Lennon

[GoDrex]

As if Zeppelin didn't have their shitty side. How many blues artists and bands did they rip off before they were forced to admit to it and give credit? I love Zeppelin too, but they didn't have much to say, and they got a lot of their biggest ideas from other people. Not only that Jimmy Page dated a 13 year old when he was in his late 20's.

I bet SL's biggest beef with Lennon is that he was against the Viet Nam war.

 

[erogenousjones17]

Well, I like guys like Little Feat more, but I have to agree the Beatles were a great band and laid down a catalog of work that few bands will ever match for both it's appeal and for it's quality of musicianship. I was noodling around on "I want you/she so heavy" a few nights back and the riff for she so heavy, wow, so simple but pulls the ears so far. of course then I heard Hoey doing "Blue Christmas" on Sirius and it was all over, ever try to play Gary Hoey?

Gary Hoey is a monster on guitar. Now that it's December, I can pull out his Ho, Ho ,Hoey compilation and not have anyone look at me funny. It's an awful title for sure, but his playing is really top notch, and his arrangements are usually really neat. Check out his cover of "Linus and Lucy" too.  :icon_thumright:

 

[Jusatele]

Hoey fans, I love it, but ah, lets start a new thread, this on is a good Lennon thread

 

[elfro89]

This is what I have to say:

NobodyAlmost Nobody is at the standard that the Beatles set. How many songs can you think of that are played in two keys? Alright, make that 5. Most pop/rock/blues you can hear the tension of the key change. Do YOU know where the key changes are in Beatles music?

In what group could all members be lead singer? Hands down the greatest harmonies ever sang were the Paul/George/John harmonies.

For the actual songs, you either like them or you don't. Personally, I feel they were excellent writers, and they had the ability to suit the music of the song to the idea they were trying to portray.

As for being a "pop band", I disagree with that term. As of lately, "pop" seems to have a single style of music in mind. The Beatles played all styles of music. They didn't have any gimmicks or crutches while writing. Yes, some of their earlier stuff was corny, but they actually grew as musicians and writers, rather than milk the cow to death.



NOW, this is obviously just my opinion, and I didn't mean to target anyone or anyone's favorite band, I was just saying how I viewed the Beatles. They aren't my favorite band or anything, but I can see their level of musicianship, and appreciate it.

Hi Paul-less

I think we will have to agree to disagree on some points,  :icon_thumright:  I don't really think this is the thread for me to retort how I would want to but there are numerous examples of music before the Beatles that would give me some serous ammo against your claims but I honestly can't be bothered arguing since im sure we both know that an opinion is an opinion and not to be taken as hard fact.
Peace  :laughing7:

 

[ptirman]

Good point. An opinion is an opinion and we all have them. I had to resist responding to some things. And in the end......it was about Lennon and how some of us were really affected that December night 30 years ago. Some not. No problem.
I do think a Led Zepplin thread should be started though. I'm a huge Jimmy Page fan. While John is probably my favorite guitarist/songwriter/singer, Jimmy is my favorite guitarist overall. But, first question is: Why is it that every photo of Robert Plant in the mid 70's had him with what looks like a w0*dy?

 

[elfro89]

Why is it that every photo of Robert Plant in the mid 70's had him with what looks like a w0*dy?

it wasnt wood, its just his natural size, only a man with a huge phallus could be Robert Plant.

 

[OzziePete]

Why is it that every photo of Robert Plant in the mid 70's had him with what looks like a w0*dy?

it wasnt wood, its just his natural size, only a man with a huge phallus could be Robert Plant.

...or a good supply of socks. :dontknow:

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

That's the pop culture rumor, though his voice wasn't lower.  Maybe that's how he sang so high.

 

[ptirman]

I hate to sound condescending but a lot of the music they created is what I take for granted as musical standards today, as in everyone should be able to play and write something along the lines of what the Beatles did at an early stage in their development (Yes they did a lot of different stuff no need to remind me.) I just don't find what the Beatles did to be exiting, breathtaking or eye opening as what Im sure they would have been at the time and as such, their music does nothing for me but sound like further examples of simple musical standards we should all know. I know that sounds pretty shiteefaced of me but its how I feel  :-\

It's a lot like saying: Sir Isaac Newton used simple Newtonian physics standards that we should all know and be familiar with. To each his own and I respect your opinion.

 

[pabloman]

[/quote]

Janis Joplin is packin some serious wood there. When did she work with Page??

 

[pabloman]

I still stand by the fact that there are only two perfect albums.
1: Abbey Road
2: Dark Side of the Moon
[/quote]

Your list is a bit lacking. You forgot.................................

 

[Cagey]

Janis Joplin is packin some serious wood there. When did she work with Page??

Everything is relative. Those hairballs were anorexically thin, which makes some parts more prominent, like rib bones, eye sockets, camel toes and pants pickles. What I'm really surprised at is how many crotch pheasants there are around here. I mean, a furtive glance is just natural human curiosity, but gimme a break.

