Its funny how much of the original songs sound so different than their heroes during the Beatles era. "Tears Go By", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint it Black" are all great pop songs. The problem with your arguments Sean is there is no logic or actual facts just your opinion. Please, Sean most people know the Stones shadowed the Beatles every move for about two years from the use of sitar to trying to equal Sgt Peppers and the obvious copy of the drum and bass style of "Rain".
Those are the facts the Stones management wanted them to write their own songs in order to compete with them. Its not like I am making it up its the facts. The rock group became bigger than the solo act and especially the ones who wrote their own songs. The biggest rock act were the Beatles not Elvis anymore and we know Elvis was no songwriter. So either The Stones adapted or they would not survive.
Its your opinion whether a song that is very experimental and a pop song is not as interesting to a very experimental and interesting non-pop song. Again you can't prove thats true and the logic of that type of thinking will endear no one to experimental music either.
I will take "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" over anything that Frank Zappa or the Velvet Underground were doing those years. But in no way will I say I am correct in feeling this way either. Its a matter of taste.
Sean I feel bad for you. A weak argument is a argument with no facts.
I agree with you but SeanSean is the one trolling around every discussion about the Beatles. Its like he is fixated on Scaruffi take on the Beatles that he must comment on every listology forum on the Beatles. Some of us who are musicians or just music fans in general and speaking for myself its borish and trollish behaviour. I am just counteracting his points. For the sake of everyone I will move on to something else.
I really think you guys don't know how influential the Beatles were and how innovative they were. Basically everyone from Led Zeppelin who was more influenced by the Beatles than you might think to Hendrix himself.
Led Zeppelin took from the Beatles "Birthday" the bass line is doubled by two hard edged guitars all in three different registers. "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" double tracked vocal in two octaves. Or the new electronic effect on "Glass Onion" with its glissando like gradual stopping of the tape machine to stop the recording. The use of a entiire Indian ensemble on "Inner Light". "The End" not only do they trade guitar roles, but they trade guitar solos but they alternate it with different styles and colors. George Harrison use of the Leslie Telecaster harmonics on "Oh Darling" with damping arpeggios on its bridge. "Lady Madonna" introduced it bass line on piano then doubled by bass. "Hey Bulldog" opens on piano octaves which are doubled on high register by two guitars and then followed by a lower register on bass. This was copied by Jethro Tull on Aqualung. Some of the era most dirtiest distortion sound on heard on "Revolution" and "I"ve Got A Feeling". You get the picture. Dont get me started with their psychedelic period stuff.
Also remember George Martin hardly contributed to the White Album sessions as he said he felt useless. There is one thing not to like someones music but people like SeanSean who say we should objective. Look at yourself in the mirror first. I agree with Adgreat why did I get myself sucked into this.
There are different types of music so no I would not compare. I would not outright say the Beatles are the greatest rock artists ever. I would say the Beatles were the greatest in merging rock and pop and devoloping various forms of it and the most influential at it. I would say their influence has surpassed Elvis because they were the rock act that made his type of non songwriter/dominant front man non existent. They differed to Berry and Holly because the Beatles were also leaderless and album orientated. Even Holly and Berry went to outside songwriters to write their songs. The Beatles never did that though they did do cover songs. Nothing really complicated. The Beatles were great at what they did and they helped change things there mentors could not.
I never thought that time limit was a criteria for a good song. Then not to be insulting are any of you who are Scarf fans musicians. If you don't like Pop-Rock then why bother discussing the Beatles. That was there realm they were in and they basically devoloped loads of variants of pop-rock from Psychelelic Pop to Progressive Pop to even early Synth Pop on "Here Comes the Sun". Pop is a dirty word for Scarfheads yet many of their songs are very experimental.
I do find it funny that the Stones had to be locked in their rooms until they came out with original songs because their management knew that the Songwriter/Rock Group was replacing the solo frontmen like types of Elvis, Holly and Berry and its still that way.
"Musically brilliant unless they do something musically new with it, which they never did".
That statement is one of the most assinine statements I have heard yet. Here are some examples of doing thingsnew in music they did.
"A Hard Days Night"
"I Feel Fine"
"Ticket To Ride"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Think for Yourself"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"Eleanor Rigby"
"Rain"
"Love You Too"
"And Your Bird Can Sing"
"Straweberry Fields Forever"
"I Am the Walrus"
"A Day in the Life"
"Within You Without You"
"Blue Jay Way"
"Its All Too Much"
"Revolution"
"Happiness Is A Warm Gun"
"Helter Skelter"
"I Want You She So Heavy"
"Side Two Abbey Road"
I think you are the one who is missing what is relevant. Everyone in music fuses from what came before them to make something new acts like the Velvet Underground did not invent feedback, drone or the use of classical avant techniques. They fused to make somehting new. Which is exactly the Beatles did also on songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever". With the Beatles at least they invented certain things in rock music like backward guitar, or using tape loops or samples to create a psychedelic soundscape or fusing Indian ensembles with rock music. I really can't say that about the Beatles peers.
