Something tells me you haven't talked Beatles for awhile - Music

Tha1ChiefRocka

Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.

Location: Kansas

Favorite Beatle: George

Favorite Album: Sgt Pepper

Favorite Solo Album: All Things Must Pass (But Mccartney 2 and Plactic Ono Band are close behind)

Best Beatles Movie: Magical Mystery Tour

The Beatles are what they are:

They are one of the most commercialized acts in the history of music.

They're great songwriters.

Their musicianship is on par or exceeding that of their peers in the same genre conventions and time period.

Constantly shit on by people trying to be edgy.

Constantly exulted by people who don't know any better.

Put up on a pedestal or denigrated all too often.

As a person who grew up to appreciate The Beatles, I'll cite my father more than my mother on that, I like most of what they put out, and I'm able to do a bit of distancing form The Beatles as a fad and The Beatles as serious musicians. There are definitely songs and moments in The Beatles discography that you can point to and say, "hey, they brought X to a wider audience," or, " hey that melody has been copied thousands of time over by now." At this point in critical musical evaluation, if they were as bad as some people claim they are, or as good as others claim, then we would've figured it out by this point. Why they are still routinely at the top of "best album" lists is due moreso to widespread accessibility and appeal more than anything else. It's a cornerstone of Western culture. In the hotel dresser drawers there ought to be a King James Bible, a Beatles record, and, uh, I don't know, a DVD of Forrest Gump. Very Happy

RoundTheBend

I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Awesome synopsis.

AfterHours

Gender: Male

Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

RoundTheBend wrote:

AfterHours wrote:

Lol @ Seth / Round the Bend

Forgot how traumatic (intentional exaggeration) that discussion/argument was. Possibly one of the worst conversations Ive ever had on an internet forum (on both our parts). Though in the context of the internet as a whole monster of its own, Ive seen far worse. Despite how crappy it was, we were both able to say the gist of what we wanted to say without just cutting each other to pieces even if this was often a bit too colored by some impulses of hostility for the others position (but just go to twitter or old imdb msg boards to see the worst of the worst) and (for me at least) the 'rush' of trying to make my points with too much concision in the haste of only having a few min at a time to state them.

To be fair -- and if I remember right -- that video was introduced in the middle (or end) of an argument about Appetite for Destruction, in the middle of an argument about Ringo's drumming ( am I remembering that right Laughing

???). What were we thinking haha. And in the context of what was happening, I think I recall saying I wasn't interested nor did I have time to rewatch that (quite long) video that Id already seen years back, but that there were comments scattered throughout the youtube comment section that point out specific flaws in his argument and that I agreed with them. Obviously not an ideal 'retort' but at least something. I dont think I ever said he was wrong from a compositional perspective (or that I was nearly as knowledgeable as him as just a composer) but probably did say that he was exaggerating how extraordinary their compositional merits in relation to music history and 20th century music were (think one of his main points is that they are in the pantheon in this regard with Beethoven and Wagner). Maybe one day Ill break his argument down a bit more but in the end it is not too important to me in a general sense (just occasionally feels like its more important when in the heat of an argument, but outside of that I usually wouldn't even think of it). My biggest weakness in conversations/arguments on the internet is usually a decided lack of time to spend really taking up each point or fleshing out everything in depth, so youre often going to lose me when it comes to having to spend too much time doing that (at least as much my fault as the other guy).

Hey man, out of respect I didn't call you out by name Laughing

and of course used some hyperbole, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be me. Laughing

Now that you've called yourself out, I will recant my statement, AfterHours didn't literally say I'm smarter than a composer or that he trusts YouTube comments as the gospel truth... hehe. But emotionally that's how I felt and clearly those emotions still run deep. Laughing

But no, we really did end up "getting" the jist of what we were trying to say, even if we both agreed if we were talking in person that'd make the whole conversation better. And possibly never did have more than 70% of true clarity in the conversations from both sides possibly. And yes, good lord is the internet often the worst place to have an opinionated conversation. Asynchronous communication has all kinds of issues making it difficult even in the best of intentions.