 

[elfro89]

I hate to sound condescending but a lot of the music they created is what I take for granted as musical standards today, as in everyone should be able to play and write something along the lines of what the Beatles did at an early stage in their development (Yes they did a lot of different stuff no need to remind me.) I just don't find what the Beatles did to be exiting, breathtaking or eye opening as what Im sure they would have been at the time and as such, their music does nothing for me but sound like further examples of simple musical standards we should all know. I know that sounds pretty shiteeefaced of me but its how I feel  :-\

It's a lot like saying: Sir Isaac Newton used simple Newtonian physics standards that we should all know and be familiar with. To each his own and I respect your opinion.

Sure, I get what you are saying but you are pretty much just saying what I said already (ha, I guess my only retort should anyone care to read it would be that physicists today would acknowledge the importance of his discoveries but are much more interested in what came after and where it is going, that's pretty much me in regards to music) I know you could probably make a strong argument to say there has never been a band since the Beatles that has had as much impact on popular music and in that case I would agree, I guess all I meant to say with that statement was that regardless of how much they changed popular music, or their commercial success, I still wouldn't buy their music since it bores me to death.  :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

I know you could probably make a strong argument to say there has never been a band since the Beatles that has had as much impact on popular music and in that case I would agree, I guess all I meant to say with that statement was that regardless of how much they changed popular music, or their commercial success, I still wouldn't buy their music since it bores me to death.  :laughing7:

Perspective is everything. If you're less than about 35-40 years old, you'd have no feel for what they did, outside of what you'd read in history. But, if you were around for the Ed Sullivan Show back in 1963 when the Beatles first came to the US, you'd have a real sense of what a game-changer they were. Things were a lot different prior to that event.

Since then, a LOT has changed, and if you cut your teeth on anything but the Beatles, it's tough to be impressed by them. Ringo Starr was about as simplistic a drummer as could be found in any high school marching band, George Harrison and John Lennon weren't particularly impressive guitar players, and Paul McCartney on bass was a... umm.. bass player. Technically, they were about as interesting as multiplication tables. As has been pointed out, Led Zeppelin was a monster band that beat the snot out of the Beatles. More to the point, during the same time period there was the Rolling Stones. Between them and the Beatles, there was a distinct dichotomy in the music world that could only be compared to the two-party political system here, where everybody is actually doing the same thing, but everybody is either on one side or the other. Although both groups were considered radical and disruptive by those who considered their judgement sober and rational, The Beatles were the "Good" boys, and The Stones were the "Bad" boys. It was wild.

So, yeah. Compared to today's fare, The Beatles are boring. But back then? It was like losing your virginity. After experiencing them, you were fundamentally changed. Everything looked different. You got new ideas about what mattered and what you should be doing. A lot of players say they were influenced by them, and those listening might think they were trying to emulate them or cop their licks. But, that wasn't it. Hardly anybody covered Beatles tunes back then, and still don't to this day. What they did was change haircuts and attitudes, exposing a previously repressed generation to the idea that they could dare to be different and succeed at it. That was the real magic of the Beatles and their peers at the time.

 

[Hbom]

I hate to get too involved in the rhetoric as I think it's way past time to move on.
BUT,
Has anyone ever asked you where were you on Sept. 25th?

 

[Cagey]

There have been thousands of Sept. 25ths in recorded history; I don't even remember the last one. I'm pretty sure it happened this year, though <grin>

 

[ptirman]

I think there was great input in this thread. Thanks for contributing. I think we all are moving on ........as Bad Company once sang.
One thing I said a long time ago and believe completely. There are some really bright people on this board. I have learned and continue to learn one "elluva" lot, as my French Mom would say.
Cheers!.

 

[Jusatele]

I have enjoyed reading a lot about what everyone here feels about John Lennon, but over all I think I will not lose sleep over the day he died.
He was a great musician, and his life was cut short
So was Jimi Hendrix
Janis
Buddy
SRV
and on and on the list goes
I celebrate their lives, and their music. But my life moves on as music does too. I think each one of them would like us all to move on.

 

[ptirman]

I'm not losing any sleep over his death 30 years ago, just a tribute thread.

But before we completely drop it........
Paul-less, I queued up Abbey Road and Dark side of the moon tonight. Thank you for saying what you did. You are right. My wife and I are cooking a remember Julia Child dinner tonight for some friends (on an honoring kick I guess): Beef bourguignon, Onion tart, Frisee' salad avec lardons and chocolate souffle (I know, should be on the what's for dinner thread). Damn what a great night. When this song came on, my wife said 2 words: "kick's a*s". I said "Yep. you're right." Only problem with an ipod though is to get side 2 to play consecutively between Polythene pam, etc....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8LZGQ4MkvQ

 

[Cagey]

That's one of the many Lennon/McCartney collaborations that showed their compositional prowess and vision. Plus, it had the always enjoyable British talent for understated humor - "Feet! Down, below his knees!" and "Got to be good-lookin' 'cause he's so hard to see!" LOL!

Then, the whole tune is understated. It's mostly octave-jumping sliding bass lines, with the drums acting more as a metronome than anything else. Some occasion percussion for flavor... a bit of jarring guitar just to say they did... all in all, a fine piece of work.