 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.226.144.134
A friend of mine and I had this discussion the other day. I'd like other opinions since I'm not super knowledgeable on who's from where and especially earlier stuff like Grand Funk Railroad.The first ones who came to mind for me were The Eagles and Aerosmith.
I guess "most sucessful" might be a better way to define it since "best" is purely opinion, but I'd have to go with The Eagles in terms of longivity, quality and sucess combined. Aerosmith should be a pretty close second.
Follow Ups:
Quoting Todd Krieger:
> Many people share your sentiment, but are afraid to say it. TheSo, obviously, between the people who are afraid to say it; the people
who are tone-deaf and have poor taste (let's say they're to music what
Herb Tarlek (sp?) on "WKRP in Cincinnati" was to clothing and good
taste in general) and so don't know the difference; and the members of
the Ritalin Generation (tm) whose brains are being short-circuited due
to governmentally approved/mandated substance abuse to make them
subservient, obedient, non-creative and non-questioning, we're getting
screwed musically.Why are others so afraid to say that? Has
"political correctness" gone that far?> problem is people choose their music based on personal social ties
Which is, of course, also not unlike much music that people have
chosen in earlier periods; therefore, people curiously basing their
choice of music on social ties explains not only modern day cacophony
such as rap music, most 1990's and later "rock," etc., but also:* Italian opera
* Elvis
* Various male rock singers, past and present, who sing, and have
sung, like critical parts of their reproductive anatomy have
been removed
* Females who wail like demented banshees in a way that's most
painful to the ears, or at least pretend to wail on stage while
lip-syncing, and have the audacity to call themselves performers> rather than the music itself, and then take criticism of that
> music personally. Add the media bombardment of the notion that
> social relevance is "better" than artistic refinement, and people
> end up being conditioned to judge music in such manner.Well said!
> This is also a condition beyond our control. The best we can do is try
> to find those obscure gems that counter social trends.Of course, if enough people got together and started tarring and
feathering politicians, then demanded that money spent on "education"
actually be used to educate students, rather than just warping their
brains and indoctrinating them into being good little politically
correct 'droids who will not question authority and who will act in
whatever way is best for large multi-national corporate interests, we
could see some big changes in music.-Thrifty
Is that actually what you're inferring?You've GOT to be kidding.
It'd be enough of a waste of time to debate the jokes some might consider points if you didn't destroy any credibility with this notion. Todd can pontificate on his dead-horse-beaten point about people choosing their music on the basis of factors other than music, or that people are afraid to criticize music because it's not PC or something, but ultimately it doesn't matter. That sort of thing is mostly limited to music writer who few pay much attention to anyway.
Elvis & opera, like rap & post-1990 rock merely a 'cacophony' that people listen to & buy because they have bad taste, or because society dictates that people should pay more attention to what's 'relevant' than actually make a choice based on their own like or dislike. Great theory, unbelievably overstated in actual practice.
I'll leave you guys to it.
Although I think CSNY would also be right up there for me.
Ken
.
-kg"Lines join in faint discord and the Stormwatch brews-"
Surely the best U.S. rock band of all time is Fleetwood Mac!As an aside: can this rock forum can be divided into two forums,
one for real rock music and one for the cacophony of most of that
post 1990 rubbish that's still somehow called "rock" and is performed
by tone-deaf musicians who appear to lack knowledge of music theory
in addition to the rumor that most of younger "musicians" can't
even read or write sheet music? No wonder mp3s are so popular, they
can't make most of that new music sound any worse than it already
does.
Funny post. Well, I appreciate the humor, anyway.
I just found it amusing that he thought Fleetwood Mac were a US band.
Yes, I know, they're a band whose original members were British, and
they weren't even a rock band in the beginning, but a blues band, which
pertains to a point that I was attempting to make... heck, one of the
members was even brought into the band, at one point, from France if
I recall correctly. Two of the band members were American, however.The point I was trying to make is that it's still more legitimate to
call them the best US rock band of all time than to nominate any of
those newfangled post 1990's "rock" bands for that. As putrid as a band
consisting of Evis and the Osmonds (ElOz?) would be, that would surely
be less offensive to the ears than much of what some of the kiddies,
who surely have some sort of malfunction between the ears and the brain,
today call "rock," and, of course, it would also be far less offensive
than rap, hip-hop and related annoyances that don't even deserve to be
called music.