It's funny how the tone of written word can be misconstrued (laughing at your use of the word traumatic and the proper reframe of the use because in someways it was enough for us both to remember, but not really all too crazy either).

And no if you are looking for an intelligent argument that Beatles=Beethoven, that's not what he's saying, but what he does do is break down their very clever arrangements/methods used in their music that contemporaries weren't doing at all. He also makes an argument that the reason they became respected by the likes of Leonard Bernstein is because *he* argues they bridge this gap between rock n' roll/pop music and turns it a little more serious... as do countless critics, etc.

Quote:

"Hailed on its release as proof that popular music could be as rich an artistic pursuit as more high-minded media such as jazz and classical, the record's reputation and sense of ambition ushered in the album era." - Scott Plagenhoef, Pitchfork

At least many can argue leagues and bounds above Rolling Stones and dare I say Velvet Underground... - in their ability to do what he talks about with their musical creativity - strictly from a arrangement/chord choice, etc. NOT saying those other artists are not good musicians of course. For example I'm remembering him talking about a track (forgetting which) which sounds like a simple pop song, but it actually has 8 chord changes in just the first verse or something like this. The modes they use outside of just major/minor. Uh probably a few other things I'm now forgetting. I mean in all seriousness most velvet undergound songs don't go past 3 chords and the truth (exagerating some there of course), but they aren't masterful arrangements, they are however fantastic in their own right due to their lyrics, artistry, and sound. But please don't think I think any less of them because of it - that's just not their thing. I mean that's why they are cited as many musicians being inspired by them, like U2 was inspired by the Ramones - if a 15 year old thought they had to make music like Sgt. Pepper, they'd not even consider it, but Sweet Jane is one of my favorite songs to play because it's so easy and fun. Even their more daring works like Venus in Furs is replicated by less "skilled" musicians. Not really a fair comparison though because it'd likely be hard for Beatles themselves to recreate what they recreated in the studio - that was the point of their craft though of the time. Push some things to their limits - only able to happen once in the studio just like that.

BUT... to your point, is it emotionally significant or conceptually mindblowing. And to that, I can see where you are coming from. Do they bring up emotional and conceptual things in me greater than most artists yes (Reader Response literary criticism) vs a more formalist read, do they themselves do the most mindblowing stuff, I agree with you in most of your synopsis - some tracks yes, but overall maybe not. I can see why the Doors or VU have an emotional edge (although to be honest I'm not certain of the conceptual edge) whereas the Beatles are considerably more polished in sound, albeit that's kind of their shtick. They have this pop song that actually is a wild trip. They have this near classical polished sound at times (probably due to playing every waking moment of their lives for first part of their career - 8 hour days in Hamburg, but then often playing 2 shows in the same day while on tour when they "made it", and sometimes in two different cities).

However to be honest someday I'd love to hear a break down of your number 1 album from Robert Wyatt because it just doesn't speak to me (even after understanding the emotional health changes he went through/tragedy that inspired the record). I even dig his Shleep album better.

Haha no worries, I usually don't hold grudges much unless maybe if someone is just a total asshole or trolling incessantly or whatever. But even in contentious arguments/conversations, even if annoyed at that time, I try to just let it go soon after that, especially if the other person was mainly or fundamentally trying to state their position and we just got caught up in some extra baggage. I can respect that, where the person actually tries to make a case (even if I didnt seem to care for their case much at the time, I can still respect that they were trying to and that's their POV on the matter). This doesn't mean I agree with all or any of it, but I can usually see why you would say/think that about The Beatles or whoever from your POV. I usually disagree with most of what you say about them (or more specifically, the ultimate merits of it) but my perspective is apparently much much different on music/art. Some years back, I think I remember you saying something along the lines of that you don't really like deep/profound music/art and (if I have that right?) that is obviously going to divide us pretty immediately in terms of our views about it, what the best albums/works are, etc. All of my top selections (Classical, Rock, Jazz, Paintings, Film) are "the most profound (depth of emotion, concept, creativity) examples of __________" ...so we probably disagree on all of them or almost all of them.

