The Eternal Beatles Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Derek Miner]

Anyone else have a copy of 'beatles live in italy'???

I have the LP "The Beatles In Italy" which I only discovered was not a live album upon opening and playing it. If I had done my research, I would have known better. But what I can I say, I was like 12 or 13 when I got it.

Oh, and as far as the BBC 2-CD set, it was out of print for a while, but it was reissued within the last six months or so and can now be found at just about any store.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I'm fairly certain that BBC was re-released. It's commonly available now.

 

[Chris Brunner]

Philip is correct. It was pulled from release for a while so as not to be confused with other newer Beatles product (Anthology, Yellow Submarine, & 1). Now that all of THAT has died down, it's back. Definitely worth owning (IMOHO).
C

 

[MikeAW]

Phil and Jack...

"Squeezebox", aesthetically...is just Mediocre Junk Music for people who love that kind of thing, The Same Old Thing, and NOTHING innovative...a band truly in it's Death Throes!

And I'm sure they are embarassed by it too! McCartney is the consumate purveyor of this kind of thing, as it has made him a billionaire in the process...Paul Beatle just keeps on churning out, with his splatter it on the wall approach to marketing mediocre, slight variations of Paul Beatle Music.

The Sex Pistols...et al...pushed The Music and The Music Industry forward when it was dying and constipated with the dinosaurs of Rock, who didn't get it and die-hard Fans who didn't want to get it...kind of like it is Now. But now we only have The Strokes to save us! God help us All! Watch "The Filth and the Fury" and learn...if you want to.

The New Bands are out there, but The Industry solves the current talent malaise and ever flagging music sales of mediocre music, by saying it's too expensive to invest in and by throwing technical gimmicks like SACD out there. It's just cheaper to multi format reissue and get multiple sales on one old title. And the public is lapping it up like Pavlov Dogs, who want MORE of them.

So who's to blame, if consumers don't "want" New Music, just some new expensive toys to distract them ?

 

[RicP]

Quote:

Maybe when you have a clue as to what you're talking about there can be a decent discussion here, however I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Well, I didn't mean to defend "Squeezebox" specifically, although my point stands as it is.

aesthetically...is just Mediocre Junk Music for people who love that kind of thing,

Well, depending on one's opinion, one could substitute "Never Mind the Bullocks..." for "squeezebox" in that quote and it would be equally valid. Or is your point that someone who doesn't agree just doesn't "get it"?

You really don't know enough to make any kind of case for SACD being a "technical gimmick". Or do you know more than you've posted?

Old music isn't necessarily "bad", and new music is most certainly not necessarily "good". Obscurity is sometimes well-earned.

 

[Grant B]

On the whole, The who by numbers is a fairly depressing (content wise) album. I always thought Squeeze Box was a fairly good fun song that lighten the album

 

[Philip Hamm]

Or is your point that someone who doesn't agree just doesn't "get it"?

Isn't it obvious that this is his point?
Mike, I'm done arguing with you, but I'll tell you this, as a musician (sometimes semi-pro) for more than 20 years, you have a hell of a lot to learn about music. (but then again don't we all..?)

 

[Mike Broadman]

as a musician (sometimes semi-pro) for more than 20 years, you have a hell of a lot to learn about music.

Phil, you always bring up the fact that you're a musician and that therefore gives your opinion more weight. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. For one thing, music isn't created for other musicians to enjoy. (Sidenote: people claim this about some of the music I listen to, which is total nonsense. If I'm not a musician and I enjoy it, then it's made for non-musicians, too.) Second of all, different people with all sorts of experience and expertise will give starkly contrasting opinions on the same thing.

There is only one person to trust: yourself. If I like a band, someone can tell me that, "Oh, you shouldn't listen to them. Trust me, I know about music." Frankly, I would laugh in their face.

I believe that to judge music and, ultimately, to enjoy it freely (which is the point, after all), it's more important to have the following:

1) A sense of history, knowing basically where the respective type of music comes from. Not fanboy details, just a good sense of scope.

2) Appreciation of different styles. There is good in everything. I, for example, really dislike punk, but I understand that attitude of punk influenced heavy metal, which has music I do like.

3) Don't HATE anything. No musicians are evil. They're not out to get you. There are a few bands that really annoy me, like U2 and Sting, but I'm not going to begrudge their success or their fans.

4) Always acknowledge talent. Using the example of Sting again, I know the guy's a very talented player, songwriter, band leader, and overall musician. I just think he ends up making boring, awful music (or awfully boring?). Heck, I like Cypress Hill more than Sting, and I know very well that Sting is infinitely more talented.

None of the above requires first hand technical musical knowledge. In fact, it hurts more often than it helps.

Then, of course, there's the more common reason to listen to a band: "I like this, it sounds good."

Anyway, bringing this back to the Beatles, the reason why some people get annoyed as that many refuse to say that the Beatles are capable of writing bad songs or making some questionable musical decisions. For example, I am always wary when a band makes double album. They almost always suck. IMO, the White Album is not exception. Let It Be would not be nearly as popular if it wasn't the Beatles. That's OK, the Beatles were just a band, they are allowed to realease the occassional clunker.