"The point I was trying to make is that it's still more legitimate to
call them the best US rock band of all time than to nominate any of
those newfangled post 1990's 'rock' bands for that."Many people share your sentiment, but are afraid to say it. The problem is people choose their music based on personal social ties rather than the music itself, and then take criticism of that music personally. Add the media bombardment of the notion that social relevance is "better" than artistic refinement, and people end up being conditioned to judge music in such manner.
This is also a condition beyond our control. The best we can do is try to find those obscure gems that counter social trends.
Gee!Strange, judging by yr posts, it would seem that you are old enough to have had some familiarity with some of the similar comments made by members of several generations towards the pop music of younger generations. A fine tradition that goes back in pop music, oh, as long as there's been pop music, never mind all the wrath once incurred by jass.
Since I'm well aware that it's perfectly ludicrous to compare jazz to gangsta rap, I won't take the extreme view that any musical comparison is valid, or that there's something wrong with preferring the music of the past to that of the present. But, for Pete's sake, you sound like whoever condemned whatever it is that YOU like: make no mistake, whatever you like or liked, there was ALWAYS someone who was older who of course knew enough to conclude that whatever it was didn't even deserve to be called music.
Happens to a lot of folks who forget the sorts of things that were said about the pop music of THEIR youth by their own elders. But, who knows. Maybe you didn't forget...or, perhaps you simply weren't aware. Aw, heck, who cares what those fogies thought...besides, just because they had feet for ears doesn't mean the kids today know good music when they hear it, either. Hmmm?
> musicians who appear to lack knowledge of music theory
in addition to the rumor that most of younger "musicians" can't
even read or write sheet musicWell, since that happens to have been true of the Beatles, I guess that's all there is to music, then, isn't it. Individual response of the listener be damned, huh? But then you appear to knock Elvis as well...you sure do deserve credit for a nifty troll, that's for sure.
I saw most all of the classic bands (being old now) from the 60s and 70s. Three bands stand out as they were different from each other. Janis Joplin and her last band, Hendrix and the Allman Bros. were heads and shoulders above everyone else I saw.It is a shame that we lost Jimi and Duane so early as they clearly were the best at their individual genre's. The only other player in that grouping for me is Clapton. There is a reason Clapton asked Duane to join him and do the Layla album.
There were other great players and bands, but for me these three stood out. Janis was incredible as a singer. She too was lost early.
Just MHO as one who smoked his hearing from seeing all those bands.
Although none of these bands (with the exception of R.E.M.) achieved mainstream "superstar" status, and the only band among this group that exhibited truly virtuoso musicianship was The Mothers (and the Stooges were actually pretty lackluster in terms of actual musical talent, probably due to the substance abuse, but damn! they sure knew how to play rude, loud, pure R&R at its most primal), all were hugely influential, making groundbreaking, original music sounding nothing like their contemporaries. Listen to some of the new music that passes for "Alt-Rock" or "Punk" and you will quickly realize the extent to which these bands (particularly the latter three) have exerted their influence (and in many cases been blatently ripped-off). While I agree the first two Chicago albums are stunning, monumental achievements (and most of their 70's material after these albums is pretty good as well; they were even able to make schmaltzy pop songs interesting listening during this period), during the 80's they slipped so far into performing/recording nothing but "Adult Contemporary" dreck that its difficult for me to consider them in the same light as some of the other bands mentioned in this thread. (I know that Terry Kath's death certainly was a big contributor to this decline, but exactly why did Pete Cetera forget how to play bass?) OTOH most 80's music written/performed by great bands/musicians who got their start in the 60's-70's really sucked (such as Eric Clapton, Steve Winwood, Phil Collins/Genesis, Fleetwood Mac, Neil Young, CSN, Pete Townshend/The Who, David Bowie, Judas Priest, Starship, Yes, Rush, Rod Stewart, J. Geils Band, Police, and I could go on and on ad nauseaum but I think you get the point), I think because everyone went ga-ga over keyboards, synth-guitar, synth-drums, synth-everything else, and digital recording, so probably nothing unusual for Chicago to go this route as well.
nt
Let's see longivity (February 15, 2006 marked the 39th Anniversary of Chicago) , quality and sucess, yep it's all there with this group. Along with album sales (18 are gold, 13 are platinum, 12 have reached the top 10, and 5 have hit #1) , "hits" (20 Top 10) , live performances, etc. They must be considered.