Oh my what can you say about Darktremor is he dislikes the Beatles. Thats his or her choice but some of your statements border on stupidity. There are many Beatles songs that don't follow the verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure and that does not exclude someone from making innovative music if you use that format. Many of the Beatles songs use the verse-verse-bridge style which is different from the verse-chorus-verse style or the verse-refrain-verse style. "In My Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" don't even have a chorus. There are many songs Beatles song that are unusual in form here are some examples and some multisectioned which the Beatles and Brian Wilson are known for.
"Not a Second Time"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"She Said She Said"
"A Day in the Life" a
"Sgt Pepper Reprise
"Inner Light
"Yer Blues"
"You Know My Name
"Happiness Is Warm Gun
"Wild Honey Pie
and many songs on Abbey Road including the multisectioned 27 chord song You Never Give Me Your Money
Whether the Beatles were using the pop-rock idiom and they were the greatest doing it should not matter it's the music that should count. I find Songs like "You Never Give Me Your Money" or "A Day in the Life" are way more complicated or brilliant than say the two chord droning of the Velvet Underground, the rock and roll simplicity of the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Animals and most garage bands of the 60's. I rather make good music that is three or four minutes long than music that goes on and on. Another thing not that matter the Beatles had plent of song that went over the four mintue barrier. Think of Sgt Pepper as one long single which was their intent to link all the songs as one.
In the end that does make the Beatles better but you should think before you make comments about someone music. The Beatles
Musically brilliant unless they do something musically new with it, which they never did".
That statement is one of the most assinine statements I have heard yet. Here are some examples of doing things new in music they did.
"A Hard Days Night"
"I Feel Fine"
"Ticket To Ride"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Think for Yourself"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"Eleanor Rigby"
"Rain"
"Love You Too"
"And Your Bird Can Sing"
"Straweberry Fields Forever"
"I Am the Walrus"
"A Day in the Life"
"Within You Without You"
"Blue Jay Way"
"Its All Too Much"
"Revolution"
"Happiness Is A Warm Gun"
"Helter Skelter"
"I Want You She So Heavy"
"Side Two Abbey Road"
I think you are the one who is missing what is relevant. Everyone in music fuses from what came before them to make something new acts like the Velvet Underground did not invent feedback, drone or the use of classical avant techniques. They fused to make somehting new. Which is exactly the Beatles did also on songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever".
With the Beatles at least they invented certain things in rock music like combining guitar feedback with guitar riffs, backward drum effects, Electric Guitar drone, Automatic Double Tracking, backward guitar, or using tape loops or samples to create a psychedelic soundscape, or fusing Indian ensembles with rock music, or fading in guitar riffs or making distorted feedback without a fuzzbox, or using vocals through a amp the later devised by Geoff Emerick by on the advise of Lennon or combining two entirely separate recordings into one song "Strawberry Fields Forever" the piano feedback of "A Day In the Life". I really can't say the Beatles peers invented anything except mabe the Kinks and even there the Beatles and others used dirty distortion on record before the Kinks.
Progressively though, the Beatles drifted away from the rock'n'roll style over-used and endlessly repeated by most of their counterparts and began exploring new musical avenues. Nothing was left aside in this exploration: harmony, orchestration and rhythm were all revived and transformed by the Beatles's genius. In 'Eleanor Rigby', they used a quasi-Baroque string orchestration. The construction of 'Penny Lane' is based on a systematic and very unusual change of keys. In their later albums, they sucessfully incorporated traditional Indian music harmony "Love You Too" and Avant-garde techniques used by classical musicians, such as the use of distorted tape loops in studios to create new sounds "Tommorow Never Knows" or aleatoric music "A Day in the Life"
I think it's time to move on to another group. I will say this the only album that the Beatles did where I don't understand the what all the fuss was about was Abbey Road.
Lets say I am not fan of Scaruffi and his Avant elitism. Anyone who has songs like "European Son" listed as a masterpiece is missing something in the taste department.
I am a serious music fan and the majority of your list lack many qualities that many people would consider good music. For instance many or your choices lack melody, vocal ability or the ability to make listenable music. I don't think avant garde music is musically that challenging. Except in a few cases the list you have should be called the Most Unlistenable list. The Velvet Underground is called music is laughable. When is monotone vocals, lyrics that are just shock value, lack of melody and obvious lack of musicianship called music. It's your list but there much better choices. They were plenty of experiemental artists making better music than this. The next time I hear VU on the radio will be the first.
