Posted on 12/22/2004 11:56:06 AM PST by qam1
LOL. Ain't that the truth. But derivative music rarely sparkles.
hmm, almost 250 replies.. this is turning out to be a good thread!
Cybercowboy777 made my point much better than I did, allow me to quote:
It is not about the exact notes or lyrics, it is about the formula. (thanks CC)
These are cookie cutter songs. Yes mechanically they are different, but that's just the mechanics. A cheesy lovesong is a cheesy lovesong is a cheesy lovesong, in the end they're all the same. And early in their career the Beatles were master of the cheesy lovesong.
LOL.
Isn't that the same eye and pyramid on the United States Great Seal (look at the back side of a dollar bill)?
still trying to like Ghost...
Beatlemania had already swept England before America. When the Beatles made it in America it changed England's perception of music. Until then, they were of the mind that no British act could really be big here.
Cliff Richards is still big in England but a nobody over here (despite numerous attempts to release his hits). Lonny Donnigan too.
90% of why I love The Band is their respect and love for the music and its history. They didn't always right the best songs in the world, they really didn't push any envelopes musically, but they were a band of fans. And you can really see that in The Last Waltz, they're eagerness to step aside and let others take the spotlight on their stage is wonderful. And yeah Muddy Waters is fantastic in that.
Are you claiming that the Beatles were capable of time travel? "4th Time Around" was released many months after "Norwegian Wood," on which George Harrison became the first musician to ever play sitar on a Western song.
Heh. I know exactly how it works. out of about 8 million dollars in retail sales, a band MAY get approximately 200,000 dollars, after recording, promotion, tour etc... costs are removed, THEN they get to pay their lawyers, agents, etc... and suddenly, it's gone. Poof.
I doubt that any of the American Idol winners are making anywhere near what I make in a year at a regular job. Period.
Agreed.
The 1950s gave us castrated rock and roll (like Fabian, Frankie Avalon, a gelded Johnny Burnette, Pat Boone...). Poster boy idols for girls.
There were also attempts to replace rock and roll with more "mature" folk music, bop jazz, and calypso (which is why we know who the f... Harry Belafonte is today).
Some of the poster boys were homosexuals.
Folk singers were card carrying pinkos.
Jazzbos were hooked on junk, reefer, and coke.
And calypso was just a misguided attempt to find a new fad (file it along side post WWII exotica). Ska took more of a hold in England than it did in America (where it slowly soaked into the consciousness).
Would have been safer to let rock and roll exist as it was (beer soaked party music).
You missed my post where I said I was joking & that neither is a good song.
Pet Sounds was the response to the Beatles (Revolver or Rubber Soul, can't remember which).
SMiLE was to be the followup (which originally would have preceded Sgt. Peppers' but it kept falling back in production).
your reply rings true... yesterday on the drive home I called the "flagship classic rock station" in town, with "the largest collection of classic rock" and requested Sister Anne, by the MC5... the conversation went something like this:
me: can you play and MC5 song for me?
dj: how old are you?
me: 24
dj: and you like the MC5?
me: yeah, a lot... they rock
dj: we don't play them, they don't fit our format... how old are you again?
me: 24... what do you mean they don't fit your format?
dj: well we suck, ok? you wanna hear something else?
me: yeah how about "gimme danger" by the stooges?
dj: *click* *bzzzzzzzzzz*
me: what the $^#&*?!?!?!?!
Beatles are very good but I prefer the Beach boys for the outstanding vocals and diverse albums.
And I was born in 1981!
I would never dispute the Beatles as being true pioneers of modern music. Yeah, they had their duds, but most of their output was well crafted music.
What I admire most was that they were able to produce music that could be appreciated by a wide audience. They appealed to teeny-boppers and adults alike; it was not uncommon for a pop radio station from the mid 60's to transition from a Dean Martin song to a current Beatles hit.
Today's music (IMHO) seems to be TOO categorized. Radio stations pigeonhole certain genres, and NEVER stray from that particular format. Classic rock stations play everything that came after "Sgt Pepper", and totally ignore the pre-album rock that the Beatles made between 1962-1967. Ditto with the Stones - if it was recorded before "Let It Bleed" (excellent album!), it's considered TOO Top 40 for the classic rock playlist.
I also think it's sad that 'oldies' are now considered to be anything recorded after 1964 (Beatles/British Invasion). There's a whole decade (1954-1964) that is now completely absent from the airwaves - say what you want about some of the corniness that came out of that decade, but there were ample gems from rock's early pioneers.
The Beatles invented formula pop ?
Are you familiar with what preceeded them ? Manufactured pretty boy pop like Fabian, Frankie Avalon, and Bobby Rydell that made Menudo or New Kids on the Block look profound. Remember Lesley Gore and Neil Sedaka ? Remember the affected pseudo-profundity of Neil Diamond ?
EVERYTHING between Chuck Berry and the Beatles was formula pop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.