Greatest and best are very subjective. Here are a few that had a long history that I am including because of how often they get played around here.The Band
Airplane/SomeStarship/Hot Tuna
Kooper/Bloomfield et al(Buffalo Springfield, Blues Project, American Flag, BloodSweat&Tears)spin offs like Sea Train from Blues Project
Santana - getting urban neighborhoods together in the 60s and 70s and getting the urban village together today. At one time I lived in part of the city where three cultures came together. Hard core Hispanic to the north, Black to the east, multinational to the south and ravine to the west. You could get hurt being the wrong guy in the wrong neighborhood, unless you were getting together to play Santana
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band - still doing great shows
Chicago - always a good show and still touring regularly
Tubes - Stanford intelligensia with great stage presence. High end sex and drugs and R&R party band.
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band - still doing great shows
Hendrix
Prince - his royal purpleness keeps getting better. Last tour I saw his bandleader was Maceo Parker!
Hall and Oates - fits between hip hop and europop, generally well recorded- basic backup are GE Smith, Charlie DeChant and Tbone Wolk from the Saturday night live band and lots of session players.
But we will take them as our own!!
Longevity wise, they have been playing continuously since they formed in high school in the late 60's, with no drama, breakups, comeback tours or other crap, just a great band getting better and better right up to the present.
Popularity and money-wise they aren't up there with the big boys, but musically they surpass them all. I urge anyone who only knows them from recordings or acoustic concerts to see their live electric show, you will not be disappointed. I've seen the Stones, Who, Dead, Feat at the top of their game, The Wolves can match or top any of them. I'll see them in Grants Pass Friday, I'm pumped.
In the '70s, they were definitely a smokin' band.
Maybe not the best band from the standpoint of musical innovation, but, if you to pick THE band to bet on to tear the house down in a live venue, they would be IT ... "It ain't nothin' but a par-taayy!"
Maybe not the best band from the standpoint of musical innovation, but, if you to pick THE band to be on to tear the house down in a live venue, they would be IT ... "It ain't nothin' but a par-taayy!"
and from a personal perspective I'd put them up there.
with Grace Slick and Marty Balin. Basically from 1967 thru 1969. After VOLUNTEERS the band splintered and became much less interesting.
And then Van Halen.....
But absolutely not with Van Halen.
(NOT one of my favorites.)
I think Jefferson Airplane, or REM, or maybe even Wilco, would be my second place group.
nt
They did it all with about everyone around in their time.
Canadian, not American. Only Levon Helm hailed from the USA.
NT
Perhaps Little Richard's backing band on Specialty?Ok, Velvet Underground were very innovative. CSNY, I liked. Ditto Jefferson Airplane. Eagles? Warren Zevon Band?
Best band with an American singer: Jimi Hendrix Experience.
That would be Roky Erickson and The Thirteenth Floor Elevators.Regards,
J.R.
........ZZ Top."I'm bad......I'm nationwide"
Cheers,
~kenster
we came, we bid & we lost.http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&viewitem=&item=300054910309&rd=1&rd=1
50's bands don't get their due around here too often, but for a short time these guys played some wild rock and roll.
I like the nomination of The Beach Boys very much as well ...and CCR too. Is there room on the list for The Doors?The Grateful Dead, surely in the running ...but I can't listen to them. Maybe I should have tried drugs.
My favorite US rock band ...The Doobie Brothers (sans Michael McDonald). The best? Nah. But my favorite.
Dean.
.
with Duane Allman of course.
Again with Duane they had the best jamming band ever and the best Live Blues/Rock/Jazz LP's ever released.The Fillmore East Albums.The Dead,Phish and other so called current day jam bands couldn't begin to keep up....Their entire output with Duane and Berry is a monument to American Music!!!My Island record,The Allman Brothers Live at the Filmore East......JD
...the more I read about the band, how they were formed and members changed, they remind of a more talented Monkees or Archies.Mainly an exercise in clever marketing by their handlers of their particular LA sound in the mid 1970s.
Read Hoskyns "Hotel California".
BBs get an asterisk due to the presence of the Wrecking Crew, but their overall catalog & impact is as formidable as any, in spite of their interminably long stretches using that name to pimp the work of Brian Wilson, without him being a part of what that outfit turned into after their rejection of SMiLE led to BW's decision to dump it, which changes the course of pop music history so far as I'm concerned.If success must be considered, then they're it. In a discussion like this that doesn't mean that much to me, so the rest probably wouldn't qualify if they're supposed to have sold a certain number of jillion records or something.