Its funny how much of the original songs sound so different than their heroes during the Beatles era. "Tears Go By", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Paint it Black" are all great pop songs. The problem with your arguments Sean is there is no logic or actual facts just your opinion. Please, Sean most people know the Stones shadowed the Beatles every move for about two years from the use of sitar to trying to equal Sgt Peppers and the obvious copy of the drum and bass style of "Rain".
Those are the facts the Stones management wanted them to write their own songs in order to compete with them. Its not like I am making it up its the facts. The rock group became bigger than the solo act and especially the ones who wrote their own songs. The biggest rock act were the Beatles not Elvis anymore and we know Elvis was no songwriter. So either The Stones adapted or they would not survive.
Its your opinion whether a song that is very experimental and a pop song is not as interesting to a very experimental and interesting non-pop song. Again you can't prove thats true and the logic of that type of thinking will endear no one to experimental music either.
I will take "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" over anything that Frank Zappa or the Velvet Underground were doing those years. But in no way will I say I am correct in feeling this way either. Its a matter of taste.
Sean I feel bad for you. A weak argument is a argument with no facts.
I agree with you but SeanSean is the one trolling around every discussion about the Beatles. Its like he is fixated on Scaruffi take on the Beatles that he must comment on every listology forum on the Beatles. Some of us who are musicians or just music fans in general and speaking for myself its borish and trollish behaviour. I am just counteracting his points. For the sake of everyone I will move on to something else.
I really think you guys don't know how influential the Beatles were and how innovative they were. Basically everyone from Led Zeppelin who was more influenced by the Beatles than you might think to Hendrix himself.
Led Zeppelin took from the Beatles "Birthday" the bass line is doubled by two hard edged guitars all in three different registers. "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" double tracked vocal in two octaves. Or the new electronic effect on "Glass Onion" with its glissando like gradual stopping of the tape machine to stop the recording. The use of a entiire Indian ensemble on "Inner Light". "The End" not only do they trade guitar roles, but they trade guitar solos but they alternate it with different styles and colors. George Harrison use of the Leslie Telecaster harmonics on "Oh Darling" with damping arpeggios on its bridge. "Lady Madonna" introduced it bass line on piano then doubled by bass. "Hey Bulldog" opens on piano octaves which are doubled on high register by two guitars and then followed by a lower register on bass. This was copied by Jethro Tull on Aqualung. Some of the era most dirtiest distortion sound on heard on "Revolution" and "I"ve Got A Feeling". You get the picture. Dont get me started with their psychedelic period stuff.
Also remember George Martin hardly contributed to the White Album sessions as he said he felt useless. There is one thing not to like someones music but people like SeanSean who say we should objective. Look at yourself in the mirror first. I agree with Adgreat why did I get myself sucked into this.
There are different types of music so no I would not compare. I would not outright say the Beatles are the greatest rock artists ever. I would say the Beatles were the greatest in merging rock and pop and devoloping various forms of it and the most influential at it. I would say their influence has surpassed Elvis because they were the rock act that made his type of non songwriter/dominant front man non existent. They differed to Berry and Holly because the Beatles were also leaderless and album orientated. Even Holly and Berry went to outside songwriters to write their songs. The Beatles never did that though they did do cover songs. Nothing really complicated. The Beatles were great at what they did and they helped change things there mentors could not.
Or one person like Scarf or whatever Captain Beefhart was. I think Beefhart wrote a song about the Beatles and the Stones.
I never thought that time limit was a criteria for a good song. Then not to be insulting are any of you who are Scarf fans musicians. If you don't like Pop-Rock then why bother discussing the Beatles. That was there realm they were in and they basically devoloped loads of variants of pop-rock from Psychelelic Pop to Progressive Pop to even early Synth Pop on "Here Comes the Sun". Pop is a dirty word for Scarfheads yet many of their songs are very experimental.
I do find it funny that the Stones had to be locked in their rooms until they came out with original songs because their management knew that the Songwriter/Rock Group was replacing the solo frontmen like types of Elvis, Holly and Berry and its still that way.
"Musically brilliant unless they do something musically new with it, which they never did".
That statement is one of the most assinine statements I have heard yet. Here are some examples of doing thingsnew in music they did.
"A Hard Days Night"
"I Feel Fine"
"Ticket To Ride"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Think for Yourself"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"Eleanor Rigby"
"Rain"
"Love You Too"
"And Your Bird Can Sing"
"Straweberry Fields Forever"
"I Am the Walrus"
"A Day in the Life"
"Within You Without You"
"Blue Jay Way"
"Its All Too Much"
"Revolution"
"Happiness Is A Warm Gun"
"Helter Skelter"
"I Want You She So Heavy"
"Side Two Abbey Road"
I think you are the one who is missing what is relevant. Everyone in music fuses from what came before them to make something new acts like the Velvet Underground did not invent feedback, drone or the use of classical avant techniques. They fused to make somehting new. Which is exactly the Beatles did also on songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever". With the Beatles at least they invented certain things in rock music like backward guitar, or using tape loops or samples to create a psychedelic soundscape or fusing Indian ensembles with rock music. I really can't say that about the Beatles peers.
