 
|
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 |
192.160.165.63
I was a freshman in high school when the Beatles first appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show and I responded in the typical way for people of my generation. I was a fan of all the British invaders, but the Beatles were always my favorite. As an adult I mostly stopped listening to rock in favor of classical music. I am no longer a Beatlemanic, but will always have a place in my heart for the music of the Beatles. A few days ago I happened on a Howard Goodall program about the music of Beatles which gave an interesting musicological analysis and surprisingly favorable assessment of the greatness and importance of the music--both for the sake of popular music and classical music. Goodall himself is a classical composer and he gives the Beatles a lot of credit for rescuing classical music from the low period of atonalism in the 50's and 50's. So here is that program. I am interested in what the musical experts here think of this assessment. My apologies if this is old news for everybody else, but I found it very interesting. It also encouraged me to think I wasn't a complete idiot for being so taken by this music in my youth.
Follow Ups:
the only band that matters...
I was hoping for some responses to Goodall's analysis.
He's pro Brit. They evolved from a banal beginning, In the right place at the right time who knew the right people, who knew they would get richer. Money buys a lot of things. Overrated in my opinion. Never got how Sgt. Pepper is #1 of all time. Pop music sucks, always will, manufactured for the sheople.
Most music is made for people, somewhere. Sometimes (very rarely) that music seems to retain value long after the once-present moment of need has passed.But it could be that the *most important* kind music is the not the "greatest" kind. The kind that most perfectly fills the singular needs of a certain moment in time might actually be most important. Feelings change, events come and go, memories die, but where would we be without music that is made to serve a moment in time? "Music for the sheople", however forgettable it may be, probably does more good than we give it credit for.
Edits: 03/25/16
which few here seem the least bit interested in, myself included.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
/
...are you kidding - watch a 48 minute Youtube?
I have my own analysis as does everyone else.
of politics and religion, however every Beatle detractor I've met seems to one that's been raised by wolves - sorry if that's a bit too harsh
Someone save us from Musical Experts.
Well, "saved the world from atonal music" might be something of an over-statement.But something curious did happen. One thing that the Beatles did introduce to the pop scene (at least during their early years) was a musical style that somehow hearkened back to 17th - 19th century English lyric poetry and songwriting. Although this time around, the lyric style was imbued with a BEAT. So to speak.
More so than most pop bands of the era, the music of the Beatles contained elements of a well-established poetic and musical heritage - and one might say that this sonic "signature" and aesthetic sensibility had something to do with the old "tonality" or personality of the classical phase of European culture.
Edits: 03/18/16 03/18/16 03/18/16 03/18/16
nt
Early Schoenberg.
Free-Atonality at its most flamboyant.
Wow, it probably sounds better that way.
nt
...not long ago a radio station played "The Beatles A to Z" all day - all of their music in alphabetical order.
It was incredible to listen to the breadth and depth of their music played somewhat randomly.
Lennon and McCartney are arguably the greatest songwriters of all time.
George Martin, who passed away last week, was classical music producer before he discovered the Beatles and worked with them.
And perhaps more importantly for us Baby Boomers, their music is the soundtrack of our youth.
What are you smoking, man? Amongst their contemporaries is one Bob
Dylan. Perhaps you have heard of George (and Ira) Gershwin? Perhaps
you have heard of Johnny Mercer (lyricist only)? Or even perhaps one
Cole Porter? Maybe you haven't heard of these people. With a lifetime
of practice, Lennon and McCartney cannot even begin to approach the high
quality of output of Messrs. Gershwin, Mercer,and Porter.
We can give Lennon & McCartney as influential individuals in pop music.
But to suggest they are all time greats is ... mindboggling.
They did borrow tunes from other songwriters and composers, I am not much into rock music, but Beatles did use the main tune from Rachmaninov Second Symphony, the slow movement, of course without giving credit to the composer.
Vahe
I know that I very much in the minority here but I am of the opinion that the Beatles were overrated. While there are a number of notable exceptions in my opinion the majority of they're music hasn't aged well and certainly not in comparison to some of their contemporaries.
When he was still alive, Michael Smuin (of the Smuin Ballet) did a piece called "To the Beatles", which was a series of dances set to Beatles' songs. I was introduced to Smuin and one of the dancers who performed, and I asked the dancer how he felt about dancing to music of a much different generation - his response was "the songs are so fresh - it is fantastic". This has been my experience - that new listeners find that the Beatles music is still fresh.
When I think of their contemporaries - they had hits from 63 to 70 - not that much is still being played from that time. In roughly the 63-65 time frame, the second biggest band, in terms of #1 hits, was the Dave Clark 5, practically unknown today. The DC5 did some GREAT songs, but failed to innovate late DC5 sounds just like early DC5, something you would never say about the Beatles. The Beach Boys might rank up there, although my personal preference is for the Beatles. The Stones were probably the second biggest band from 65 -70, but there stuff was not nearly as influential, and I don't think is as played nearly as much as the Beatles continues to be today. Not sure who else might be on your list.
The Beatles are Timeless.
He died instead.
Since the Smuin ballet didn't and doesn't, for the most part, use live musicians, not sure how you could have been there.
You must be thinking about the SF Ballet, from which he was fired, as I understand it. I wasn't aware that the SF Ballet ever performed To The Beatles, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I find the idea of live dancers performing to recorded music to be silly, but since a good friend of mine is on the board, I keep silent.
for a UN Festival at the Opera House.
Something in the Ballet offended many Board Members, and he got the hook.
Crotch-grabbing, or some such thing.
I guess they didn't attend the regular Ballet performances of it.
I don't think the Beatles were available to do the Live shows...
I think one sign of great music (or "importance") is the volume of cover renditions that have been performed..... There are probably more cover versions of Beatles music than from any other musical artist, of any genre.
...is the most covered song ever.
...You Into..........
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