But their first ten years & the Ramones' first ten years top my list. The Replacements had five years as good as anyone else. The VU deserves to be mentioned, 4 albums plus at least one legitimate posthumous (VU) and a killer double live album. I think the Stooges are in the mix due to three near-perfect recs, but then there's the longevity issue that's a strike against them, the MC5, and even the Minutemen. Husker Du...lots of good work, but, like the Minutemen also, too much of it a bit too inaccessible. Nirvana had the potential to rate in this discussion, but the guy apparently didn't like himself enough to live, or something like that. CCR certainly deserves mention, not that they were around that long.
Lastly, a couple of outfits that could rock yr head off like nobody's business in spite of some spotty records: NRBQ, and the Flamin' Groovies. There's two of the most woefully underrated rock and roll bands ever, in my estimation. Was it true that Mick Jagger said Flamingo was a better record than Sticky Fingers? Yow.
as any record I own. I still listen to it quite often. The combination of Roy Loney's often maniacal vocals and the twin lead guitars is a tough act to follow. I'm a huge Stones fan, but if I had to pick an all time favorite LP it might very well be 'Teenage Head'.
While neither classic hard rock nor everyone's cup of tea, their influence and popularity in rock music is undeniable.
I'd consider the BBs tune "Good Vibrations" the greatest American rock song of all time.....
and I would certainly consider them among the top personally, but we didn't get into the whole "whats rock and what isn't" debate. Guess you'd have to throw in Elvis too then.
You said 'rock band,' whereas Elvis was a solo performer. To suggest that the Beach Boys aren't 'rock' is certainly a debatable point. However, to disqualify them on that basis would be tough to do without applying the same standard to the Eagles, who, I believe you said elsewhere, you'd prefer staying in the past with.
(nt)
at Hallmark stores, called "Here and There" or something like that. VERY ENJOYABLE. Contains hits from "I Get Around" to "Kokomo". Fabulous, terrific, great harmonies. REALLY exceptional vocals by "them" as the Beach Boyscall their anonymous sidemen.
You are killing me today!The second worst concert I ever attended was the Beach Boys.
The Beach Boys were as much a band as were The Monkeys, The Archies, The Partridge Family. Of sure, in the early years Brian actually toured with the band. But that did not last long.
There was a reason why Brian used studio musicians for the records. His band mates were second rate at best and Brian wanted the very best for his work.
Without Brian the Beach Boys were just another average boy band.
All bands have poor live performances. It's a job. Just like every other job, some days are better than others. Carl Wilson was more than competent as a guitarist, the keyboard players they used were fair, and they used Glen Campbell as a Brian replacement for some time. Dennis was a workable drummer when he wasn't stoned and Ricky Fataar was pretty good. So, I don't agree with the bad musician label. The reason Brian used the Wrecking Crew was partly because the Beach Boys were out on tour, parly because they were better musicians and partly because they wanted to play Brians more sophisticated music (unlike the Beach Boys)
I do believe that the Beach Boys lacked the discipline that Brian has regarding the sound mix of live shows. Anyone attending a Brian Wilson concert will know what i'm talking about.
The single worst concert I ever heard, by a LONG shot was Led Zepplin in Minneapolis. Robert Plant SPOKE the lyrics to EVERY song......didn't sing a NOTE. I walked out and spent the concert in the lobby waiting for my friends. Yawn.
Single best concert was Brian Wilson's SMiLE show in Ann Arbor Michigan. Still in awe of that show.
a throw away. ANOTHER DUI typo error.I saw them once as well and they were just horrible.
But this CD is remixed, and of course it is a best of, over 20 years of live performances, is really good. How much of the singing is Bruce J., Michael Winston, Blondie Chapin, John Stamos, and two dozen other unnamed extras, is up for debate.
OK. Thought something was not right. I was beginnning to think a trip to Branson, Missouri might be in order!
Their CD's, SACD's & LP's are just as popular as ever. John Fogerty 2006 tour selling out.
All had enormous influence, but for longevity, I'd also have to include Aersosmith.
Not sure how I missed that one.
I didn't realize that there was any question about that : ) I'd use the same measuring stick but toss in "plowing the road" for music that would come later. Pioneering can't be easy. To this day I can't say I've ever seen anyone sporting an Eagles t-shirt so you've got a whole cultural area where the Ramones come out on top too.Not too coincidentally, they are my favorite American rock and roll band of all time. What's not to like? As time passes by their legend only grows, as do the t-shirt orders and record sales from the younger generation. There's hope for the young'uns yet.
