 
|
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 |
69.227.177.130
In Reply to: Re: Get it straight, would you? posted by J on December 4, 2006 at 22:31:31:
You again proved me correct. Thanks.
Its just that you strain to misinterpet the facts to feed your hero worship. This is not a musical issue, it is a personality issue. It has little to do with rock music, it has lots to do with small egos latching onto others for self importance. Do yo have Beatle cards? Beatles bobble head dolls. Adorin g pictures of the lads in their 20's?
I bet you do.
BULLETIN: The two that are left are old men.And the "explaining away" their awful live perforamnces does not make them a good band; you have listed some (who reads your entire post?) factors as to why they were lousy live. Explaining why does not mean they were good. They were lousy live after the Cavern Club. Listen for George blowing the guitar part on Nowhere Man in Germany, (4 times?) or the harmonies on That Boy on Ed Sullivan where George grimaces at how bad they sound.
This has more to do with you, than with music, adn the thread should end. You are no different that ESKEKL; and rememebring my posts from a year ago is not a sign of a good memeory, but of fanatacism. I certainly do not care or remember yours.
Last point:
I know they were lousy live; I was there I heard them live.
Were you?
Follow Ups:
Even if yr 'idol-worship' blathering had even an iota of truth, which it does not (and no, I have no dolls, thank you very much), it would still be clear that yr argument is not based on understanding anything about musicianship. The truth is, yr desire to criticize the Beatles is no less than the inaccurate projection you're foisting on me with reference to some willingness to prop them up when they don't deserve it.That you saw them at the time means only that you heard a lot of screaming. Nobody had the first clue how to produce one of their concerts properly, and if you think those woefully inadequate stage setups means they should've sounded better than you remember them sounding, you haven't the first clue as to how difficult dealing with them must have been. To equate that with their musicianship on the stage itself is ludicrous. My firmly held opinion is that they did better under those circumstances than any rock band would've ever managed. But few did, because those inadequacies were soon addressed. However, there are two documents that illustrate the pitfalls of playing on a big stage, in front of a lot of people, without sufficient gear, by the Rolling Stones: one is an album called Got Live If You Want It, which I would suggest you give a listen to in comparison with the Hollywood Bowl record, and another is the live performance the same Rolling Stones put on at a show that also seems to have lacked monitors--the live show they put on in London's Hyde Park a few years later. Maybe they sucked because Brian Jones died; maybe it was because they couldn't hear a damned thing. In any case, six months later, a proper stage setup was used on their North American tour. If it hadn't been, there'd be no Get Yer Ya-Yas Out, that's for sure.
You want to dismiss the Hollywood Bowl live rec as mediocre? Well, again, you're entitled to yr opinion, but I'll say again that considering the boners you've foisted on this board in the past, yr credibility on the topic is something I consider to be suspect. I've heard plenty of clams on live Beatles boots, but that doesn't make them 'terrible' under conditions where they couldn't hear a darned thing. Yeah, they were really terrible, huh? Funny you'd mention a song like 'This Boy.' That you're clueless about musicianship couldn't be more apparent in a thread where you'd cite something like that. It's arguably the most difficult 3-way vocal they ever came up with. Playing to a room of nearly 4 TIMES the number of screaming teenagers they'd had to deal with on the first Ed Sullivan broadcast in NYC the week before, it's, oh, scandalous that they would've had difficulty. Well, maybe math suits you more than logic, so chew on these numbers: 728 was the size of the live audience on the first Ed Sullivan Show, 2,600 a week later. So what? They were terrible, according to you.
You're something else.
...
It's a reference to a musical mistake. There are plenty that are audible on various live recordings, usually bootlegs but also sometimes live releases, by most bands, including the Beatles.For some people, one single mistake is a mortal sin that should never occur. When it comes to rock music, this ignores not only the nature of the music itself, but also that it's created and performed, at least primarily, by human beings, not machines. Most people tend to miss all but the most obvious musical mistakes at rock concerts, so to many if not most people, a mistake or two does not a poor performance make.
Some apparently see things differently.
...
You have way too much investment in people that have no relevance to you. They were a band, half are dead, they don't know you exist. Apeing ESKEKL makes you another internut.And explaining why they performed badly in public does not mean they performed well..enough. Its been said enough.
I have said it enough. You are either not familiar with the term "explaining away" or don't care that you typify it.
Go teach a child to ride a bike. There is a real world out there.
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 ]
