Floyd Tatum Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (in John Cleese accent): No, it isn't (in John Cleese accent): Yes, it is. err, that's 'in Michael Palin accent', thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesape Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 tsk,tsk! Such silliness! http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e397/reifspano/HomerDoh.jpg Never a DUH! moment! Well, almost never. OK, OK! Sometimes never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A String Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 (in John Cleese accent): No, it isn't (in John Cleese accent): Yes, it is. err, that's 'in Michael Palin accent', thank you very much! No it isn't. Craig Stringnetwork on Facebook String Network Forum My Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Tatum Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 No it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 IS too... and yes D, I thought GH wrote let it be...but alas, I was in error...he wrote a couple of songs on the let it be album but did not write let it be nor Sgt Pepper...but yes, on some of the other songs I mentioned...my apology, pro quo quid and I must have been asleep at the wheel... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Thorne Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 "Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type make me puke!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Harrison's search for new sounds led not only to the sitar, but also the electric 12 string which influenced tons of folks. His soloing sounds better on various Live at BBC tracks than some of the early studio stuff, so he may have had some studio nerves. Also the Beatles were a pop band, not a bunch of musos showing off chops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I think they were more of a rock and roll band than a pop band...in the early days they were heavily infuenced by Chuck Berry and other R&R'ers...they later got into more of the 60's flower child stuff...the pop stations did a lot of their music as instrumental versions and their songs could be heard in grocery stores and elevators...I agree that George has influenced a lot of guitar players over time and still does (to include the 6 string)...although some may think he and the group were just a bunch of "wankers"... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneDude Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I love John's music, as far as I am concerned Imagine is possibly one of the best songs ever done and some of the latter Beatle's just amazing and untouchable. Every time I hear Dream #11 it sends me back in time. I am sorry the Beatle's called it quits but I do not blame that on Yoko, that is an end result of time. However, that being said, she would not have amounted to anything without John's wealth and fame, it's easy to be charitable when you have money. Her voice, if you can call it that, is more grating and alarming than a cat's tail under a rocking chair. I laughed so hard in Imagine when John was penning the tune on piano and she made a suggestion to tune the piano in an octave and play them together. Tune it... Perhaps the issue the piano has a 6 octave range was an unknown to her, John's look was priceless but you could tell he loved her. "I used to have a short term memory but I forgot where I put it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneDude Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 (in John Cleese accent): No, it isn't (in John Cleese accent): Yes, it is. err, that's 'in Michael Palin accent', thank you very much! [/quote Tis' Tisn't classic genius No one will ever touch Python "I used to have a short term memory but I forgot where I put it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 While the Beatles certainly played rock n' roll songs, Lennon and McCartney wanted to be like Goffin/King. They covered lots of girl group songs and their singles owe much more to that than Chuck Berry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Perhaps Chuck Berry's Roll Over Beethoven and Rock and Roll Music were just a couple Beatle recordings that took second place to those "lots of girl group songs"...and I'm sure his other songs like Johnny B. Goode, School Days, Reelin and Rockin, Memphis, No Particlular Place to Go, Sweet Little Sixteen, and Back in the USA, had little or no influence as well...I agree they wrote little girl songs like I Want to Hold Your Hand etc. (which were good too)...but I think Chuck influenced both the Beatles and the Beach Boys (who he sued and won over the theft of Sweet Little 16 which they used as Surfin USA)...the Beatles along with the other Brits like the Animals (who were influenced by Bo Didly) were all under the spell of the good old American Rock and Rollers (like Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Fats, Chuck, Bo, Elvis, oldies, etc.) and the early Beatles were no exception...IMHO...check out songs like Chains and I Saw'r Her Standing There for examples... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToneDude Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Personally I do not care much for the early stuff, I really only like the latter more trippy tunes. I Am The Walrus, A Day In the Life, Strawberry Fields, etc. That material was unique and seemed to be the spark of genius. We all tap riffs from tunes either consciously or subconsciously. Many times I had penned some material for the band to have others in the room say it sounded like something I had never heard. Easy to understand how interval progressions can sound similar. Invent the weirdest blues on the basic I, IV, V structure and I'll bet it sounds like something someone has done. It is true Chuck was ripped off directly but sometimes I cannot help but feel it was not intentional. "I used to have a short term memory but I forgot where I put it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picker Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 As far as the Beatles were concerned, Chuck got his royalties without having to resort to lawyers. Considering how many records they sold, The Beatles recording his songs was the best thing that could have happened to him. Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Iverson Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Yes, and white kids like Butterfield and Bloomfield and Clapton and the Stones recording Howling Wolf and Muddy tunes, and telling people they loved B.B. King, didn't hurt any of THOSE guys either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Chains is a Goffin/King song, so I'm not sure that helps your case re proving the Beatles weren't influenced by girl groups. The Beatles officially released two Chuck Berry songs: Roll Over Beethoven and Rock and Roll Music. Their first two records contain girl group songs: Please Mr. Postman, Chains, Baby It's You, Devil In Her (his) Heart, and Boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 I wasn't trying to make any kind of case Geoffk and I was not familiar with the term "girl group songs" although I'm starting to get the idea...just making a comment with regard to such great writers as the Beatles, (ie. to show they were influenced more by C.Berry than the girl group songs) as they even chose a couple of his tunes to record...mainly because they liked his stuff/vibe along with other R&R'ers to include girl groups...another oldie vibe is OH Darlin, please believe me, etc...If Chains is a "girl group song" count me in... +1 on Picker's comment on C.Berry making some big bucks simply because the Beatles chose to do a couple of his songs... +1 on ToneDude's I IV V comments and how no matter how original you are someone will say "hey that sounds just like [insert tune]...I agree that we all have subconsciously ripped off someone when we write or improvise as we tend to go in the new direction based upon the music we like from our past...Chuck Berry was just one of the original R&R writers and performers out there who's work was inspirational...so were the Beatles, and I like their "trippy tunes" too... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrell Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 +2 on the rip off... We gravitate to our influences. Without them, we'd be lost! I think it even goes further to listeners. If the listeners only musical epiphany was a nursery rime, they will gravitate as listeners. Turn on the radio... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 The case you are trying to make "they were influenced more by Chuck Berry than girl group songs" is simply not born out by the facts. They were marketed as, and marketed themselves as a pop band. In later years Lennon had an issue with this; but he certainly didn't at the beginning when he was writing plenty of tunes that were influenced by the girl group sound--even album tracks where if he had a real bug to record Chuck Berry style stuff he could have written some--instead he wrote stuff like "Tell Me Why". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Geoffk, Somehow you think I'm trying to make "a case" and I really only want to make a comment, which means I have an opinion not an arguement...but on the other hand I went and looked up some of your "girl group" stuff and I didn't find any groups that had their songs recorded more than once and I didn't look for who the writers were...in the [cases] of Chains and Mr. Postman, the Beatles were more influenced by the backing vocal concepts...IMHO...as you look at Smokey Robinson and the Miracles doing You Really Got a Hold on Me, you will find the Beatles using the same concept [sans girl group]...and you won't find many songs done by Martha and the Vandellas or the Supremes, etc...I'm not arguing your valid point of view and I'm tyring to be inclusive of your "girl group" concept as much as I can in my response to you...one of the best examples of 3 part Beatle harmonoy and backing vocals was This Boy (also copping the I vi IV V pattern from good old American R&R)...I think the Beatles were more interested in songs with backing vocals in their cover tunes and thus did pick up some "girl group" concepts...but in the case of Chuck Berry, they were also paying homage to a great writer and picked on more than one his songs...IMHO and by the way, for the Whiney George fans, he sang the live lead on Roll Over Beethoven without any backing from Paul or John... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Your opinion about the Beatles being a rock band was offered in response to my post that the Beatles were first and foremost a pop band, and that was why discussions about Harrison's chops were off the mark. While it's true that everyone is entitled to an opinion, that doesn't mean they are all equally valid. And when you offer up your opinion as a response against my contention on the Beatles as a pop band (a contention shared by McCartney, Lennon etc etc) and at the same time with an admitted lack of understanding of what the girl group Goffin/King genre of music that the Beatles were attempting to recreate you should expect to have your opinion challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 The Beatles suck, everyone posting on this thread sucks, everyone on this forum sucks, the Beatles suck, and YOU suck most of all- YOU know who YOU are!! ~Nnnnn'yeeeaahh~! "HEY, FELLAS, LOOK WHAT I ALMOST STEPPED IN!" Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Feel free to challenge my opinion at anytime and I'm glad we are getting to your real issue (ie. pop band vs rock and roll band) and it's just my self-admitted uneducated opinion and lack of knowledge about the "girl group Goffin/King" theory of yours that somehow makes it possible for your "challenge"...yes I'm quite aware that there are those that wish to classify the Beatles (even if McCartney and Lennon shared their opinion) as a "POP" band...the same could be said of Elvis as a Rock-a-billy star...I don't buy it...in other words I have and opinion which you may consider invalid, but it's my theory just the same and it involves those that wish to re-write history...Elvis [is] rock and roll (ie. the King of rock and roll) and the Beatles [are] rock and roll (ie. not a king of pop Michael Jackson band)...but hey, that's just my definition and I respect all other to include yours...a forum should freeley include everyone's opinion to include Caevan's "The Beatles Suck and everyone on this thread sucks" and Chad's "you're all just a bunch of Wankers and so are the Beatles and we all (or I) just make him want to puke" (paraphrased) but, we should all have some fun and share our opinions, I don't expect anyone (to include you Geoffk) to share mine...but I appreciate your comments and respectfully disagree with those that try to define original R&R as POP and as Rockabilly...Their gonna put me in the movies, their gonna make a big star outa me (a little Beatles rockabilly) and let's throw in some Rocky Racoon for some real hillbilly... I think Lennon's "POP" decription of their music had more to do with putting out what was popular, disregarding or not caring about the lyrics as opposed to defining the genre...I know as kids we got the first 9 volt transitor earplug radios ever made and we listened to the Beatles on what we called Rock and Roll AM stations and none of us knew what "Pop" music really was...I still don't. Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Iverson Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 "Wanker" and "suck" - I wouldn't DREAM of aspiring to such noble actions... LOL These are two words I'd love to eliminate from the dictionary... if "wanker" is actually IN the dictionary... though of course we all know what it means! "Pop" music? Well, don't most of us want our music to be enjoyed by other people, and if we're doing it professionally, want to make a few bucks off it? The Beatles were very popular, but they were very creative, also... this doesn't happen every day! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I think "Wankers" are some kind of assbite and the closest thing I found in the dictionary was "wank" which was an old term for coco (not Yoko)...if the Beatles suck and are wankers then I know I do too...as I've posted too much to this thread and must be guilty, so don't try to aspire to these noble actions Eric as you're too cool... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitefang Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Pop? Rock? What does any of it MEAN any more? I have a 36 year old nephew who says he doesn't like "rock'n'roll". So, what does he LIKE? That formulaic, manufactured "psuedo-soul" done with canned beats and auto tuned vocals. Which, by the way, might not even EXIST had it not been for the advent of rock'n'roll. There's rock music, alternative rock, hard rock, soft rock, punk rock, metal rock, folk rock, country rock, jazz rock and yes, even(according to arbitron classifications) something called "Pop/Rock". Which means, I guess, if you listen to it while drinking cola, your head will explode. Today's hard rock will be tomorrow's soft rock. 30 years from now, your grandchildren will hear Rage Against The Machine and say, "Oh, how QUAINT!" So bickering over whether the Beatles music was one or the other is moot. The "pop" comments may have been their own referral to their earlier work, as their last three or four albums couldn't be called "pop" by ANY definition. Anyway, it makes no difference now. Over the decades rock'n'roll had become so splintered and repainted with so many coats that it's hard to notice the original finish anymore. So, to paraphrase the old Sollierre quote; I may not like what you're listening to, but I will defend to the death your right to hear it! Whitefang I started out with NOTHING...and I still have most of it left! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffk Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Maxwell's Silver Hammer is hard rock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larryz Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 Cirque de Solei (spelling?) saw a very intersting KVIE educational channel preview of their Ka, Beatles Love and Elvis shows last night on TV...great stuff...it's not the same watching it on TV as I have seen the Love show live in Vegas...I will definately be going back to the Elvis show as the music is the old Elvis but overdubbed with modern guitars, drums, keys, backing vocals, sexy chic dancers etc... on the Beatles KVIE preview show, George's wife and son were there for the opening, back stage shots by KVIE with behind the scenes make up etc. was great, interviews on the planning of the show with Paul, Ringo and Yoko were great...really learned a lot and wished I had knew more about the history of Lennon's mother's death before going to the show (ie. in the song Julia)...I will say Yoko did a great job and impressed me with her concept of allowing John's history and story to be told in a respectful way musically...The Beatles are by far, still the greatest rock and roll band ever...(I know, I know, the Eagles, Doobies, CCR, Chicago, etc were all great too)...I really can say that before seeing the show live, I had no idea of how masterful the Beatles music really was (even though I grew up with it)...I highly recommend everyone go see these Wankers at least once, even if some think they suck... Take care, Larryz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Iverson Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The Beatles, like creative-minded people everywhere, were open to all kinds of influences. Paul once said that they made a real point of not having all their songs sound the same. Certainly they weren't afraid to try new things, and mostly they succeeded. But they weren't afraid to play OLD things either, if they liked them, LOL! Wankers? Well, I don't recall any 15 minute guitar solos from them - no Flight of the Bumblebee at 300 bpm or anything like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.