jester1470 Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 nicked off another site... seems apt...Norwegian Wood (to the tune of!)I once had a girlOr as you knowShe's now had meShe showed me her legIsnt it goodNorwegian WoodShe told me that I should stop drinkingi started to laughSo I lit up a spliff and the next daywoke up in the bathShe took off her legsmacked me in the headI went back to bedCovered in bloodIsnt it goodNorwegian woodEleanor RigbyHeather McCartney picks up a cheque every week from a bank in the strandIsnt life grand?Look at her shopping, lunching with ladies in frocks costing ten thousand pounds.Trebles all roundAll this lovely money, where did it all come from? All this lovely money, where did it all come from?Father McCartney, writing the words to the songs that we all love to hearFor at least forty yearsMillions of dollars, to a monoped model he married one day on a whim.More fool him.Ah, look at all those wealthy lawyers,Ah, look at all those wealthy lawyersHeather McCartney, married a Beatle and took him for all that he hadIsnt it sadThere go the royalties, over the counter at Prada and Christian Dior.What was it for?All that lovely money, where did it all go wrong?All that lovely money, where did it all go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 Were The Beatles nae a skiffle band until Lennon heard Elvis and decided Rock and Roll was the way to go? So the Beatles aren't the starting point at all, The King is. But then he stole everything off black musicians (allegedly) so let's keep tracing back shall we....8-)The Beatles were a very acomplished covers group who wrote some pretty good songs of theor own originally. Lennon saw Elvis on TV and thought "that's a good job." the rest is history. Like completely reinventing how popular music as we know it is written, recorded and produced. No one denies that black musicains / Elvis or anything else existed before the Beatles - no - one ever said that. The fact is the Beatles took music as it existed and completley redefined it. It's kind of like how Kraftwerk completley changed music by writing and recording it entirley on machines and didn't use a musical "instrument" as such at all.It's always amusing when someone who doesn't like a particular group or artist will argue till they are blue in the face that they are right and the group / artist in question had no appeal or impact.Anyone who has posted saying "Beethoven" or "Elvis" existed before the Beatles so "let's trace music back to them" are completley missing the point and are clearly not listening to a word any of the sensible people here are saying, so let's just clarify it:THE BEATLES WERE NOT THE FIRST BAND TO INHABIT THE EARTH. THEY TOOK INFLUENCE FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS AND ARTISTS. THEY THEN (WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A PRODUCER AND TEAM OF ENGINEERS) TOOK MUSIC AS IT WAS KNOWN BEFORE AND CHANGED IT WHICH HAS ENABLED EVERYONE AFTER THEM TO WRITE AND RECORD IN A WAY THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE THE BEATLES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 nicked off another site... seems apt...Norwegian Wood (to the tune of!)I once had a girlOr as you knowShe's now had meShe showed me her legIsnt it goodNorwegian WoodShe told me that I should stop drinkingi started to laughSo I lit up a spliff and the next daywoke up in the bathShe took off her legsmacked me in the headI went back to bedCovered in bloodIsnt it goodNorwegian woodEleanor RigbyHeather McCartney picks up a cheque every week from a bank in the strandIsnt life grand?Look at her shopping, lunching with ladies in frocks costing ten thousand pounds.Trebles all roundAll this lovely money, where did it all come from? All this lovely money, where did it all come from?Father McCartney, writing the words to the songs that we all love to hearFor at least forty yearsMillions of dollars, to a monoped model he married one day on a whim.More fool him.Ah, look at all those wealthy lawyers,Ah, look at all those wealthy lawyersHeather McCartney, married a Beatle and took him for all that he hadIsnt it sadThere go the royalties, over the counter at Prada and Christian Dior.What was it for?All that lovely money, where did it all go wrong?All that lovely money, where did it all go wrong?The most dissapointing aspect of that post is it doesn't contain a CheersStuartat the end of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 Before anyone gets on at me for shouting, I apologise in advance.But it seems like the only way to get the point across.Some folk don't seem to be listening or taking on board the truth.Did someone say they liked Dire Straits here earlier? Dusty?"Why worry now - there should be sunshine after rain!