Oh my what can you say about Darktremor is he dislikes the Beatles. Thats his or her choice but some of your statements border on stupidity. There are many Beatles songs that don't follow the verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure and that does not exclude someone from making innovative music if you use that format. Many of the Beatles songs use the verse-verse-bridge style which is different from the verse-chorus-verse style or the verse-refrain-verse style. "In My Life" and "Tomorrow Never Knows" don't even have a chorus. There are many songs Beatles song that are unusual in form here are some examples and some multisectioned which the Beatles and Brian Wilson are known for.
"Not a Second Time"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"She Said She Said"
"A Day in the Life" a
"Sgt Pepper Reprise
"Inner Light
"Yer Blues"
"You Know My Name
"Happiness Is Warm Gun
"Wild Honey Pie
and many songs on Abbey Road including the multisectioned 27 chord song You Never Give Me Your Money
Whether the Beatles were using the pop-rock idiom and they were the greatest doing it should not matter it's the music that should count. I find Songs like "You Never Give Me Your Money" or "A Day in the Life" are way more complicated or brilliant than say the two chord droning of the Velvet Underground, the rock and roll simplicity of the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, Animals and most garage bands of the 60's. I rather make good music that is three or four minutes long than music that goes on and on. Another thing not that matter the Beatles had plent of song that went over the four mintue barrier. Think of Sgt Pepper as one long single which was their intent to link all the songs as one.
In the end that does make the Beatles better but you should think before you make comments about someone music. The Beatles
Musically brilliant unless they do something musically new with it, which they never did".
That statement is one of the most assinine statements I have heard yet. Here are some examples of doing things new in music they did.
"A Hard Days Night"
"I Feel Fine"
"Ticket To Ride"
"Norwegian Wood"
"Think for Yourself"
"Tomorrow Never Knows"
"Eleanor Rigby"
"Rain"
"Love You Too"
"And Your Bird Can Sing"
"Straweberry Fields Forever"
"I Am the Walrus"
"A Day in the Life"
"Within You Without You"
"Blue Jay Way"
"Its All Too Much"
"Revolution"
"Happiness Is A Warm Gun"
"Helter Skelter"
"I Want You She So Heavy"
"Side Two Abbey Road"
I think you are the one who is missing what is relevant. Everyone in music fuses from what came before them to make something new acts like the Velvet Underground did not invent feedback, drone or the use of classical avant techniques. They fused to make somehting new. Which is exactly the Beatles did also on songs like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Strawberry Fields Forever".
With the Beatles at least they invented certain things in rock music like combining guitar feedback with guitar riffs, backward drum effects, Electric Guitar drone, Automatic Double Tracking, backward guitar, or using tape loops or samples to create a psychedelic soundscape, or fusing Indian ensembles with rock music, or fading in guitar riffs or making distorted feedback without a fuzzbox, or using vocals through a amp the later devised by Geoff Emerick by on the advise of Lennon or combining two entirely separate recordings into one song "Strawberry Fields Forever" the piano feedback of "A Day In the Life". I really can't say the Beatles peers invented anything except mabe the Kinks and even there the Beatles and others used dirty distortion on record before the Kinks.
Progressively though, the Beatles drifted away from the rock'n'roll style over-used and endlessly repeated by most of their counterparts and began exploring new musical avenues. Nothing was left aside in this exploration: harmony, orchestration and rhythm were all revived and transformed by the Beatles's genius. In 'Eleanor Rigby', they used a quasi-Baroque string orchestration. The construction of 'Penny Lane' is based on a systematic and very unusual change of keys. In their later albums, they sucessfully incorporated traditional Indian music harmony "Love You Too" and Avant-garde techniques used by classical musicians, such as the use of distorted tape loops in studios to create new sounds "Tommorow Never Knows" or aleatoric music "A Day in the Life"
I think it's time to move on to another group. I will say this the only album that the Beatles did where I don't understand the what all the fuss was about was Abbey Road.
Lets say I am not fan of Scaruffi and his Avant elitism. Anyone who has songs like "European Son" listed as a masterpiece is missing something in the taste department.
I am a serious music fan and the majority of your list lack many qualities that many people would consider good music. For instance many or your choices lack melody, vocal ability or the ability to make listenable music. I don't think avant garde music is musically that challenging. Except in a few cases the list you have should be called the Most Unlistenable list. The Velvet Underground is called music is laughable. When is monotone vocals, lyrics that are just shock value, lack of melody and obvious lack of musicianship called music. It's your list but there much better choices. They were plenty of experiemental artists making better music than this. The next time I hear VU on the radio will be the first.