Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ByeBye on November 18, 2006, 06:17:55 PM
-
Was looking at some Beatles stuff and was very amazed at the skill these guys had live. No monitors,no way of hearing themselves, crap equipment but freaking amazing talent.
You can't fake talent. Anyone young or old that is or was in a band will probably be amazed at what the Beatles could pull off live. Add to that the songwriting skill and you have a band that will probably never be topped.
It boggles my mind how they could sing like they did with no monitors.
money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0UmD7JLRnM)
Saw her standing there (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoPfjtgbx5k)
Yesterday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Qq5dr8JLk)
Im Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYqKy9Zfmu4)
help (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6VtfyFjNb0)
-
I have about 75 Beatles videos on my HD.
Nuke, I've always said they are the best.
-
Here's an interesting doc for you nuke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jJzOvnAla0&mode=related&search=
-
Thanks Sluggish! Thats just pure talent there. Too bad Yoko was there..
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Thanks Sluggish! Thats just pure talent there. Too bad Yoko was there..
There's like 7 parts to it. There's a few parts where John and George are talking not so nicely about Paul. I have had a life-long fascination with the Beatles.
-
Interviews I've read is that no one could hear them over the screaming of the teenage girls. .
During live performances of "I Want to Hold Your Hand", Lennon often changed the words to "I want to hold your gland" (meaning breast/mammary gland), because no one could hear the vocals anyway, above the noise of the screaming audiences.
That's from wikipedia so take it as you will.
I've always liked them more then the Beach Boys, they could do happy, they could do sad, the Beach Boys always seemed happy.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Interviews I've read is that no one could hear them over the screaming of the teenage girls. . That's from wikipedia so take it as you will.
I've always liked them more then the Beach Boys, they could do happy, they could do sad, the Beach Boys always seemed happy.
No one especially themselves. Which is exactly what Nuke is talking about. It's amazing that they sounded as good as they did live since they coulldn't hear themselves. Yeah some of the harmonies are a little off but they are basically singing from memory with perfect pitch.
-
"Interviews I've read is that no one could hear them over the screaming of the teenage girls. ."
Thats not from the Beatles..thats from my chainsaw.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
crap equipment
I wouldn't say what they had was crap for equipment - they were using top of the line Siemens, Telefunken, Neumann pres and mics ( lotta German stuff :) ) RCA mics, Gates compressors. . . and thier instrument choices weren't bottom rung either (Rickenbacker, VOX, Orange, Fender, Hofner, Rhodes). Maybe BEFORE they got the deal. . .
And they did have monitors on ocassion - just not wedges on the floor or spots on the mics like you would normally see. They could definitely hear themselves live.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
No one especially themselves. Which is exactly what Nuke is talking about. It's amazing that they sounded as good as they did live since they coulldn't hear themselves. Yeah some of the harmonies are a little off but they are basically singing from memory with perfect pitch.
The Beatles "trademark" was "deliberate off key harmonies".
-
Pete Townshend didn't think too highly of them. Try to hunt down a copy of "The Rolling Stones Rock N' Roll Circus" There were a few song by Lennon and Yoko on there as well some by the Stones. But the real talent was in the beginning of the show with Taj Mahal and The Who. Mick though that the other bands in the line up sounded better live than the Stones. That was thought to be the reason the show never went to air and they didn't make any more.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Beatles "trademark" was "deliberate off key harmonies".
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.
-
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.
Listen to anything "Post Yesterday and Today" (it started with Doctor Robert). They deliberately used off key harmonies.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Yesterday (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Qq5dr8JLk)
absolutely love that song.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
Thanks Sluggish! Thats just pure talent there. Too bad Yoko was there..
So you're willing to admit that they may be as good as you are?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z05zPJKasDw&mode=related&search)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Doors were way better.
i have star quality
-
Originally posted by mandingo
The Doors were way better.
i have star quality
Sure (on both accounts).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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. 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.
The Beatles were not fantastic musicians, but they were great songwriters and great singers. They were original and created a diverse catalog of songs that is worth it's weight in gold. They were good enough musicians to create some of the most interesting music of modern Rock.
Even more amazing than jus their talent and skill was that they did this all within about an 8 year period. How long has Megadeath been around?
There live performances are up there with anybody you care to list. And don't go by sound quality, because the Beatles did what they did with (originally) 30 watt amps, no fancy PA to speak of and no monitors.
Heck, they even recorded most of their early songs as a band all playing at once instead of mutiple tracks of vocals and other stuff.
I honestly don't think there is a band on the same level as the Beatles as a whole. The next step down ( of the big bands) would include (IMO) Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Zep and some others.
Megadeath has a good guitar player.
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
The Beatles were not fantastic musicians, but they were great songwriters and great singers. They were original and created a diverse catalog of songs that is worth it's weight in gold. They were good enough musicians to create some of the most interesting music of modern Rock.
Good point.
And to make a point
The song "Something"
Was once discribed as "the greatest love song ever written"
by none less the Frank Sinatra
Pretty high compliment That harrison would receive that kind of compliment from someone like Sinatra
Now Im not a Sinatra fan
As far as that type of music is concerned I always thought Dean Martin, And Bing Crosby were much much better singers.
But even then its safe to say Sinatra knew a thing or two about love songs LOL
-
I'll give all the props the Beatles having coming to them. But there's one little thing I never did like; their guitar tone was just this side of a 100 year old bone-dry, dry, dry. They had classic gear but damn, it didn't sound too good to these ears. That being said, I still love playing "Day Tripper" on my Epiphone Sheraton II.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
I honestly don't think there is a band on the same level as the Beatles as a whole. The next step down ( of the big bands) would include (IMO) Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Zep and some others.
Radiohead. Never have I encountered music that sounds so complex and developed, while at the same time melodically beautiful and emotional, other then classical music. And the nice thing about Radiohead is that each successive album is guaranteed to be different from the last. They are always looking for that fresh perspective, which often times is seriously rare. They are also a brilliant live band, often experimenting with new songs, and rearranging old hits in different ways. They pride themselves on changing the setlist from every venue. When I saw them in concert, they were changing instruments almost every song. Their guitarist is one of the most respected musicians in England, and he was using everything from guitars, synthesizers, and the Ondes Martenot when I saw them live.
I consider Radiohead in a category of their own, though, with bands like Pink Floyd, the Beatles (yeah I admit they were ahead of their time), My Bloody Valentine, REM, VU...
so yeah, go listen to OK Computer and The Bends... or just get Leviathan to send you endless Radiohead songs until you get hooked. ;)
-
Originally posted by mandingo
Radiohead. Never have I encountered music that sounds so complex and developed, while at the same time melodically beautiful and emotional, other then classical music.
I consider Radiohead in a category of their own, though, with bands like Pink Floyd, the Beatles (yeah I admit they were ahead of their time), My Bloody Valentine, REM, VU...
Agreed on Radiohead. Absolutely amazing.
Although, My Bloody Valentine? Ugh. I'm not sure they hold up to the standard set by the other bands mentioned. Unique? Yes. Consistently delivering quality? No.
-
One of our country's best mucisian once said that clapping the individuals that formed the Beatles into one and the same band was basically unfair!
-
Gotta agree with mandingo on this one. I've been a big fan since Pablo Honey. It's definately not for everyone though. When I try to convert my friends I usually get a blank stare. OK Computer and The Bends are easily the two best albums of the nineties. Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood have inspired me to not write music.