Yep. Talking in person is probably at least 10 times faster/more efficient and, of course, like you say, much more synchronized. Can make points way better, especially if playing an album aloud for me and the other person when I can just show/point out various things Im seeing, etc. Sometimes it can be very tough to put into the exact or ideal written words even if one knows it very well for himself, and especially if in a rush when doing so. When Im listening to an album (or watching a movie, viewing a painting, etc) my mental notes and thoughts are all understood by me as they come plus they travel at roughly the same speed as the work. Writing for others in such a way so that they are prone to see the same things can be a lot more challenging.

I haven't seen the video in years (and when I did, I wasnt doing so to use it in a future argument -- it was just recommended I check out to see what I think -- but maybe I should've assumed the probability it would come up and taken some notes for gawd sakes) ...so I may have to gather up some interest in watching it again (not sure I want to as there is little reason for me personally to see it again outside of 'contribution to an argument' ... yay, I'm inspired! Wink

... I do like his enthusiasm but the points he tries to make are pretty ho-hum tbh) ... but I will say it's a little silly to compare what The Beatles were doing to "what their contemporaries 'weren't' doing" when their contemporaries were busy completely upending, revolutionizing music, marking new expressive sound worlds (like Zappa's Freak Out, Dylan's Blonde On Blonde, The Doors, VU and Nico...) and were moving music away from the mainstream, pop idiom towards a full merging of Rock into 'Art music' more it's own idiom. Criticizing these artists for not doing what The Beatles were is kind of like wondering why Beethoven's 3rd symphony didn't focus more on the minuet (to paraphrase Scaruffi). The main reason for any Beatles criticsm is that they didn't often find ways to make their embellishments very emotionally/conceptually compelling; more often they were done for the sake of a cool interlude or novelty or 8 mostly meaningless chord changes (meaningless = not aligned to much emotional/conceptual substance, merely technical which is a 'concept' in itself but of a low order). When they did this more successfully/meaningfully, they were great. The Beatles were largely stuck in the late 50s/early 60s vocal groups (especially pre-1967) and music hall (though somewhat more hyped up, improved, more enthusiastic rendition; and eventually with more elaborate arrangements into a more interesting -- but sometimes a bit shallow imo -- "Pop Art"). The merging of orchestral/classical arrangements and pop was territory that had already been charted for years. Even if one wants to argue The Beatles did so better than these earlier acts, the idea or fact of doing it was not a new or revolutionary idea, and was even a very obvious direction for them to take; if one wants to point out their superiority thats more of an argument/discussion; I would probably agree in most cases that they did it better than most pop acts before them but certainly not on par with the best composers or most creative musicians of the era. In terms of pop, Beach Boys' Pet Sounds was a much more integrated confluence of pop/classical/chamber music/jazz/exotic instrumentation than anything The Beatles were capable of as composers. Maybe one could cite Sgt Pepper as following it with a more ambitious sound, but less personal (besides its masterstroke, A Day in the Life). But "Pop Art" composers (however more experimental) like Zappa and Pink Floyd were far more advanced in their idiom, technically, compositionally, than most of The Beatles' work, which generally has charm but a lack of actual consequence and conviction. And The Doors were probably the most perfectly integrated of all, aligning pop song craft, classical, jazz, blues-rock, latin fusion, surrealist art, dramatic theater/performance art-spoken word-poetry-Shakespearean tragedy, with a far superior vocalist and probably the greatest 'method actor' in rock history who turned the part of the vocalist into its own art form. The Doors is a singularly woven, flawlessly composed and wholly integrated sound so perfectly calibrated that these elements are difficult to separate from each other and one wonders where this fusion of ideas could've possibly come from (emphasize that it is a fully developed FUSION, not just one idea leading to another). But its so seamless and perfectly composed that one, unless really observing closely, barely realizes the different subgenres they're traversing or juxtaposing in practically each phrase of their music. If the composer in the video really sat down and spent time with that album with the same interest in discovery, he might start realizing what he is missing in his thesis (legit context, comparisons)... (not to mention many others; does he even mention Pet Sounds? I don't remember...)