Regards,
jc
Meth is more popular today than it was in the 70's too. If more youth turning to the Ramones than the Eagles is considered hope for the future, I think I'd rather stay in the past.
not that it has anything much to do with the music of the Eagles or the Ramones. I think Dee Dee's thing was heroin anyway.jc
My son started to listen to the Ramones wich I never did even though I was in high school in the late 70s. All I have to say is that they give hope to the hopeless. They have proven that anybody can be a rock star. Simple three cord songs poorly writen and performed.Hey Ho lets go....
bleep
Longevity; most concertgoers; most fun.
"This band sucks!!!"Terrible, musically, everything.
Greg Lake once pointed out, he and E&P could sink down and jam with the Grateful Dead, Garcia etc. could not possibly jam or play along with EL&P. That is the point our Beatle defender does not get; there is such thing as skill, virtuousity, and msucial talent that the Beatles lacked, for all their good RECORDS. Emerson and Palmer, and Lake to a degree had it coming out their arses. And yes, I liked the Beatles better.
Grateful dead sound good as long as you are high.
None. They wait for it to burn out and follow it around...
ELP was, without question, the worst concert I ever attended. Walked out. Perhaps there is some talent there, but they have no idea how to play a concert. Does not say much about their musical abilities IMO. If you can't do it live, you can't do it at all.
For me, why not start their show with obviously the best opening song in rock history. "Welcome back my friends" from Karn Evil 9?They started with "Hoedown"
WTF is that song all about, I know a classical piece, big deal.
As an opender, who cares. DON'T DO AN ISNTRUMENTLA OPENDER unless you want to lose all rapprt with the audience, FCS.I think they were short at least one player; the role of Lake on both guitar and bass works OK on reocrd, Not at all live.
I do not think he is much of an electric guitar player anyway.
GREAT singer.
What was your take?
If I had not known that I was attending an ELP concert I would have thought I was listening to some local high school garage band.I don't believe I recognized a single song. The playing was terrible, the singing was terrible. Random noise at best! Wow, I just don't think I have ever seen anything quite so bad. And I drove 200 miles to see these turds.
the place of rehearsals?? Sorry you saw such schlock. Another possible explanation: Greg Lake was and is an alcoholic; and may have been drunk. Also, Lake does all the voices on the LP's, so in person maybe the guys who can't sing, Emerson and Palmer had to fake it.
I have a CD by Firefall, tightest band that ever lived, but this alter CD whatshisname is drunk as a skunk ON THE LIVE CD.The music absolutely reeks.
Reminds me of the live recording I have of Billie Holiday, around 1958 I believe. She is clearly high-as-a-kite, sounds like she can barely stand, but wow, still a power.
I still ain't there. Yeah, I realize she must be great, so may people I repect say so. People who know far more about music than me; but I ain't there yet. If you have some insights into what I should listen for to appreciate her, I would be grateful.
Billie can be tough since she does not have an especially great voice in the traditional since. Limited range, rather small gravely voice. What she does bring is a sense of timing, always behind the beat, phrasing, and the ability to convey emotion that few can emulate. When you listen to Billie you believe her; she has lived every word she sings.Frank Sinatra was another. More accessible than Billie for most folks, but follows her mold closely. Frank credits his style to Billie. He was a huge fan.
Being audiophiles we tend to gravitate to her later work since this occurred when the technology started to gel. While I enjoy all her work, she was just a shadow of her former self by the end. The emotion is still there, but little else. Still Billie is better at the end than most will ever be.
Try the early part of her career, 1935-45. The recording technology is primative, but still surprisingly good. Her powers are at full strength and the voice is 'prettier' than the later work.
.
This is a widely held opinion, yet, to my mind, it's a bit unfair. McCartney, for instance, was a superb musician, clearly one of the best bassists technically and musically. Harrison's guitar work was extremely expressive and distinctive. Starr's drums wonderfully sensitive and musical as well. Lennon's rhythm was certainly not outstanding, but he generally held up his end of bargain. It's true that they did not have a great reputation as a performance band. But then, they had stopped touring all together by the time musical virtuosity even became an issue in pop music. Sorry to go off on a tangent when the main thread concerns American Bands (by the way, I vote for the Doors, the Beach Boys, and the Byrds). But, unlike so many, I am struck by the superiority of their musicianship. Abbey Road, in particular, reveals an almost sublime tact and skill in their musicianship. Think of the drums and guitar work in "Something," or the jamming in "The End," just to give an illustration or two. The musicianship is exquisite.The Doors, I think, also excelled as musicians in this regard -- not in the sense that they were prodigious virtuosos (though undeniably quite accomplished just the same), but wonderfully apt and distinctive.