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 THE BEATLES WERE NOT THE FIRST BAND TO INHABIT THE EARTH. THEY TOOK INFLUENCE FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS AND ARTISTS. THEY THEN (WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A PRODUCER AND TEAM OF ENGINEERS) TOOK MUSIC AS IT WAS KNOWN BEFORE AND CHANGED IT WHICH HAS ENABLED EVERYONE AFTER THEM TO WRITE AND RECORD IN A WAY THAT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE THE BEATLES.Don't most groups take influence from other artists and expand and put their own mark on it, covers bands as an exception of course. Most artists today still write using methods that were established and in place well before the Beatles were even born let alone existed as a band. My take on it is that the Beatles redifined music as a mass marketable tool and created the fervant 'fan fever' that we still see with bands like Busted/McFly. Do we really want to thank them for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 Don't most groups take influence from other artists and expand and put their own mark on it, covers bands as an exception of course. Most artists today still write using methods that were established and in place well before the Beatles were even born let alone existed as a band. My take on it is that the Beatles redifined music as a mass marketable tool and created the fervant 'fan fever' that we still see with bands like Busted/McFly. Do we really want to thank them for that?It's dificult to answer that with anything other than a resounding"fuck off"I'm not listening anymore and i'm sure everyone else with a modicum of sensibility isn't either.Go back and listen to all your "special" bands that weren't influenced in any way whatsoever by the Beatles. You're a special person, too, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 It's always amusing when someone who doesn't like a particular group or artist will argue till they are blue in the face that they are right and the group / artist in question had no appeal or impact.It's always amusing when someone who believes the Beatles are the biggest influence on modern music can't accept that other people think otherwise and can provide a counter argument. You can believe what you wish, others can do the same. I do like a lot of Beatles stuff, own a great deal, so I'm not talking as someone who hates them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 It's always amusing when someone who believes the Beatles are the biggest influence on modern music can't accept that other people think otherwise and can provide a counter argument. You can believe what you wish, others can do the same. I do like a lot of Beatles stuff, own a great deal, so I'm not talking as someone who hates them.Do you like Revolver ? Or maybe you're a Sgt pepper fan? Personally I think Abbey Road is my favourite today, although I do think Revolver is my overall "favourite."If you get the chance, check out past masters vol. 2 - In my opinion the best Beatles songs collected on one CD."Roll up for the Mystery Tour - step right his way." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 Do you like Revolver ? Or maybe you're a Sgt pepper fan? Personally I think Abbey Road is my favourite today, although I do think Revolver is my overall "favourite."If you get the chance, check out past masters vol. 2 - In my opinion the best Beatles songs collected on one CD."Roll up for the Mystery Tour - step right his way."I've listened to Sgt. Pepper once all the way through, disliked most of it, I find it to be one of the most overrated albums I've ever listened to. Revolver is good, my favourite Beatles albums are Help! and With The Beatles, not the fashionable choices by any means but both contain a strong overall selection of good tunes, but that's purely my opinion. I wasn't fussed about Abbey Road myself, I like a lot of The White Album but there's too much filler on it. I'm not an obsessive fan so never remember the whole content of the albums to be able to debate in any detail, the only album I haven't heard is Let It Be. Every album has good tracks on there, Beatles For Sale is the only one I found very poor overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 It's dificult to answer that with anything other than a resounding"fuck off"I'm not listening anymore and i'm sure everyone else with a modicum of sensibility isn't either.Go back and listen to all your "special" bands that weren't influenced in any way whatsoever by the Beatles. You're a special person, too, sir.If you'll read back through my posts i think you'll find i didn't say the Beatles had absolutely no influence over the bands, just not directly in their music. I'm not arguing the point about technology and recording techniques. Just that they're not directly responsible for everyone elses music these days.No need to be stroppy, just because i don't agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ash. Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 My take on it is that the Beatles redifined music as a mass marketable tool and created the fervant 'fan fever' that we still see with bands like Busted/McFly. Do we really want to thank them for that?yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartmaxwell Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 No need to be stroppy, just because i don't agree with you.HYPOCRITE*cough* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkt Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 If you get the chance, check out past masters vol. 2 - In my opinion the best Beatles songs collected on one CD.."I bought past master one on ebay thinking it was past masters 2 (luckily i can borrow that from my dad though). not as good collection as volume 2 but reminds everyone how gems of a sides and bsides alike the band recorded that didnt even make it onto their albums. my personal favourite is "im down". McCartneys vocal on it is amazin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirkt Posted October 28, 2006 Report Share Posted October 28, 2006 I've listened to Sgt. Pepper once all the way through, disliked most of it, I find it to be one of the most overrated albums I've ever listened to. Revolver is good, my favourite Beatles albums are Help! and With The Beatles, not the fashionable choices by any means but both contain a strong overall selection of good tunes, but that's purely my opinion. I wasn't fussed about Abbey Road myself, I like a lot of The White Album but there's too much filler on it. I'm not an obsessive fan so never remember the whole content of the albums to be able to debate in any detail, the only album I haven't heard is Let It Be. Every album has good tracks on there, Beatles For Sale is the only one I found very poor overall.Let it Be, apparently being the Beatles at their worst, is fantastic. I can't fault it. Although i would choose let it be naked over the spector mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DustyDeviada Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 It's always amusing when someone who believes the Beatles are the biggest influence on modern music can't accept that other people think otherwise and can provide a counter argument. You can believe what you wish, others can do the same. I do like a lot of Beatles stuff, own a great deal, so I'm not talking as someone who hates them.The interesting thing is though, no one IS providing a counter argument. People are just saying things like "I don't think the Beatles were that great/influential/the best band ever", but they're not putting forward any alternatives for acts who, in their opionion, are "better" or more influential.So, getting back to where we started from... I still say The Beatles are the best band ever - is someone going to ry to put forward an argument for the Stones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MKII Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The interesting thing is though, no one IS providing a counter argument. People are just saying things like "I don't think the Beatles were that great/influential/the best band ever", but they're not putting forward any alternatives for acts who, in their opionion, are "better" or more influential.So, getting back to where we started from... I still say The Beatles are the best band ever - is someone going to ry to put forward an argument for the Stones?Where we started has nothing to do with what this thread has become, wank. Anyway, I love The Beatles and my favourite album by them is The Beatles, but I prefer The Rolling Stones Beggars Banquet over that, so... hud at! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The interesting thing is though, no one IS providing a counter argument. People are just saying things like "I don't think the Beatles were that great/influential/the best band ever", but they're not putting forward any alternatives for acts who, in their opionion, are "better" or more influential.So, getting back to where we started from... I still say The Beatles are the best band ever - is someone going to ry to put forward an argument for the Stones?I could put forward a load of acts i personally think are better than the Beatles, but that would be my 'personal' opinion in the same way as the Beatles are the best according to you.I'm not sure about influential and innovative. Maybe Tool, Meshuggah, Pink Floyd, Radiohead, Massive Attack, Elvis, Frank Sinatra (performance wse- you see a million wannabe Sinatra male solo artists), Metallica (see almost any metal band from the last 20 years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Meshuggah?! o_O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Meshuggah?! o_OThey use odd chordal progressions, their drummer can drum in two time sigs at once. They also use extended polymetric passages and use atonal vocals. They push the boundries of heavy music. Thats innovation... And they're also very influential among modern metal bands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Gold Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 They use odd chordal progressions, their drummer can drum in two time sigs at once. They push the boundries of heavy music. Thats innovation...Fair doos... but if that's no more innovative than I am the Walrus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Fair doos... but if that's no more innovative than I am the Walrus.Its certainly