All that said, I will say that I agree with you that The Beatles didn't produce very consistently or substantially in the way of music that was emotionally/conceptually extraordinary (songs here and there, but not so much across a whole album, sustained), and this (not genre) is their downfall in terms of me considering them among the greater artists of the period or all time.

In regards to the Velvet Underground and Rolling Stones, I spent several rough drafts of the last few days starting to answer you and gradually building up a pretty massive response on both counts. But, with only 10 minutes here and 10 minutes there, this was taking quite a long time to compile (seriously, probably at least 5 days before I would've eventually got back to you) and was becoming increasingly convinced I was about to open up a very long discussion/argument that I was just not going to be able to sustain anyway. There is too much of a fundamental disconnect to the point that I don't think you are very aware of what the VU or The Rolling Stones are doing; like you haven't started by observation and really looking at what they're expressing (or at least it doesn't seem like it). You seem to think their goal was melody and orchestration (or some such). It is kinda strange that you're wondering about or comparing The Beatles to the Velvet Underground's number of chord changes when the VU were composing an entirely different form of music (noise, atonality) to produce the most creative sound world and arrangements of perhaps the entire 20th century (at worst, in the running for this), where every instrument is producing its own unique character, and each of these parts combining into an extremely unique fusion of ideas, and every note within this is aligned to a whole development of emotion/concept/creativity across its entire running time. And my responses on this were trying to bridge this disconnect from the ground up while also replying and staying on point and it just got exhausting (had multiple parts of different rough drafts saved that I was compiling then was eventually going to piece together ... lol wtf am I doing with my time was the eventual question of self-reflection).

However. Partially as a result of your reply, I am strongly considering carving out some time to finally get to that long promised VU and Nico analysis and an updated analysis on Rock Bottom as well. The VU one is probably the only truly worthwhile way to respond about that album as this is not really a matter of me pointing out flaws to The Beatles as it is a matter of a hopefully communicating well enough to have a much more complete realization of what makes The VU and Nico one of the towering, most powerful masterpieces in the history of music. Rock Bottom, too, would f-ing change your musical life (a total paradigm shift of what seemed possible). That is, if you can get past your fundamental disconnect from a work that might be doing something far deeper or more profound than almost anyone else (again, if I am infact remembering that right?).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

RoundTheBend

I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Thanks AfterHours. Lots of salient points I agree with - well written as always Smile

I'm short on time/thank you for putting the time you did into your response, but two things I'd like to correct. 1) I love profound art/music. 2) Miscommunication on VU

No I am not against profound music/works of art. I'm in awe of works like Der Ring des Niebelungen which I spent a whole semester dissecting that single work in college (it's ~14 hours long and has an incredibly rich cultural history for context of those that don't know, but I know AfterHours does). From old German literature concepts, Norse Mythology, Gesamtkunstwerk, the significance of the alliteration used, leitmotiv, and so much more. I think maybe that got confused with my New Historicism (web of influence) and pluralistic points of view that it's quiet impossible to identify THE best or most profound works. Even with post-culturalism, we have only scratched the surface to compare all possible forms of art, and once cross-cultural values are introduced a delicately chosen decision on what good art is, quickly crumbles. I can choose my favorites, but it's difficult Dogmatic findings are usually pretty untrue/limiting in their truth.

Secondly, I very clearly (I thought) stated that VU's music wasn't any less great due to it's lack of complex musical orchestration/arrangements/chord structures, etc. It's musical significance is not found there, rather other artistic statements

I guess lastly, there's no denying the formalist facts dude brought up about the musical theory going into Beatles music. Where you are correct though is no, he focuses solely on the positive points of their music/it's not an argument claiming they are the greatest musicians ever to have walked this planet. While I could agree with Frank Zappa being musically just as, if not more, powerful than The Beatles, I'd actually put Beach Boys Pet Sounds/Smile project pretty on par from just strictly a music theory perspective.

