Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:18 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
The Beatles 
Author Message
Post The Beatles
This topic got started in the basketball thread somehow. I decided that The Beatles are worthy of their own thread.

But the main conversation we were having was basically McCartney vs. Lennon vs. Harrison. I agree that Harrison is extremely underrated as a musician, but he really doesn't compare to Lennon or McCartney in terms of his song writing or his overall contribution. He was a great guitarist and contributed many different sounds to their music, but in my opinion he just isn't on the same level as McCartney or Lennon. Those two guys are two of the greatest song writers of all time and are responsible for 90% of The Beatles music. George Harrison certainly wasn't Ringo (replaceable), but he's somewhere in between. He wrote some great songs, but Lennon and McCartney's best songs are much better.

Other than that, any general thoughts or comments on The Beatles are welcome here. Are they the greatest band ever? Are they overrated? Who's your favorite? Anything Beatles related.


Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:07 pm
Post Re: The Beatles
For all we know, Harrison could have made a great contribution, but he didn't often wedge his way into the great Lennon/McCartney pissing contest. Who would want to?

I am of the opinion that Lennon and McCartney were not great, but that Lennon/McCartney was great. The ultimate self-destructive rock musician.


Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:09 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1562
Post Re: The Beatles
First off, The Beatles are easily my all-time favorite band.

Secondly, I remember discussing the issue of musical genius with a friend around the time of Michael Jackson's death. She made the observation that The Beatles were geniuses together yet not apart. I can't quite 100% agree with that.

George Harrison's All Things Must Pass and John Lennon's first two solo albums (Plastic Ono Band and Imagine) stand up with any of the Beatles albums when they were together asa group. True, neither of them matched those heights at any other point in their careers. But those albums are considered classics and deservedly so.

Paul McCartney is more probklematic. He's made some good, even great albums and songs in his solo carer. But he has yet to make anything that will stand with the Beatles. And he may never do so. Band On The Run and FLaming Pie are great albums. But they're not quite masterpieces.

What made them work so well together was that they fed into each otehrs talents and reigned in their indulgent sides when need be. Lennon kept McCartney from being too schmaltzy and McCarntey kept Lennon from drawing too much on his negative side. There never would've been a "Silly Love Songs" or any of the SOmetime In New York City material on a Beatles album. The simple fact was that their union was like a marriage, one that worked well for about 8 years.

Ranking favorite Beatles albums.

1: Revolver
2: Abbey Road
3: Rubber Soul
4: The White Album
5: A Hard Day's Night
6: Sgt Pepper
7: Help
8: Let It Be
9: Magical Mystery Tour
10: Please Please Me
11: Beatles For Sale
12: With The Beatles

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:16 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Beatles
Ignoring what any of them did outside of the group, do you think either McCartney or Lennon were the clear leader of the group? In their earlier albums Lennon was the clear leader in terms of output of songs. That could have something to do with the Lennon being a few years older than Paul and it could have taken him a few years to catch up. In the bands latter 5 albums or so it was clear that McCartney had at least become Lennon's equal. He wrote most of the songs number one singles.

I honestly believe McCartney is underrated. He doesn't have the same mystique that Lennon has and people often consider Paul's music to be more "simple" than Lennon's. Paul is responsible for creating some of the most famous melodies of all time, and in my opinion his best songs are as good as Lennon's best songs.


Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:27 pm
Post Re: The Beatles
spencerworth34 wrote:
Ignoring what any of them did outside of the group, do you think either McCartney or Lennon were the clear leader of the group? In their earlier albums Lennon was the clear leader in terms of output of songs. That could have something to do with the Lennon being a few years older than Paul and it could have taken him a few years to catch up. In the bands latter 5 albums or so it was clear that McCartney had at least become Lennon's equal. He wrote most of the songs number one singles.

I honestly believe McCartney is underrated. He doesn't have the same mystique that Lennon has and people often consider Paul's music to be more "simple" than Lennon's. Paul is responsible for creating some of the most famous melodies of all time, and in my opinion his best songs are as good as Lennon's best songs.


I also feel that McCartney gets some bad press simply because her has had greater success outside the beatles.
Lennon is perhaps considered with more nostalga perhaps because he died so early
George Harrison was the quite one of the band and this shows in his musiic contributions. His songs ie "here comes the sun" and "while my guitar" are more soulfull and thoughtfull than anything created by the other members of the band.
I doubt that Ringo actually had any real input into the music that was created but I am sure he arranged the rythim when the songs were being recorded.
How and ever I feel people rarely mention the contribution made by George Martin. Although the beatles may have brilliant ideas it was usually up to martin to put these ideas into practice.


Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:54 am
Post Re: The Beatles
p604 wrote:
spencerworth34 wrote:
Ignoring what any of them did outside of the group, do you think either McCartney or Lennon were the clear leader of the group? In their earlier albums Lennon was the clear leader in terms of output of songs. That could have something to do with the Lennon being a few years older than Paul and it could have taken him a few years to catch up. In the bands latter 5 albums or so it was clear that McCartney had at least become Lennon's equal. He wrote most of the songs number one singles.

I honestly believe McCartney is underrated. He doesn't have the same mystique that Lennon has and people often consider Paul's music to be more "simple" than Lennon's. Paul is responsible for creating some of the most famous melodies of all time, and in my opinion his best songs are as good as Lennon's best songs.


I also feel that McCartney gets some bad press simply because her has had greater success outside the beatles.
Lennon is perhaps considered with more nostalga perhaps because he died so early
George Harrison was the quite one of the band and this shows in his musiic contributions. His songs ie "here comes the sun" and "while my guitar" are more soulfull and thoughtfull than anything created by the other members of the band.
I doubt that Ringo actually had any real input into the music that was created but I am sure he arranged the rythim when the songs were being recorded.
How and ever I feel people rarely mention the contribution made by George Martin. Although the beatles may have brilliant ideas it was usually up to martin to put these ideas into practice.


Martin also made huge contributions to the actual music. Like arranging the strings in "Eleanor Rigby" for example. Or the strings in "Good Night". He's brilliant.


Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:12 pm
Post Re: The Beatles
And I disagree that "Here Comes the Sun" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" are more soulful and thoughtful than anything by Paul or John. What about "A Day in the Life" or "In My Life"?


Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:15 pm
Post Re: The Beatles
"A Day in the Life" might just be their masterpiece, but the power of George's few contributions hints that he could have been an integral part of the songwriting trio if they'd been more receptive to his ideas.


Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:53 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1713
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: The Beatles
Ken wrote:
"A Day in the Life" might just be their masterpiece, but the power of George's few contributions hints that he could have been an integral part of the songwriting trio if they'd been more receptive to his ideas.


This is a good answer. I've always directed others toward Harrison's first album All Things Must Pass, which was generally filled with songs he wrote while he was in The Beatles, but never recorded for the band. That album is a true document of how great of a songwriter and musician he was.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:06 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Beatles
It seems as though, if The Beatles kept going, Harrison would have been more of a force in the group. I say this only because the most successful singles off Abbey Road ("Something," "Here Comes the Sun"), initially, were Harrison's.

As for Ringo... well, anyone see the Family Guy where Ringo writes a song, and the others praise him and promptly display it on the fridge? I always suspected that's what happened...


Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:22 am
Post Re: The Beatles
Were the Beatles the greatest band ever? Definitely one of the greatest and THE most influential pop/rock band.
Together with producer/orchestrator George Martin they definitely were also one of the great pioneering bands. Martin brought the expertise to add orchestral arrangements and classical soloists such as the trumpet solo line in "Penny Lane". Of course all of Martin's work was developed and done together with the group members, not added on top later. Technically they were pioneering as well, using early analog four track machines for overdubs and an array of then new effects and combinations of sounds which became staples for many of the great 70s "album" bands. I am a fan (among many Beatles tunes of course) of "Strawberry Fields Forever" which, recorded in 1967, already sounds very 70s - not to mention that this is pure genius.
In the second half of the 90s and onward (after all that overblown 80s and early 90s glitz) the Beatles' influence again became evident. Many young pop/rock groups sounded very Beatle-esque - which is the case until this day.
Sure there are many other pop(ular) musical styles today which are clearly non-Beatles influenced (say: punk, 80s-influenced pop, techno, rap, straight rock, funk, modern r'n'b, all sorts of "metal" - which in part can be traced back as far as Black Sabbath and Led Zepelin, etc. etc.) But none of these styles can be pinpointed to one single act. The Beatles were extremely rich regarding their material. I am sure they would have come up with a lot more fantastic music well into the 70s.


Tue Apr 19, 2011 11:19 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr