Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
Yes, I'm aware they were releasing music during that time but it's not the music that they were famous for. That's why I have used phrases like "in their heyday" when referring to their 1950s releases. It's kind of ironic that judging the careers of the post-breakup Beatles is off the table for you because it was past their heyday but you think it's perfectly reasonable to judge Chuck Berry after his heyday.
Maybe they did change parameters when it came to treating albums as more than just a collection of songs, or maybe that was just a change that would have occurred in the industry anyway and they just happened to be a popular band who were swept up in that change. It's hard to say. But they weren't the first people to write their own songs or use the studio as an instrument.
Did I say those things? Who are you directing these comments towards?
I'm always amazed by how often Beatles fans come to this site and start talking about them as if they're some band no one has ever listened to or knows anything about. They're arguably the most famous rock band of all time. I'm quite familiar with their music, as is everyone else who posts here, and their status as "radical" or "experimental" is extremely overstated. Listen to Strange Strings by Sun Ra—released the same year as Sgt. Pepper—and then see how experimental the Beatles sound. Hell, listen to the works created by Pierre Schaeffer while all the Beatles were still in diapers and then see how experimental the Beatles sound.
|
It's a friendly debate so don't take it personally now you are bringing in other genres into this in the context of the Beatles genre of pop/rock music a lot of what they did is radical. We are talking about the Beatles as a group not as solo musicians but hey George Harrison solo albums Wonderwall and Electronic Sounds are quite radical for what came out in 1968 right?
The last time I checked the disorienting blur of tape loops, shimmering guitars, backward tapes, ambient passages and bizarre vocal effects of "Tomorrow Never Knows" is quite unlike Sun Ra which is before Sgt. Peppers right? The complete fusion of rock/pop/world music of "Love You To" is unlike Pierre Shaeffer right?
They brought together the classical orchestra, the rock band, and the technology of the studio, bringing together three disparate worlds: pop entertainment, avant-garde composition, and high-brow artistic sensibility. You can’t tell where the art ends and the entertainment begins. “A Day In The Life which is unlike either Sun Ra or Pierre Shaeferr right?
Something like "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" alternates between 9 and 10, but it feels like they do a measure of 3 as a lead-in to transition smoothly from the 3/4 during "I need a fix..." (I.e. measures of 3/4 6/4 3/4 7/4 and repeat). The compositional value in a song like this is quite high and very well thought out. These are not easy time signatures to get to sound so natural and smooth/flowing like this song exhibits. Where is the melodic and total abuse of time signatures in the music of Sun Ra.
I never said the Beatles were the first group to write their own songs and use the studio as an instrument right? Yet in the context of Chuck Berry and Elvis or previoius rock/pop music it was quite radical and an influence on all fronts to many musicians ranging from early Pink Floyd to electronic artists Chemical Brothers.
Look many bands took their influences, digested them and created their own thing but the BEATLES were able to do this with finely crafted songs. Don't be fooled at the keen sense of melodic content of the Beatles music there is lot of strange chord progressions in their music.