Again, I think there was a misunderstanding with my statements... I think "art"/"music" at a very high level got conflated with complex song structure/orchestration/arrangements, etc. to which I don't feel you addressed except for with The Doors, and at times I would agree with you that they indeed also wrote complex arrangements/orchestrations, etc. Ray was a freaking genius, and I'll also agree with your Jim Morrison points. Pink Floyd on the other hand I didn't find to be on par with The Doors or The Beatles in their ability to create as lush, unique, complex arrangements, even in their early days. Now don't mistake this to be a black and white statement, Pink Floyd clearly writes unique and complex music, I just find The Doors and The Beatles to be even more so.

Your music hall/stuck in an era points are also not wrong (although not the only thing going on there). I think that's why John even teased Paul about his granny music, right? But yes, those elements were indeed there for sure, some of it strategically so.

As a final statement, one thing I love about the Beatles, is they actually are very difficult to pigeon hole, imo. I mean people do it all the time, but when you look at these statements (of course they were both completely convinced of their conviction), I find them to be both true, kind of proving my point that there's this certain quality they possess in that pluralistic world I hold dear: (quotes taken from of RYM's single page or Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever).

Quote:

penny lane is one of the best pop songs ever made, a blissful, surreal journey through liverpool and adolescent wonder with an instrumental that is just as quirky and whimsical as the lyrics. strawberry fields is abysmal mess. a byproduct of 60s optimism and lsd that never really goes anywhere to my ears. 4.5*s because my love of penny lane exceeds the distaste i have for strawberry fields.

Quote:

I do not like the beatles. I think they are one of the most overrated bands of all time, and their music has always underwhelmed me for reasons I find hard to explain at times.

Yet Strawberry Fields is by far one of the greatest tracks of all time by any group from any genre. It is absolutely gorgeous by every stretch of the imagination. It reminds me of spending my lunch time in school alone lost inside my own world because the world I physically occupied was lackluster at best. In fact, I would describe life just like I would the Beatles; everyone else seems to enjoy it to a measurable degree but it often leaves me wanting more.

Yet Strawberry Fields Forever is that one glimmer of hope that keeps you alive. This release is kinda weighed down by Penny Lane but the absolute domineering beauty of the B side ultimately comes through. An essential listen.

AfterHours

Gender: Male

Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

RoundTheBend wrote:

Thanks AfterHours. Lots of salient points I agree with - well written as always Smile

I'm short on time/thank you for putting the time you did into your response, but two things I'd like to correct. 1) I love profound art/music. 2) Miscommunication on VU

No I am not against profound music/works of art. I'm in awe of works like Der Ring des Niebelungen which I spent a whole semester dissecting that single work in college (it's ~14 hours long and has an incredibly rich cultural history for context of those that don't know, but I know AfterHours does). From old German literature concepts, Norse Mythology, Gesamtkunstwerk, the significance of the alliteration used, leitmotiv, and so much more. I think maybe that got confused with my New Historicism (web of influence) and pluralistic points of view that it's quiet impossible to identify THE best or most profound works. Even with post-culturalism, we have only scratched the surface to compare all possible forms of art, and once cross-cultural values are introduced a delicately chosen decision on what good art is, quickly crumbles. I can choose my favorites, but it's difficult Dogmatic findings are usually pretty untrue/limiting in their truth.

Secondly, I very clearly (I thought) stated that VU's music wasn't any less great due to it's lack of complex musical orchestration/arrangements/chord structures, etc. It's musical significance is not found there, rather other artistic statements

I guess lastly, there's no denying the formalist facts dude brought up about the musical theory going into Beatles music. Where you are correct though is no, he focuses solely on the positive points of their music/it's not an argument claiming they are the greatest musicians ever to have walked this planet. While I could agree with Frank Zappa being musically just as, if not more, powerful than The Beatles, I'd actually put Beach Boys Pet Sounds/Smile project pretty on par from just strictly a music theory perspective.

