 
|
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 |
66.65.40.90
In Reply to: I have a pretty good feeling that YOU posted by J on December 4, 2006 at 22:38:41:
UNDERSTANDABLE, until the discussion enters the merits of a band being good live or not.
Follow Ups:
...a friggin' combo isn't good enough to be properly heard amongst more than 50,000 banshees in a baseball stadium. What the hell...a 50 watt Vox? If that? With a single-coil Rickenbacker? Yeah, that's some loud guitar, there. I'll bet it was REAL easy to hear on THOSE stages.Oh, brother.
...take a good look at this pic. Now, it's not hard to find photos from the late 60s when bands realized they needed a LOT more amplification behind them if they wanted to be able to hear themselves. But this one here I found quite interesting. I wonder how much noise that particular outfit had to put up from their rabid fan base? Yet they found it necessary to outfit themselves with plenty of equipment in order to hear themselves on stage. Any idea who they might be? Nope, not the Who. Or Tull, or Zep, Black Sabbath, Grand Funk, Hendrix, Iron Butterfly, or the MC5.That wall of amps was apparently necessary for the band pictured, which is the friggin' CARPENTERS. Of course, if you've read this far, you've seen what the Beatles had to work with in 1964 & 1965. I guess it doesn't matter that they played to tens of thousands of screaming girls; it's easy enough to just say that they sucked. But if the Carpenters decided a backline like that was necessary, you'd think it would've gotten across to some people over the past 4 decades that the Beatles weren't exactly dealing with anything resembling a modern approach towards amplification of a rock band in a large venue.
Yet even without the more involved stage setups that ended up being the norm on live rock stages by the end of the 60s, especially in large venues, the Beatles still managed to sound as good as they do on 'Hollywood Bowl.'
Ah, but that doesn't mean anything. After all, Lennon said they were terrible somewhere. It's not like context matters, or anything.
like they live as long as they live.
Which is why it ain't seen the light of day in legitimate releases in years. You confuse your adoration for the four men (urg) with tight musicianship which it clearly lacked.And yes I have 64 and 65, three sets.
George Martin produced it, transferring the tapes from three track to sixteen and managed to get a pretty good product. It was released by Capitol/EMI, so what isn't legit? The fact that it has yet to be released on CD?I don't know exactly how much fidelity you expected from 1964 and 1965 recordings, but the results were quite good and captured the essence of a Beatles concert.
And yes, the Beatles were an extraordinary live band and they had very high expectations of themselves, with or without monitors. All of that time spent in Hamburg and at the Cavern Club gave them two things: (1) a plethora of compositions, and (2) an ability to perform together without missing a beat in spite of tremendous odds. Their eventual disdain for performing live came from their dismay over the fact that no one could actually hear them perform, and eventually because their music became too complex to be performed live given the technological restrictions that existed at the time.
I have to agree with one of J's assertion here that there are some who have truly studied The Beatles, and others who merely have opinions. I see we are dividing off into our appropriate camps.
How's that, soxie?
Bruce...what is it with this guy?He sure assumes a lot. Some people actually need to possess certain types of knowledge for reasons beyond being a fan. Hey, if he thinks I'm a 'Trekkie'-level Beatles fan, good for him. I know what I hear. He apparently hears something very different, and has crafted his own facts to support his conclusion. What's striking about it is how far devoid of reality it is, and how aggressive he is in his insistence that only he understands the key issues in this discussion--which renders it a monologue.
If he feels as he does about the level of musicianship in this outfit, that's something I have to leave him to. I see no point in responding to it. Quite frankly, it tops the Ringo & Live & Let Die vendettas to take a firm place as a contender for dumbest posts I've ever seen on the internet.
Anywhere.
Thanks for jumping in. I don't wish to mess this sandbox any more than I already have. But I think there's something really, truly wrong here. And it ain't you, it ain't dave c, it ain't me...and I'm moved to say, it ain't LWR, who's not exactly a pal of mine, either.
Oh, well.
I'm starting a fresh thread on this tomorrow with your name on it.But you have to admit, the concept of either one of us falling into hero worship is kind of funny. Well, maybe not so much for me. I'm on record.
BTW.....stand by for Live At The Hollywood Bowl to come out on dual disc one day. The Who is releasing stuff of lesser quality as being 5.1. ;~)
Even my conversation with Mr. Doorack regarding hillbilly rock was more enlightened than this. Just another day on the asylum.
How's that, soxie?
Anything will come out "one day".
My post had nothing to do with mixing tracks, or sound quality. Or production. Or George Martin. There is no legitimate (legal) CD of the Hollywood Bowl for sale, but lots of bootlegs of both 64 and 65. The Beatles' performance is haphazard, sloppy. If you had never heard of the Beatles, and someone erased the screaming from that tape so you could just hear the music, you would wonder what the commotion was about. They sound like a garage band rehearsing, with no great players.They were only an extraordinary live band until Beatlemania hit, when they could no longer hear each other; after that they they played like shite. They rehearsed ONE DAY for a twelve song tour of Sweden.They were in fact, during their time, great RECORD makers. But that is far different and should not be confused with being great musicians, which they were clearly not. And their time has come and gone.
The other poster here suffers from the halo effect; he believes anything the beatles did was super because he loves the Beatles. BTW, I like the Beatles MUSIC, and have 20-30 hours of unreleasd studio tapes. But there is a difference between enoying the music, (which is what it is about) and hero worship of the musicians, (which is where it turns into a pathology) and that's where fantacism begins. He probably believes their shit did not stink. That is not a musical problem or issue for this board.
That's a 3% er.
That is a joke. Blame fans, equipment, whatever. They were a lousy live band from 1964 on. But great recording artists.
