Author Topic: Youtube and the Beatles (Read 896 times)

sluggish · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2006, 10:40:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
Listen to anything "Post Yesterday and Today" (it started with Doctor Robert). They deliberately used off key harmonies.

Masherbrum
What you are calling "offkey" harmonies are actually minor-chord close harmonies and they were most definately deliberate.

Black Sheep
You site a lot of gear that I was unaware that they used. Very interesting. I was unaware that they used Orange amps. On what recordings? They used Vox because that was all they could get and Rik and Hofner were considered "bargain" instrument before the Beatles made them famous. Paul chose the Hofner violin bass because it was symetrical and didn't look silly when he strung it upside down. Please site a reference to show where the Beatles ever used stage monitors.

When they played the Budakan in Japan the crowd was quiet enough for them to actually hear themselves. They were appalled by what they heard. Many say those two shows were where they decided to not tour anymore. The two recorded shows from the Hollywood Bowl in 64 - 65 are an excellent testament to their ability as a live band. Although it was recorded on a three track machine (bass and drums in one, guitars in another, and vocals in the third) the sound is amazingly well balanced and the harmonies quite tight for a band that essentially could not hear itself.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:02:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Black Sheep
Actually, their trademarks were hit songs and teenage girl appeal. They weren't a polished band vocally or instrumentally by any stretch. To say they were deliberately off-key is a bit much. They did the best they could as a band that had played together before and during thier recording years.

Personally I think that like many bands in their early years I agree they werent very polished and they made hit songs with teenage gilr appeal they became more polished through the years as they went along
And also became more appealing to the general audiance as well.

Pretty cool Video here. pretty obvious to me that they were lip lip syncing
but when you compare it to even the studio recording of say "she loves you"

You can see how much more polished their music had indeed become
As well as more appealing to more then just the teenage girl crowd.

Added bonus. if you watch closely near the end of the video you will see another rather familiour face by the name of Mick Jaggar in the studio auduance croud singing along

All You Need is Love

Speed55 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:07:00 AM »

Not to take away from what The Beatles contributed to the music industry, but i honestly don't see anything super extraordinary about there live performances, or recorded material. I think it was more of a phenomenon with the whole british invasion and all, coming to the states, giving little girls there first warm feelings down low.
I definitely will say that they were excellent at what they did, but i've seen plenty of musicians that in my opinion are much more talented.

As an example, and i'm not saying their the best band in the world, and they are a totally different genre, but if you listen to Megadeth you'll see what i mean. Dave Mustaine plays some extremely technical rhythem with unusual picking patterns and sings at the same time. To me that takes alot more talent than what any of the beatles ever did. But i guess that's all chalked up to the evolution of rock & roll.

Sorry to hijack, but as a fellow musician i couldn't keep my mouth shut.

Cougar68 · « **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:17:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Speed55
As an example, and i'm not saying their the best band in the world, and they are a totally different genre, but if you listen to Megadeth you'll see what i mean. Dave Mustaine plays some extremely technical rhythem with unusual picking patterns and sings at the same time. To me that takes alot more talent than what any of the beatles ever did. But i guess that's all chalked up to the evolution of rock & roll.

That's like trying to compare a '25 Rolls Royce Phaeton to a Ferrari Enzo. It's not that the Rolls is a crate, it's just from a less technically advanced era. You have to give credit to those that did it first. Without their contribution to the evolution of music, it wouldn't be the same.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:30:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Speed55
Not to take away from what The Beatles contributed to the music industry, but i honestly don't see anything super extraordinary about there live performances, or recorded material.
As an example, and i'm not saying their the best band in the world, and they are a totally different genre, but if you listen to Megadeth you'll see what i mean. Dave Mustaine plays some extremely technical rhythem with unusual picking patterns and sings at the same time. To me that takes alot more talent than what any of the beatles ever did. But i guess that's all chalked up to the evolution of rock & roll.

Sorry to hijack, but as a fellow musician i couldn't keep my mouth shut.