 

[Philip Hamm]

I don't buy that philosophy, though it has some very valid points. Being a creator of any kind of art, or having studied the disciplines involved with the creation thereof, is instrumental (pun intended) in understanding the art form. This applies not just to music but to all art forms.
As a musician I have an intimiate knowledge of the different talents involved in making music. Much of my knowledge comes from coming to grips with my lack of certain talents, particularly songwriting, and working closely with others.

Anyway, bringing this back to the Beatles, the reason why some people get annoyed as that many refuse to say that the Beatles are capable of writing bad songs or making some questionable musical decisions.

I think this is a misconception. No-one truly believe this, but it's an easy scapegoat attitude to jump on.
It's annoying to me as a musician to hear someone completely disregard what I know to be very talented musicians as "mediocre, boring, duds", or music that I know has value as "Mediocre Junk Music". Anyone who thinks they have the ability to judge art like this, as opposed to simply stating an opinion about it, has a lot to learn IMO. And I most definitely plead guilty myself in this area by the way. I've learned as I grow older that I love more and more music of all styles. Every piece of music no matter how small has value, every one. To call any musicians "duds" or call any music "junk" serves no purpose other than to highlight one's own non-understanding of what music is.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Mike,
Another side-track......

For example, I am always wary when a band makes double album.

I completely understand this philosophy and paritally agree with it. I'd be interested in your opinion on:
* The ever increasing album times on current releases? People feel they are being ripped off if the latest album by their favorite band is less than 60 minutes. More and more albums these days are coming out at lengths that would translate to double albums in the LP days. What do you think of this trend?
* Dual CD / Triple album releases? Personally I find them very difficult to access, but sometimes can have incredible rewards. Case in point The Clash's brilliant triple LP "Sandinista" which I absolutely LOVE (of course I love everything from the Clash).
* The Who's "Tommy" - is it the ideal concept double album? It doesn't drag at all (except the boring "Welcome", even Underture, IMO, which would be seen as its weak point). How about "Quadrophenia"?

 

[Mike Broadman]

First, let me clarify one thing I said:

For one thing, music isn't created for other musicians to enjoy

I should have, instead, said that music isn't created only for others to enjoy. The greatest artists do, indeed, create primarily for themselves, something I've said quite a few times. But different musicians play for different reasons. The best illustration I can think of is Herbie Hancock: an amazing talent, possibly a prodigy or even genius, he got his name playing the jazz the he loved to play. Then, because of some religious or spiritual beliefs, he decided that his purpose as an artist was to "make people happy." This inspired him to play the accessible funk/pop music. Though this did, at the time, please more listeners, his jazz music is more respected and more remembered, and people forgot about his forays into jazz-pop because that stuff was disposable.

Now, regarding recommendations from friends, reviewers, etc: of course I take them, and seek them out. I've gotten stuff based on what I read in this forum, as a matter of fact. If it wasn't for friends (who happened to be musicians as well), I wouldn't have gotten into jazz and Rush and a lot of the other stuff I love. And, in turn, my "discovery" of blues, Zappa, and King Crimson got my friends into that stuff. But I'd sooner trust a non-musician friend who knows my tastes and listening habbits than a genius musician who doesn't.

The problem with listening to musicians and experts is that, like I said before, they use their "credentials" to push diametrically opposing views. I'll make up an example of the kind of thing I see all the time. Warning: I'm going to use the band Rush because I see this kind of thing with them all the time, but I'm not starting a debate about them, so don't yell at me:

"I am a musician, and I know about playing, song craft, and making albums. Rush is one of the best bands I've heard: they manage to make solid, melodic rock songs by incorporating different times, harmonies, and a strong rhythm section. As a bass player, I recognize that few have the complete understanding of the relationship between melody and harmony than Geddy Lee, and he uses it admirably."

"I am a musician, and I know about playing, song craft, and making albums. Rush abuse their technical skill to make self-involved, unintersting music. Though their songs seem to have something of interest, it's all a bunch of nothing when one looks past their shiny surface."

I have seen and heard this, both from various musicians, all of whom can play and/or write songs. This alone tells me that musicians are simply not more qualified to be better judges, because they disagree. This sort of thing works for science, where peers review and claim the validity or lack thereof of someone's work. Not so for art.

Regarding my 4-item list, being a musician can certainly help with those things, but aren't necessary. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it's pretty safe to say that I am living proof. I am not a musician. I am, however, an avid listener, and a great lover of all sorts of music.

As far as musicians being able to recognize and respect skill (ie the example of Country guitarists and Satriani), I have not seen this. Or, I should say, not more so than in non-musicians. Musicians can be the most snobbish, arrogant pricks around. As a jazz lover, I see the bitter, destructive attitudes people take towards each other- and these are people who usually really know their stuff musically.

