This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Pies4shaw wrote:^ I think the thing about the Beatles that generally gives people who don't like them much the irrits is that they were so good, so wide-ranging and so perfect at everything they did that all that has happened in popular music since 1962 exists in their shadow. Thus, the only song written in the 20th century that may be more significant in the history of popular music than the Beatles' best, say, 50 songs is "Summertime". Their impact on the development of music is about the same as Mozart's was. They're probably less "important" than Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg and Ligeti - but none of those people were writing for the radio.
There's some music I "prefer" to theirs - but I'm not silly enough to pretend that the stuff I like is "better" - because, despite my reasonably broad tastes in music (the only thing I can't really cope with is country and western music), what I like just objectively isn't "better" than the Beatles. Nor is anything else recorded since 1960 "better" than the Beatles, no matter how much some people wish it were.
i literally cannot stand the tones and sounds, nothing to do what is subjectively "good". my ears just go ugh, turn it off!
and well, if you cant handle country and western, there goes your credibility!!
nothing like a good old jump off the west gate bridge song!!
i can recommend she thinks my tractor is sexy, the green green grass of home, anything john denver and of course dolly and kenny!
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
While we’re on The Beatles, here’s Bill Maher making a massive ass of himself with Julian Lennon by asking him about "Hey Jules", the song "his dad wrote for him".
Pies4shaw wrote:^ I think the thing about the Beatles that generally gives people who don't like them much the irrits is that they were so good, so wide-ranging and so perfect at everything they did that all that has happened in popular music since 1962 exists in their shadow. Thus, the only song written in the 20th century that may be more significant in the history of popular music than the Beatles' best, say, 50 songs is "Summertime". Their impact on the development of music is about the same as Mozart's was. They're probably less "important" than Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg and Ligeti - but none of those people were writing for the radio.
There's some music I "prefer" to theirs - but I'm not silly enough to pretend that the stuff I like is "better" - because, despite my reasonably broad tastes in music (the only thing I can't really cope with is country and western music), what I like just objectively isn't "better" than the Beatles. Nor is anything else recorded since 1960 "better" than the Beatles, no matter how much some people wish it were.
I don't really care that what other people think is the best band/music, I like what I like and others can enjoy what they like. The best music/bands are what we like ourselves and no-one should tell others what is the best.
Everyone enjoy what you like!
Pies4shaw wrote:^ I think the thing about the Beatles that generally gives people who don't like them much the irrits is that they were so good, so wide-ranging and so perfect at everything they did that all that has happened in popular music since 1962 exists in their shadow. Thus, the only song written in the 20th century that may be more significant in the history of popular music than the Beatles' best, say, 50 songs is "Summertime". Their impact on the development of music is about the same as Mozart's was. They're probably less "important" than Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg and Ligeti - but none of those people were writing for the radio.
There's some music I "prefer" to theirs - but I'm not silly enough to pretend that the stuff I like is "better" - because, despite my reasonably broad tastes in music (the only thing I can't really cope with is country and western music), what I like just objectively isn't "better" than the Beatles. Nor is anything else recorded since 1960 "better" than the Beatles, no matter how much some people wish it were.
Nah, that's a subjective opinion (which you're entitled to) that doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
KenH wrote:The best music/bands are what we like ourselves ...
I don't think that's right, is it? The bands you like best are the bands you like best and the bands I like best are the bands I like best - but the fact that we like them the best says nothing about whether they are actually good or bad. There are, however, a whole lot of things that can be assessed and considered in order to evaluate music, whether we choose to do it or not.
To take a trivial example, the Bay City Rollers might be liked or disliked by an individual listener - but nothing about that listener's response can alter the fact that the singing was barely adequate (and I'm probably being generous, there) and no-one in the band appears to have been on anything more than a nodding acquaintance with their instrument. It's alright (in what Paul Simon called "a kind of limited way for an off-night") to like the Bay City Rollers and not like the Beatles but that doesn't mean that the Bay City Rollers were epoch-defining musicians and the Beatles weren't.
Exactly correct Pies4Shaw. True art is not just defined by what the individual at that moment likes best. Otherwise there would be no art as such: It would just be whatever tickles every individual's fancy at that moment.
I don't have any specialised artistic knowledge whatsoever. However, one thing that I have learned from my reading of the subject is that one way to identify art of a historic, significant nature, is how it appeals across generations. A classic example is Shakespeare, whose works capture the emotions and the essence of humanity which span generations.
The Beatles are relatively recent in history...not like Shakespeare. But, we can see the tendencies. Their music holds sway over generations. There is no let up in their popularity, despite having disbanded over 50 years ago.
