....pop is shit like the Back Street Boys and Madonna.....if it has an Electric Guitar as its lead instrument ....its Rock.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'd say that in terms of advancing rock or pop?

The BEACH BOYS might take the silver medal.

Ed if it wasnt for the British Invasion the Beach Boys would still be playing hot rod and surf songs......

 

[Harry Dresden]

I just don't get why people go to concerts expecting to hear a tune exactly the same way it comes off on the album. If that's what you want - why bother even going?

if Classical players can play it note for note......why cant Rock players?......Richie Blackmore,Mark Knopfler and Phil Keaggy do a dam good job of doing that.......just asking.....

 

[uscitizen]

AC/DC is much better than the Beatles ever were.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Well The Beatles were extremely influential in one major regard: nobody before them actually wrote their own lyrics/music (outside of Buddy Holly), and after them nobody dared not to. Paul McCartney on the bass had a lot of bass lines and fills-which wasn't done before that time. And a lot of young bands out there today will cite The Beatles as an influence. Just because somebody doesn't name a group as an influence-doesn't mean their influence isn't there. Most people who play the electric guitar for example are influenced by Les Paul-even if they never cite him as one.

what??.....ever hear of Chuck Berry?.....Link Wray?.....The Everly Brothers?....Richie Valens?....Bo Diddley?......Little Richard?......

 

[Harry Dresden]

AC/DC is much better than the Beatles ever were.

for me AC/DC is the Bon Scott Era.....after that forget it.....

 

[Dr Grump]

I could name the members of the Beatles for $10 million - I couldnt name one member of the Gratefull Dead except for Jerry Garcia

Even namingthe Stones is a challenge

oh yeah sure... the fact that a lowly worm is able to name all four members of the band is proof that the band deserves to be named the greatest musical act ever...

I'd look at record sales, influence and chart positions..

GD don't even come close.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Beatles weren't a rock band, they were a pop band.

if you want to call them that.....knock yourself out.....pop is shit like the Back Street Boys and Madonna.....if it has an Electric Guitar as its lead instrument ....its Rock.......

Rock is the wrong term. Back then it was Rock And Roll.

The Beatles did some Rock in their later years, but I mainly consider them a Pop band (stuff like "Do You Wanna Know A Secret", "And I Love Her") and Rock And Roll band ("Twist & Shout", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand").

In any case, they were the best.

 

[Synthaholic]

AC/DC is much better than the Beatles ever were.

Now you're just