The Beatles vs The Beach Boys

Unknown Soldier · 09-24-2012, 09:21 AM

Yawn!

**Janszoon** · 09-24-2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Yawn!

Yawn.

Unknown Soldier · 09-24-2012, 09:48 AM

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.

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.

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.

Instead of yawning again, I've actually skimmed through and there is some good stuff being written here.

@Janszoon- I agree totally with the first two points above. The Beatles were a 1960s phenomenom and basically as individuial artists they didn't quite click in the 1970s. As individual artists they released some acclaimed stuff, but I always found it a trial to enjoy at times and never really a pleasure to listen to.

Most people when they talk about bands and time periods, fail to grasp the concept of taking a band or artist in the conext of their time.

@NYSports Fan- Its good to see somebody new on here with a real history of rock music, but its no good comparing the feats of the Beatles to those artists in the 1950s, when the music industry was so different then. Also as Neopolitan said, the Beatles achieved so much due to the production techniques that they had available to them.

NYSPORTSFAN · 09-24-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Instead of yawning again, I've actually skimmed through and there is some good stuff being written here.

@Janszoon- I agree totally with the first two points above. The Beatles were a 1960s phenomenom and basically as individuial artists they didn't quite click in the 1970s. As individual artists they released some acclaimed stuff, but I always found it a trial to enjoy at times and never really a pleasure to listen to.

Most people when they talk about bands and time periods, fail to grasp the concept of taking a band or artist in the conext of their time.

@NYSports Fan- Its good to see somebody new on here with a real history of rock music, but its no good comparing the feats of the Beatles to those artists in the 1950s, when the music industry was so different then. Also as Neopolitan said, the Beatles achieved so much due to the production techniques that they had available to them.

This is where we disagree things like Automatic Double Tracking, backward guitar leads, amplified guitar effects "I Feel Fine", the obvious use psychedelic use as studio as an instrument in creating psychedelic music via tape loops, phasing, putting their vocals through leslie amps and all sorts of effects you hear on "Tomorrow Never Knows" were innovated by the Beatles themselves. That style of recording was totally unlike Phil Spector or Brian Wilson Pet Sounds. If anything the closest might be Joe Meek but he wasn't intentionally trying to create the psychedelic experience on record was he?

How about how the way "Strawberry Fields Forever" was recorded - Recorded two takes, because John didn't like the first; asked Martin to come up with string arr. for the 2nd; liked the 1st half of the first recording & 2nd half of the second; asked Martin to edit them together even though they were in different keys; succeeded.