George is attempting to pick out "Tequila". Anyone who has played 3-4 years can pick it out easily, maybe one bad note. George struggles.
I love "I Feel Fine" and paid big bucks to get every take of it (8, three full), I like the Beatles. But I am a realist and see their limitations, and how miraculous a job George Martin did bringing out their best.
committed to vinyl. It gets worse as it goes then just fizzles out as they lower the volume hammer on bad playing.
McCartney is not technically a great musician on bass. You are again confusing your love for thie product (fair enough) with technical expertise.Enlighten yourself, buy Lousi JOhnson's DVD on how to play bass. Watch five minutes.
Harrison expressive is in the eyes of the beholder. It takes no manual dexterity or musical knowledge of scales, etc. For isntance, there is no solo by George that changes keys in the middle of a passage. There is not even a solo with 16th notes that I can recall.
Lennon's rhythm was good, and some very innovative (all my loving, happy just to dance).
ALL OF IT, EVERY NOTE WAS LOVED BY YOURS TRULY!!!!
That don't make anyone a hot player."Sublime tact.." is when very average musicianship is produced well enough to make a beautiful end product, as George Martin did with Abbey Road. They were great. probably the best, but we don't need to make them gods, they were not.
I think you give Martin WAAYYY to much credit. Tiddling knobs will only goes so far. After all, he didn't hand the Beatles sheet music of his owm composition to play. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong, what the Beatles played was of their own invention. Did George Martin discipline them? Give them a work ethic? Help them understand studio production? Write a few measures of violin and brass here or there? Sure. But as Lennon himself put it, "George Martin didn't make the Beatles; the Beatles made George Martin."With regard to McCartney, I have to disagree with you. I am not familiar with the particular bassist you mentioned, and I am sure he is quite good. But there is no "way to play" the bass guitar. McCartney's bass is notable because it is uncoventional: more melodic, more contrapointal. "Lucy" is a good example of this, though there are many. McCartney was also a very good lead guitar player (try "Maybe I'm Amazed"), a very accomplished acoustic guitar player, an halfway decent piano player, and a passable drummer. Was he a Clapton? A Segovia? Of course not. But as a bass player, he was superior; as a guitar player, darned good -- good enough to play lead in a lot of bands I've seen. Remember, I began by responding the the oft posited notion that the Beatles were DEFICIENT as musicians.
Starr, as a drummer, could be incredibly nuanced and facile. Again, I'll point to the beginning of "Something," where he and Harrison offer up an absolutely exquisite lead-in. Listen to the drum work on "Sexy Sadie" or "Savoy Truffle" and tell me there isn't a considerable musical imagination at work, as well as a superb command of his drum kit. Was he a Buddy Rich? Or even a Carl Palmer. Of COURSE not. But nothing could ever put me to sleep faster than one of these guys interminable drum solos, which, after a few minutes of notable pyrotechnics, would leave you either begging for mercy or heading for the men's room.
Now, I am not going to tout Harrison's technical abilities as a lead guitarist. As you say, his expressiveness may be "in the eyes of the beholder." I have seen Beck, Danko, Allman, BB King, Frampton, Howe and quite a few others up close and in person. I know, as you put it, that he may never have played a 16th note. And I think I know the difference between true technical brilliance and imitation technical brilliance. What's more, I certainly can't think of any long solos Harrison every recorded. Perhaps he just wasn't up to it. But again, there are some very distinctive, impressive licks in the Beatles cannon -- "Hey Bulldog" comes to mind. "It's all too Much" would be another. "Paperback Writer." "And Your Bird Can Sing."
I'm not going to deny your point of view. But I think power and originality of the Beatles music, and the great emphasis they placed on making albums in the studio as opposed to performing, makes it easy to overlook their merits and accomplishments as musicans.
For me, on Abbey Road in particular, the Beatles display a kind of maturity and musical touch that so many bands with so many more vaunted musicians never achieve. "Come Together," "The End," "She So Heavy," (by the way, how's Harrison's work on that cut in your estimation?) are absolutely stunning in their musicality and composition, from the standpoint of musicianship. And yep, Greg Palmer or Ginger Baker could have played the drums on these tracks with ONE hand -- but neither ever displayed quite the musical touch. Or perhaps I'm just seeing the whole world through psychedelic glasses.