Again, I think there was a misunderstanding with my statements... I think "art"/"music" at a very high level got conflated with complex song structure/orchestration/arrangements, etc. to which I don't feel you addressed except for with The Doors, and at times I would agree with you that they indeed also wrote complex arrangements/orchestrations, etc. Ray was a freaking genius, and I'll also agree with your Jim Morrison points. Pink Floyd on the other hand I didn't find to be on par with The Doors or The Beatles in their ability to create as lush, unique, complex arrangements, even in their early days. Now don't mistake this to be a black and white statement, Pink Floyd clearly writes unique and complex music, I just find The Doors and The Beatles to be even more so.

Your music hall/stuck in an era points are also not wrong (although not the only thing going on there). I think that's why John even teased Paul about his granny music, right? But yes, those elements were indeed there for sure, some of it strategically so.

As a final statement, one thing I love about the Beatles, is they actually are very difficult to pigeon hole, imo. I mean people do it all the time, but when you look at these statements (of course they were both completely convinced of their conviction), I find them to be both true, kind of proving my point that there's this certain quality they possess in that pluralistic world I hold dear: (quotes taken from of RYM's single page or Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever).

Quote:

penny lane is one of the best pop songs ever made, a blissful, surreal journey through liverpool and adolescent wonder with an instrumental that is just as quirky and whimsical as the lyrics. strawberry fields is abysmal mess. a byproduct of 60s optimism and lsd that never really goes anywhere to my ears. 4.5*s because my love of penny lane exceeds the distaste i have for strawberry fields.

Quote:

I do not like the beatles. I think they are one of the most overrated bands of all time, and their music has always underwhelmed me for reasons I find hard to explain at times.

Yet Strawberry Fields is by far one of the greatest tracks of all time by any group from any genre. It is absolutely gorgeous by every stretch of the imagination. It reminds me of spending my lunch time in school alone lost inside my own world because the world I physically occupied was lackluster at best. In fact, I would describe life just like I would the Beatles; everyone else seems to enjoy it to a measurable degree but it often leaves me wanting more.

Yet Strawberry Fields Forever is that one glimmer of hope that keeps you alive. This release is kinda weighed down by Penny Lane but the absolute domineering beauty of the B side ultimately comes through. An essential listen.

No prob man, you too Smile

Im not going to dive much into a subjective/objective convo. Looks like we most likely agree on this anyway (or at least the general parameters) ... past basically stating: I think that as one's knowledge/experience increases, this tends to become more and more a merging of both ... and there is an inherent goal of all art: emotion/concept/creativity [objective] ... Yet 1000 ways to achieve it [subjective]. Anyway, my criteria page and stuff Laughing

...

More importantly, it was surprising and very useful to find out that I was wrong or mis-interpreted your view on music/art of great depth/profundity. I had long thought that more or less the reverse was your view and shouldve mentioned it a long time ago as it has consistently affected how much I was willing to go into my views (or bother with analysis etc) with you. While thinking there was always this very important and fundamental disconnect, there was a limited extent I was willing to make an effort past. Time/haste was the other factor but I more than likely wouldve made more of an effort past a certain point in some of our previous convos. Very good to know (and pleased that I was wrong).