David wrote:While we’re on The Beatles, here’s Bill Maher making a massive ass of himself with Julian Lennon by asking him about "Hey Jules", the song "his dad wrote for him".
Anyway seems I am the massive ass here, as I just watched the longer clip in which he does in fact correctly attribute the song to Paul McCartney. It must have just been whoever titled the video having a swing and a miss.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Pies4shaw wrote:^ I think the thing about the Beatles that generally gives people who don't like them much the irrits is that they were so good, so wide-ranging and so perfect at everything they did that all that has happened in popular music since 1962 exists in their shadow. Thus, the only song written in the 20th century that may be more significant in the history of popular music than the Beatles' best, say, 50 songs is "Summertime". Their impact on the development of music is about the same as Mozart's was. They're probably less "important" than Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel, Schoenberg and Ligeti - but none of those people were writing for the radio.
There's some music I "prefer" to theirs - but I'm not silly enough to pretend that the stuff I like is "better" - because, despite my reasonably broad tastes in music (the only thing I can't really cope with is country and western music), what I like just objectively isn't "better" than the Beatles. Nor is anything else recorded since 1960 "better" than the Beatles, no matter how much some people wish it were.
Nah, that's a subjective opinion (which you're entitled to) that doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny.
You're the first person I've ever come across who thought I was over-rating Summertime.
Growing up in the Riverina, our local radio station was 2WG. I was raised on a staple of 'hits and memories of the 50's, 60's and 70's' and Casey Kasem's American Top 40.
My radio had a Short Wave band, which for a country kid blew my mind given some of the relatively obscure geographic locations and stations that would take me to.
Where I first discovered Blues music.
With that, growing up, what was everyone's local radio station identification/ handle?
"The Club's not Jock, Ted and Gerry" (& Eddie)
2023 AFL Premiers
3XY and 3AK, mostly. One or other of them had an album show on Sunday night that did things like play the entirety of "Brain Salad Surgery" and "Dark Side of the Moon" before they were released in Australia. Either or both of them used to play "oldies" - in 1972, eg, that meant playing a Joe Cocker number from 1969 or playing Steppenwolf's original of Born to Be Wild, instead of Slade's. Once in a blue moon, you'd even hear something "new" like the original of Johnny B. Goode or Lucille that you'd not come across. Also, Chris Winter's show on 3LO (now ABC 774) before the old 2JJ was set up was a massive conduit for music that was otherwise inaccessible in the days when you didn't hear interesting music unless you bought the vinyl and most of us couldn't afford much vinyl. Specifically, I recall first hearing Terrapin from Syd Barrett's "The Madcap Laughs", Johny Shines playing Skull and Crossbone Blues and the whole of Dob Dylan and the Band's "Before the Flood". In those days, those programs were actual treasure troves in a way that youtube, streaming services and the relatively trivial cost of CDs have rendered irrelevant/obsolete.
In fact, the DJs could provide valuable information just by reading the liner notes of the LPs. It's hard to think back and understand just how little music we were exposed to and how little we knew about any of these recordings or artists in those days.
Ther other thing was that those those radio stations were critical for professional musicians - if you wanted to play a hit, the sheet music was useless - the only way to play the song was to "tape" it and then spend hours painstakingly working out, note by note, what the performers were playing on the recording. And if you wanted to play anything that wasn't a hit and you didn't own the album, you just had to hope that one of the more expansive programs would eventually play it.
One day, the internet was invented and I was able to find out, eg, that the reason all the brilliant piano playing on most of the Rolling Stones, Kinks and Who albums - and important Beatles songs like Revolution - was so sophisticated was because it was the same fellow doing it all (the magnificent Nicky Hopkins). Around the same time, I learnt that my only "pin up" rock pianist from childhood - Leon Russell - had provided the keyboards or arrangements on about 25,000 (hyperbole) number 1 hits in the US. As for working out music, I can scarcely express the extent of my disbelief when I cam home from work one day a few years ago to find my son sitting at the kitchen table, casually playing The Mahavishnu Orchestra's Birds of Fire from tablature notation created on the internet. He could just read it and play it in real time - putting aside my irritation that he had that reading skill, I had spent weeks trying to work out that song for my band to play in 1975, just by listening to a cassette recording I'd made from the Sunday night albium show.
In the mornings, my Mum always listened to 3DB. The presenter loved Ray Charles, Nat Kiing Cole, Tom Jones (especially, Green Green Grass of Home) and middle of the road music like the Theme from Doctor Zhivago and Elvira Madigan etc etc. And Taking a Trip up to Abergavenny (sp?). Also, Herb Alpert (the theme from Casino Royale especially). Once again, there was a limit to what you could hear elsewhere, so this was all fascinating to me.