Anyway, DUI, you seem to have a very strong basis for your assertion that Martin managed to pull of a grand illusion of sorts in making the Beatles look like much better musicians than they were. I'd like to hear more of your thinking on that topic, if you have the time to respond.
"Twist and Shout" sounds compared to other ditties of its day. Too bad MArtin did not foresee the need for stereo.But he caught lightning in a jar. It was no accident he dressed as a doctor, he was a doctor of recording.
I am not saying he made a bad band sound good. But he made a good band sound better than humanly imaginable. Much of that with their help, in other words he used his knowedge of miking and equipment and mixing and classical music, to facilitate John or Paul's genius view of what the musical landscape should sound like.
Watch the video of Beatle era "For No One". There's a GREAT example. Pauls guitar playing, nothing above average. BUT NOTE THAT HIS ideas as to what the song should sound like are ALREADY there!!!!! His producer merely brought Paul's vision to fruition. George Martin knew he had 2 geniuses in tow; his job was to not get in their way.
Paul: "French horn".and if you know and love that track like I do, the French horn plays exactly what Paul mimics!!! That was George Martin's doing, take the idea and make it come true on magnetic tape. He was the producer, BTW, the twidling of knobs was not his job, Allan Parsons, Glyn Johns, and Hurricane Smith (Oh, Babe, what would you say?") were knob twirlers.
Except on Let it Be, Glynn got to produce, sort of"That was very good.." says Glynn over the playback monitor after one lousy take of "Let it Be".
"Give it to us straight, Glynn.." says JohnAs for " neither "ever displayed quite the musical touch". That musical touch is in the eye of the beholder. It is not technical virtuosity.
I'm still not sure, based on your post, what role Martin actually played in the creation and development of the Beatles' music. He didn't twiddle knobs, he contributed little original material of his own, but his knowledge of "miking and equipment and classical music" made a good band sound better "than humanly imaginable"?What has Martin done post-Beatles? What did he do pre-Beatles? Were there any other groups on which he was able to work his "magic"? I don't deny that his professionalism "rubbed off" on the Beatles. I don't deny that they made matured under his "discipline." But when Martin met them, the Beatles were totally new to the world of professional studio recording. They had a lot to learn, and likely, they would have learned it under any number of competant record producers. Or perhaps I'm not missing some substantive issue here. Perhaps Martin was instrumental in some way I am not getting. And you may be totally correct. In fact, I find many of your post quite informative. But on this issue, at least so far, I am unconvinced. In fact, the example you cite (the "For No One" anectdote), seems to stengthen the idea that Martin's contribution was a subordinate one.
Also, with regard to the issue that the Beatles were deficient as musicians, or merely adequate, I think folks confuse achieving some or other technical benchmarks with musicianship. How fast the fingering is on the guitar solo, or how often the drummer changes time on the drum solo have little, in my mind, to do with musicianship. If they did, then Carl Lewis wouldn't have been just the world's fastest man, he would have been the world's best dancer, too. And I guess you'd have to take Van Gogh down a few notches on the ladder of artistic merit, since his paintings had fewer brush strokes than some of the other guys. Heck, let's take him off the list all together, since didn't use brushes that well anyway! By these metrics, Olivia Newton John is a better singer than Louis Armstrong. She could certainly hold a tune better than ole Satch. And if the Beatles' merit as musicians is "in the eye of the beholder," it's in a whole lot of eyes of a whole lot of beholders.
By the way, how about Paul's baseline in "Rain"? Or Ringo's drums on "Come Together"? Or George's guitar work on "Savoy Truffle"? Would you say these are just other examples of Martin egging them on in some mysterious way?
I think there is merit in both of your arguements.No Beatle was a master of their instrument. Good, sometimes inspired, but never the greatest. What they had in spades were musical ideas and energy.
Without Martin, unlikely they would have every reached the creative heights that they ultimately attained. It was Martin's ability to take all this raw energy and imagination and cause it to gel.
Contrary to what Paul, John, etc., might claim, George Martin was the 5th Beatle. Hell they probably would not have had a career if it was not for George Martin. Remember, Decca had already passed on the group, and George was looking for a novel musical act for his Parlophone label. Read any comments from George on what he saw/heard on their first meeting. George Martin's musical abilities, technical abilities and knowledge of production craft were key to the Beatles sound and success. Can you imagine the Beatles with Pete Best?
There was a great synergy at play. Of course George Martin would have just been another unknown EMI suit if the Beatles had not come along. And I doubt the Beatles would have been as creative and powerful without Martin's guiding hand.