I can make you one. Want it?By your definition, in terms of live, the Stones sucked, the Animals sucked, Big Brother et al sucked, early Fleetwood Mac sucked, hell everyone sucked live because they were using old technology. What do you expect for a barrage of Vox Super Beatle amps and lousy auditorium PA systems?
How's that, soxie?
to me. Even though I am a Beatles fan. That stuff did not serve to enahce their reputation. I actaully enoy those horrible recordings at the Star Club better; far better performances.
If I didn't know any better, I'd've gotten the idea that he was actually trying to suggest that I'd admitted to agreeing with his premise that the Beatles were terrible live...sure looks that way from a couple of his subject lines. But, hell...now it's that they weren't great musicians. Oh, brother. This is like the arguments I used to get into back in high school with geniuses who insisted that, uh, the Beatles, ahem, weren't great musicians...with them, it was because they didn't play music like Rush or Emerson, Lake & Palmer. And, therefore, couldn't...that of course being the only acceptable measure of greatness when it comes to musicianship. I guess part of the earth's balance depends on a certain number of confused people.I'll keep my eyes out for that thread.
you just misstate their arguemnt; its not that playing MUSIC similar to Rush proves you are good; Rush's music stinks. But their musicianship far outranks the Beatles in technical virtuousity. Light years ahead.That just doesn't always add up to good music, such as in Rush's case. Maybe if you were a musician you would understand this very basic concept. And you would understand why you are so clearly wrong on nearly everything you write, and about Ringo being more than an average drummer.
Let me enlighten you; anyone who has played the guitar for a couple years can play everything George laid down on record during the Beatles. But you can have played for 40 years and not be able to play Stevie Ray Vaughns licks. He was a GREAT guitar player, George was not. I listen to George 50 times more than SRV, but I know the difference between what I like and technical virtuosity. You don't know or out of bizarre loyalty don't admit it.
Ringo was an average drummer, the guy in the Moodly Blues a bad one, and Bill Bruford a great one. Get over it. Time to give those Beatles cards away! :-)
If someone else calls you a genius, will you go away? Because I won't, much as I'd prefer yr absence.You don't know what you're talking about. I stopped responding to you, but if you must continue this nonsense, you leave me no choice.
Technical virtuosity is NOT the basis for great musicianship. It's too bad that anyone feels this way, but...YOU of all people suggesting that if only OTHERS were musicians, that maybe they'd understand...trying to correct yr verbal incontinence on the subject of music has lost its appeal, especially given that you're still not willing to back off yr contention that the Live And Let Die lyric is redundant even though it's been clearly explained to you that yr interpretation is wildly inaccurate & just plain incorrect.
You're like the people who used to listen to Beach Boys singles & think they were simple...because they sounded simple. Unless you could actually comprehend that the music was actually rather complex. The Beatles were pretty good at that also, though it's obviously lost on you. If you choose to mistakenly believe that I'm some sort of sycophant, that is yr right & privilege, but it doesn't change the fact that the Beatles' music was being seriously analyzed and discussed by classical music critics and characterized as being worthy of such discussion, in November 1963. Gee, that couldn't possibly constitute a validation of the musicianship involved, could it now? Apparently not to you.
That's nine months after John Lennon said the Beatles were already dead as a live act...but wait a minute? I thought you said that didn't happen until they got famous? Don't you know everything? I guess Lennon wouldn't have thought that highly of the Live At The BBC set, hmmm?
Do you like only the tracks on that set recorded prior to 1964, since, according to you, upon becoming famous, they also became a terrible live band?
But here I am actually debating with someone who believes that George Harrison's guitar playing is easily replicated. The Ringo comments are stupid enough to begin with...this is easily the dumbest thing you've ever posted. But it's been apparent for quite some time that you know nothing about musicianship. I don't know how many technical virtuosos you've actually ever played with, but if you spent time with some, you'd find that many would indeed laugh that Harrison's playing was nothing more than kid stuff, yet most would never actually attempt to play it, and almost none would or could find that they could actually do it. Technical virtuosos, as a generalization, play far more than is necessary in rock music. Far too many notes. But music and musicianship is not something that's supposed to be devoid of restraint.The Beatles were masters of restraint, which is just one little aspect of musicianship that doesn't come part & parcel with all of the talent and ability required to achieve technical virtuosity. And you can choose to believe otherwise, but some of us know better, and understand that those who display the technical virtuosity that the Beatles may not have possessed rarely exercise restraint (usually because they rarely possess it). Many seem to not understand it, including yrself. It helps if you have an inkling that this is pop and rock music we're discussing, and it's actually far easier to create and perform complicated pop and rock music that sounds complicated than it is to create and perform complicated pop and rock music that sounds simple.
Referring to the musicianship of the Beatles as you have is proof positive that you are woefully unaware of this distinction.
I'll never forget how he raved over this guitarist who could play faster than anyone else--automatically made him a good musician. (I forget the guy's name now, which tells you a lot.)As for Ringo, oh that thread. He's no Neil Peart, for sure; he's only a great musician with the highest respect of his peers (as opposed to lawyers) and the inspiration of most of the drummers this guy thinks are better.
You have far more patience than I, sir.
It's comparable to the other fellow for whom the only relevant factor in music is complexity. I did waste too much of my time on this.I appreciate the affirmation, though, very much so. Unfortunately I don't think that, even coming from a full-time professional like you, that it will make a bit of difference.
Life goes on.
Yes.
No matter what attack (3-10 paragraphs of trivia about dead people) follows I am done. Feels like discussing the View, or Brad and Angelina; or whatever. It has nothing to do with music, and all to do with personality.
... which my be my problem!
Actualyy although its dangerously easy to get caught up in a somewhat heated butting of heads, in reality we are all music lovers and probably have more in common than we have apart... although it does sometimes hurt (me) to admit it!
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 ]