no-less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Erm, maybe not. To a minority of metal/noise fans they may be important, but in the grand scale of things they really don't measure up to The Beatles in terms of scope of influence.Three bands directly influenced by The Beatles, and hence covered by previous posts on this thread.You could make a serious case with either of those guys, but I would suggest it was their iconic nature and their behaviour in a nonmusical capacity that contributed to their status. They're undoubtedly influential, but both were spent forces in terms of musical innovation by the time the Beatles came around. Elvis was the blueprint for the modern frontman, but in terms of musical legacy he falls short of the Beatles on closer inspection. Sinatra was the epitome of the "managed" artist, with a team of songwriters, producers and musicians doing the hard work, as was the case for nearly all artists at the time. Until The Beatles came around, that is...Yes, Metallica are influential within the metal scene, but that's pretty much the limit of their scope. The Beatles transcended genres, and continue to do so.Limited appeal doesn't mean that the band isn't innovative or influential, as you should well know.I agree with your point about Radiohead, Massive Attack and Pink Floyd.The Beatles would maybe have only been a covers band if Lennon hadn't seen Elvis perform.Maybe the Beatles wouldn't have been so openly accepted/ adulated if artists like Sinatra hadn't paved the way for fan hype already.Metallica have sold a lot of albums and you'd struggle to find any bands in the metal genre (which lets face it, is a massive genre encompassing many levels and styles as well as just straight metal- several major acoustic artists cite One's intro as a major influence on their acoustic music) which hasn't taken influence from Metallica somewhere along the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skull Commander Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The most important bands of the last 40 years are the following:SkindredDub WarCecilBullyrag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesxman Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 My understanding (and no doubt the music scholars out there will shoot me down) is that prior to the appearance of the likes of Elvis in the mid to late 50's, mainstream music mainly consisted of crooner type singers, Sinatra being the most well known. The Beatles could be said to be a case of 'right place, right time', there were no real alternatives and so they became the teeny bopper darlings and the 'first' beat group, good looking young lads, longish hair, nice suits, etc, destined to attract a teenage girl audience. Once the cash and drugs had rolled in from the initial flood of albums, they had the ability to become experimental with Revolver and Rubber Soul. A lot of which was driven by Lennon trying to keep up with your Dylan's. As the 60's progressed and bands like the Jimi Hendrix Experience and The Doors appeared, pretty much blowing The Beatles away in terms of excitement and inventiveness, they trundled on trying to keep up, with ever diminishing returns, although some remaining high points.But at the end of the day this is my take, there are some on this thread who have complete tunnel vision about The Beatles influencing everything that ever happened to music, and they can disagree on my above points based on the fact they think everything the Beatles ever recorded was genius whereas I think they undoubtedly recorded a lot of great music but also some very average music. Also the fact they were the first successful beat group provides an easy argument that all such groups since have to be thankful to The Beatles for paving the way should you be so inclined to argue this point for eternity.Elvis had the voice, the looks but also a dodgy manager, hence much lacking of quality control. But then The Beatles did Ob La Di Ob La Dah, the Octopus' Garden and Yellow Submarine.... But at the end of the day Elvis' career still lasted over double that of The Beatles, however many ups and downs. And he was still the biggest selling artist in the UK the other year. In terms of Beatles vs. Stones, I prefer The Beatles earlier to mid-60's output but The Stones' mid to late 60's/early 70's output. Trying to define the most influential artist of all time? The stuff of the NME and crap Channel 4 list programmes and purely academic/subjective. Why not let people express their own opinion instead of trying to force belief in The Beatles down everyone's throat?Oh, and the original point of this thread was actually some chap trying to track down a particular version of Eleanor Rigby.....which is a very annoying song. God, too much coffee already.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsh Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 The most important bands of the last 40 years are the following:SkindredDub WarCecilBullyragVoy!And surely you can't leave out the Dust Junkys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.