Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Every member of the Beatles released music in the 70s. And none of it was music that had adapted well to the new era.
In what way is that "by my logic"?
I don't personally consider a sequence consisting of one weak album, two good albums, one weak album and one good album "a long string of great albums". But, hey, that's just me.
Once again, the game was different in the 50s. Artists and labels didn't think in terms of LPs so that comparison makes no sense.
|
We are talking about the Beatles as a group not as a solo act and there was no way they were going to compete what they did as a group. Since you mention this John Lennon Plastic Ono Band a very important influence on many acts ranging from White Stripes to even many punk acts. George Harrison unique guitar slide style has been influential on many guitarists.
Once again Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley were recording when the Beatles were around so again I don't buy your logic for one minute. Yes you might think Rubber Soul to Abbey Road as not all classics but hey that's your opinion but not what the general consensus of what other musicians will tell you.
So you are the saying the game was different in the 50's then I guess it took the Beatles and Bob Dylan to change the parameters of what the rock album should be?
Look it's not matter of complexity which the Beatles have in spades over the likes of their mentors it's a matter the craft of writing, playing your own songs and using the studio as an instrument. It's no coincedence the Beatles songs are the most covered in the rock era along with Bob Dylan.
The Beatles experimented in just about every way possible — phased vocals ("And Your Bird Can Sing"), dreamlike guitars running in reverse ("I'm Only Sleeping"), the wild abuse of tape loops ("Tomorrow Never Knows") — the songwriting was as strong as it had ever been. Its dissonance was modern, and the wake it's left is audible in everything Animal Collective has achieved.
The Beatles were not a mere "pop" band. Only a real simpleton would make THAT charge. Nor did they compose a lot love songs (some of the not as a group ). Some of their songs, in fact, were actually quite radical, sophisticated and even weird (for their time period) both musically and thematically,.. namely songs like 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds ( L.S.D. ), Strawberry Fields, and I Am the Walrus ( as a few examples ).
They also had a lot of varying musical influences other than just pop and rock 'n roll ( like Asian, classical music, British vaudeville, showtune, psychedelic and so on ). They were pretty much the progenitors, or certainly at least ONE of the early progenitors, of what came to be termed "progressive rock". Calling them and I am not saying you a "pop band" who wrote "catchy tunes" and "silly love songs" shows amazing stupidity from some of the people I have read here.