See now thats exactly how I've always felt. and still feel about the Rolling Stones.

They are ok. Have a few good songs.
but I certainl;y dont see them as being all that.

Obviously the masses dont agree with me just as the masses dont agree with the Beatles Naysayers

Also you must remember the time period and the styles that were popular.
IF Megadeath came around the same time as when the Beatles hit teh scene they would have been soundly booed off the stage if not run out of town completely as being talentless and just making alot of noise. Or at the very least would have gotten some very odd looks. LMAO
It simply wouldnt have been seen as music

Kinda like then Micheal J Fox played Johnny B Goode in Back to The Future
And hes getting into it and everyone just ends up staring at him.
and he comes up with that
"But your kids are gonna love it" line

Speed55 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:42:54 AM »

Dred/Cougar

Trust me, i'm not taking away what they did accomplish, or there talent. I guess for the time it was a big deal.

But i know there were guys even in that era that were tearing it up on the axe with the exact same equpiment , that probably laughed at the beatles, but also were probably never heard of, or seen as oddballs. I can't think of names now, which would help, but my friends father who grew up around that time knows, and let me here a bunch of them.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2006, 11:52:18 AM »

The Beatles put the Epiphone Casino on the map. The Vox amps used for their stadium gigs were 50 watt Vox amps, the most powerful at the time, specially made for em.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #22 on:** November 19, 2006, 02:07:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Speed55
Dred/Cougar

Trust me, i'm not taking away what they did accomplish, or there talent. I guess for the time it was a big deal.

But i know there were guys even in that era that were tearing it up on the axe with the exact same equpiment , that probably laughed at the beatles, but also were probably never heard of, or seen as oddballs. I can't think of names now, which would help, but my friends father who grew up around that time knows, and let me here a bunch of them.

not saying you are.
But no matter how much they were tearing it up or how good they were it all depends on what the public wants to hear.

And you have to have that special "thing" an aura
Or what they call "Star Quality"

If you have it. You can become outragously popular no matter how good you are
If you dont. You can be the best ever and the masses will turn a deaf ear to you.

Kinda like John Wayne, Schwarzenegger
Lousy actors. And many were better at acting.
But they had that "thing" about them
which enabled them to acheive a level of success that many other better actors can only fantasise about.

mandingo · « **Reply #23 on:** November 19, 2006, 02:50:03 PM »

The Doors were way better.

i have star quality

Masherbrum · « **Reply #24 on:** November 19, 2006, 03:30:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mandingo
The Doors were way better.

i have star quality

Sure (on both accounts).

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #25 on:** November 19, 2006, 03:33:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mandingo
The Doors were way better.

i have star quality

the Doors were without question.
ahead of their time.

Would have been real inteesting to see what they could have beccome.
then we very well might be having this same conversation about them

Instead they were like a shooting star. Shooting across the night sky very quickly ,very brightly then suddenly fading away.

mandingo · « **Reply #26 on:** November 19, 2006, 03:56:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK

Instead they were like a shooting start. Shoting across the night sky very quickly ,very brightly then suddenly fading away.

how poetic.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #27 on:** November 19, 2006, 03:57:37 PM »

I have a flair for it sometimes LOL

Cept is shoulda read "star" instead of start LOL

Lemme see if its too late to fix

there. thats better

Yeager · « **Reply #28 on:** November 19, 2006, 04:00:40 PM »

Check out Lennon at Shea Stadium...the guy was high and losing his mind. McCartney said at one point during the Anthology that he was worried about Lennon during that performance.

T0J0 · « **Reply #29 on:** November 19, 2006, 06:17:42 PM »

Compare Megadeth total record sales for all years then take total Beatles record sales and divide by 20... The Beatles would still win....

Just saying... But your correct, mechanically megadeth had some talent... Just not on the same level as the beatles as a group... This was a time when the fricken Monkeys toured with Jimi Hendricks and Hendricks got boo'd off stage...
people didn't understand rock music yet...