VU: maybe not complex in traditional ways but pretty much unfathomable in terms of ideas and execution; that a group of artists (out of nowhere, with no indication before them) came up with such an original, visionary, expressionist synthesis (tied completely and thoroughly to their emotional/conceptual/creative aims in every note). In this sense it is extremely complex, far more so than The Beatles and many others. In a weird way it is analogous to how most great conductors/orchestras can play Mozart much more easily than, say, Mahler or Wagner, or whoever. But ask any composer to sit down and compose a new work and have it pass as Mozart and they will tell you there is only one person in history that couldve done so. With Vu Nico, even knowing the notes, the problem remains in its peculiarities: in the counter-intuitive way it is played and its hyper-real vocals and expressionist/french existentialist expressive context, its highly unique sound world -- the way it actually sounds (oppressive, merging of surrealism or psychedelic and documentary; german or abject expressionist visual art & french existentialism, expressed in musical form) is so personal and idiosynchratic in its realization that it is nearly impossible to recreate. Even if you can somehow find a female vocalist that can "sing" (more solemn lamentations, deathly chants) like Nico, a male personality to "sing" like Reed's desperate street poetry, a multi-instrumentalist to play wind instrumentation like Cale (droning, paranoid, piercing, violent, expressionist screams), utterly counter-intuitive percussion like Tucker (primitivism/tribal, exotic-Oriental/African, free form paranoia, pulsating heart-beat and tension), nervous-sinewy-spindly-frantic counter-intuitive to free form guitar like Morrison/Reed, and wandering bass, pulsating/percussive keyboards (etc), and compose that all into a confluence of paranoia and tension, the blurred visage of drugs and desperation, visions conjuring musical pictures of a very peculiar expressionist visual art -- good luck. Doesn't exist. Much drawn from, never to be replicated. The personalities as expressed, the unusual way they play, the improbable way it is all merged, is probably too singular. ... But more importantly than some cover band that might be able to pull off a copy after a thousand hours of practice and tuning everything just right is that live people actually came up with this and played and formed it as such intentionally. It boggles the mind (especially after the album really comes to fruition for one).

(Note that the above nor any other replies are meant to be confused with the aforementioned VU & Nico analysis, which would be done separately and where time would be taken to convey these points much better, more professionally, etc ... My replies are usually somewhat 'shorthand', often poorly edited and in haste, barely structured, meant as just a quick, rather haphazard, snapshot -- just throwing some points/ideas over to you)

Will continue when I find some more time...
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings

Last edited by AfterHours on 09/20/2020 15:12; edited 2 times in total

AfterHours

Gender: Male

Location: originally from scaruffi.com ;-)

@ Round The Bend

Great points re: Wagner

Yes, there may have been a misunderstanding in your Beatles/VU & Rolling Stones comparison. All good. That said, I don't think the creativity between the two sides is comparable in that I think the VU and RS were way more creative in alignment with emotional/conceptual ends (creativity that means a lot more, that is a lot more purposeful imo), while The Beatles dipped their feet in more genres -- or at least more 'musical color' -- not necessarily more genres 'per song' if each of peak VU and RS is compared to them, but by overall careers in how prolific they were, then yes. I personally don't feel variety equals creativity -- at least in an ideal sense -- but it does account for something and it may be the most fun thing about The Beatles.

Edit: though I was initially thinking that Exile more or less keeps the Stones' variety in step with The Beatles if comparing their peaks, I think The White Album puts it a bit out of reach, even though I would dispute its consistency of quality/substance, and even if all the rest is pretty close

Agree to disagree on Pink Floyd/Beatles. Fwiw, (if you want me to respond a little more like The Doors) -- more complex or not -- in the end it would be hard to argue (imo) that PF's music wasn't more palpably surrealist, expressionist and immersive (fundamentally due to the greater more consequential engagement of vocals, plus far superior instrumental play -- especially the otherworldly guitar, the abundance of surreal/psychedelic/spacey effects)

Re Beatles pigeon-holed ... I can dig the differing views/angles. I'm mixed that this sort of duality/ambiguity is a workable consistently meaningful analysis for them, but it has at least some validity in my view and is part of the charm of their better work from Revolver-forward, as they splintered from more of a vocal group into more individual artists. Perhaps partially a weakness too (song-to-song momentum being marked by inconsistency, attempting too many things they were mediocre at, even while the variety is kinda cool in itself ... perhaps the prime examples being The White Album, despite its great songs, and the underdeveloped-mid-evolution of Revolver, despite TNK, soon-to-be culminated by Sgt Pepper, which catches them more evolved and just before too much splintering took place. Abbey Rd corrals things back together as well).
_________________
Best Classical
Best Films
Best Paintings