I've even known musicians who agree with me. A buddy of mine, very talented singer, guitar player and overall musician, told me that he envied me because I can listen to music without guilt, without fear, without anger. This guy used to love King Crimson and Steely Dan, but couldn't stand to hear them anymore because he tried to learn their material and failed, got angry, and became a punk fan for a while.

The point is, anyone can be as subjective or objective as anyone else. The thing that scares me about the attitude that musicians "know better" is that it would become impossible to have discussion with such a person. He would always say, "Pff, you don't know what you're talking about, you're not a musician."

 

[Tom Ryan]

If it weren't for internet music (read: mp3s), I wouldn't be into have the stuff I am today. I only got into jazz by downloading it and listening to it repeatedly until it grew on me. Just an aside.

-Tom

 

[Philip Hamm]

Musicians can be the most snobbish, arrogant pricks around.

Once again, I agree completely with this statement. And I love your examples of two musicians talking about Rush. I love using Rush as an example also, because I can't stand their music. However, I greatly respect their technical abilities both in playing and writing music (music that I don't like to listen to, but most definitely valuable music nonetheless). I plead guilty of having the attitiude your second musician had, but thankfully I'm many years past that stage in my musical development.

I suppose what it all comes down to is maturity. Whether the listener is a musician or not, the understanding that all music is of value (Yes, even Hancock's pop work, or even Wesley Willis' music - not that I'm comparing Willis with Hancock). Just because we think something is good or valuable or not is irrelevant.

Great conversation.

The nice thing about being a musician is that it puts a definite experience perspective on music. Like a writer when they read a book can more easily recognize bad writing than I can.

And please if you get a chance respond to my post at the top of this page. I'm interested in your further musings on the matter.

 

[MikeAW]

Phil,

You have an elistist attitude about music, that disparages the Art of Listening. Being a technician may give you a different perspective on how a song is constructed and played, but it doesn't necessarily endow you with special powers on evaluating it...in fact, I would say that it

hinders you from listening and enjoying music, in a purely passive way.

As to the "arguing", as you put it...well, I don't see it this way, and I'm sorry you do. Everyone has something to offer here in this discussion. I have enjoyed reading ALL of the posts, even the negative ones from a certain individual...because even he, in his own way as best he can, and is contributing here. I am learning from all of the posts.

As music is very personal thing with people, as evidenced by the now fourth page on this particular subject, it should be enjoyed, not thrashed about like this is War.ALL our views about it are worthwhile, and should be respected and enjoyed as a kind of a learning and sharing experience.

I can see how sometime this is lost in the heated nature of this particular topic, but it NEVER should be forgotten.

 

[RicP]

PS....I don't care what you think about what I say

So why should we give the proverbial flying fig about your desire to crash this thread with pointless blather?

 

[Tom Ryan]

Being a technician may give you a different perspective on how a song is constructed and played, but it doesn't necessarily endow you with special powers on evaluating it...in fact, I would say that it

hinders you from listening and enjoying music, in a purely passive way.

I would say you're way off base here. No musician loses their ability to enjoy the sheer joy of a great song when they learn an instrument or learn how music works, anymore than a filmmaker starts appreciating films less when he begins to make films. I'm a musician myself, and I can enjoy music on the same level that most people do (the visceral, complete feeling you get from a great piece), but I can also appreciate the work that went into it because I know just how difficult it is to write unique and relevant work. Non-musicians simply don't have this perspective.

-Tom

 

[Philip Hamm]

You have an elistist attitude about music, that disparages the Art of Listening. Being a technician may give you a different perspective on how a song is constructed and played, but it doesn't necessarily endow you with special powers on evaluating it...in fact, I would say that it
hinders you from listening and enjoying music, in a purely passive way.

I completely disagree.
Who is the one declaring certain music as "mediocre" or "crap" in this discussion?
OTOH, who is the one who is stating that everything categorized as "music" has value????
My reading comprehension may not be as good as I'd like, but I'd say that anyone reading would not declare me as the one with the "elitist" attitude here!
(though I may be displaying an elitist attitude regarding music appreciation - guilty as charged, and I think justifiably so, though a non-musician's appreciation is just as valid, if not as informed, as a musician's)
Saying that being a musician hinders anyones enjoyment of music is ludicrous. It's like saying that a mechanic can't appreciate a well tuned car because they know how all the parts are working. The only one who can enjoy the car completely is the person sitting in the car enjoyiong it completely igonorant of how it works? I think not. Same with music. Non-musicians enjoy music in different ways than musicians do, but believe me, musicians enjoy the music just as much if not more, for understanding a little bit of how it works.

 

[Jon_Are]

ALL our views about it are worthwhile, and should be respected and enjoyed as a kind of a learning and sharing experience.

What was that that just flew out the window? Oh, it's MikeAW's credibility.

Jon

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Non-musicians enjoy music in different ways than musicians do, but believe me, musicians enjoy the music just as much if not more, for understanding a little bit of how it works.

That's it in a nutshell. For me, it's much more than something to do between DVD releases, much more than "just music".
And ,of course, people can like whatever they want for no reason whatsoever. But if you're going to trash something or tell me it's overrated, let's jam first.