I guess the word you use, "inspired," is the whole crux of my line of thinking. I just happen to feel that, especially when you get into the Rubber Soul era and beyond, the inspirations are rather the rule than the exception. Who was not struck by Harrison's fuzz bass playing on "Do What You Want to Do," for example? Or McCartney's acoustic guitar on "Michelle"? And by the time you get to the White Album or Abbey Road, they display a musical finesse that, at least in my opinion, has rarely been matched. Perhaps you and DUI may not agree, but it's my opinion and I think there's some justification for it.With regard to the George Martin "5th Beatle" issue, I'm still waiting to be convinced. To me, he has seemed more like the guy with the keys to the playground than a member of the team. But again, I'm not a Beatle historian, and this opinion seems to be one that has some currency. I've just never heard a really convincing case to give Martin that kind of status.
Was he a decent record producer? Surely. But you can only produce what your artists bring you. And in this regard, Martin had an embarassment of riches. I'm not aware of any other instances where Martin worked his magic with another artist. Would you say he was better than Berry Gordy of Motown, for example?
You will get no arguements for me for we are in complete agreement. Rubber Soul marks a major shift in their music and abilities. The group is starting to truely gel at this point. There is an easy, relaxed funk to the entire album. This continues right thru Revolver. Master of their craft indeed. One might argue that Rubber Soul and Revolver are their best efforts. I don't believe they reached the same heights again until Abbey Road.Abbey Road? Almost too good. The polish, the finesse is amazing. Once again this is all pulled together by the genuis of George Martin.
Not convinced that George Martin is truely the 5th Beatles? Listen to 'Eleanor Rigby.' This is not someone simply kicking off a few lines of back-up notes. The string arrangement is wonderous. It can stand alone nicely without Paul's haunting vocals. Great song for sure, thank you Paul, but George Martin elevated it to a height that I doubt Paul would have considered all alone. Many such examples exist.
Yes, I would have to say that on Eleanor Rigby, his contribution is important, insofar as he wrote the string accompaniment. And certainly, in their early years, he was very important in introducing a rather uninitiated group of young musicians into the complexities and possiblities of the recording studio. But I wonder how indispensible he really was. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject of Martin. Let's just say I'm agnositic on the scope and importance of his contribution. It would seem to me that the Beatles walked into the studio with their own music and their own ideas about how the music should be produced. George Martin didn't nudge the Beatles toward the psychedelic experimentation that culminated in Strawberry Fields and Pepper, did he? Without Martin, we still get Revolver, and Pepper and MMT, right? Similarly, Martin didn't instruct them to abandon psychedelia in favor of the more straight-forward, though just as artistically ambititous White Album. Did he contribute an interesting horn or violin accompaniment here or there? Certainly. Did he educate them, as any good record producer would have. Of course. And for helping the Beatles become serious about studio recording in a way that no other pop group had ever been, he also deserves great credit. If that's what your saying as well, maybe we've just come to a medium from opposite ends of the pole. But if you mean to say that the Beatles were dependent upon him, or that by means of some "producer vodoo" he transformed a sow's ear of a band into a musical silk purse, I would need some more persuading.
You say you "LOVED EVERY NOTE" of the Beatles music. Musicians play notes, don't they? What was it that moved you to such admiration, if not the musicianship?
"Never has so much talent been wasted by so few in front of so many".
Isle Of Wight Festival 1970.
more player. Imagine if they had a guitar player so Lake could play bass. Theri live show would have been great (or better).Know who they needed? (I got the answer right here......)
Nope. Wrong...............
Nope. One more guess, he was already in another band........
Snowy Wood.
as best R&R band.GREAT quote! How do you spell boring? ELP...
"I always play jazz records backwards, they sound better that way"
-Thomas Edison
Say "knock knock." Regards,J.R.
me and my job.
Didn't mean to go all sophisto on ya'. Regards,J.R.
As I am prone to do.
that there is a case to be made not withstanding the fact that I just have never enjoyed the Dead at all. The only thing I can cling to is that I haven't ever seen a ground swell youth movement reaching out to the Dead. They were/are however, quite the phenomenon and I can't quite get around that although if pressed, I can try!jc
.
for over 20 years.....plus they are/were nice people.
so I'd go with Aerosmith.
How's that, soxie?
and were extremely talented musically.In other words, I was bored.
But I saw them pre-Joe Walsh, which is probably the problem.
/
can we get back to the natural order of things?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
