Eh... I play Dazed and Confused in it's entirety on the bass... it's a great bass line and a great breakdown... psychedelic, yet heavy like Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida which was released before Dazed and Confused. I'm very attuned to how amazing that song is.
I think you are being dismissive of the Beatles once again and overlooking any achievements they had. And being dismissive of any musical understanding I have as if I don't have any clue. Perhaps you should take a new listen to those Beatles tracks. Again, listen to them from a metal perspective and you'll hear that the guitar and screaming is much more metal than Dazed and Confused... and much more mentally menacing than anything Led Zeppelin did.
Also you seem to be refuting something I didn't say - the Beatles were the first to do this. I never made such a claim *at all*. All I suggested was to ignore their part completely is close minded and false.
I've listened to Led Zeppelin millions of times (minus albums after Physical Graffiti cause they all shit) all at high levels. Instrumental tightness is clearly more established in Led Zeppelin, largely because of riff rock/style in which they played... they lacked the musical depth the Beatles had.
Not dismissing or overlooking at all -- just very familiar with the complete picture. The idea that those songs were particularly heavy and distorted for their time (which was the point refuted) is a statement that is just demonstrably not the case.
sethmadsen wrote:
First - perhaps I was too harsh, but I really do feel like the both of you see me posting something positive about the Beatles and perhaps my interpretation is false, but immediately you have canned responses to something that I wasn't even talking about and completely ignore the point I'm making or that I haven't listened to anything other than the Beatles.
No worries man, I have jumped the gun a million times, probably this convo included. If you imagine me generally in a hurry when I'm on BEA you would have the right idea more often than not. My life is ridiculously busy (basically the Scorsese movie After Hours ... just kidding). So unless I'm posing a legit analysis that I've clearly spent some time on (or something) some of my responses can be haphazard when first stated. It's not canned -- I just usually shoot for what is fundamental to the issue (when, if not oriented to, said argument or discussion will likely be pointless).
sethmadsen wrote:
Again I don't think I made a statement that they were the most heavy for their time or the first or anything to that regard. What I did say is to ignore their place with this heavier music in history, their significance, in a web of multiple other influences, would be false. Of course they were NOT the first to play anything heavy. That doesn't change the level of influence they had by doing so or the quality of the songs. I'd have to actually just say that The Beatles were more English in their playing... Led Zeppelin sounds a bit like an American band to be honest. One example is Ringo would mute the heads of his drums to give a more swampy/relaxed feel to them, on purpose. Bonham didn't, so it sounds like he's hitting harder and clearer, but the reality is that Ringo purposely swamped them.
I think they have a minor place in hard rock/heavy metal history. I dont think it was significant. You could remove them from history and its very likely hard rock/metal remains exactly the same. I think talking about The Beatles relative to the hard rock/metal scenes and developments is ultimately a bit pointless though because it has so little to do with their art.
Though I do agree with what youre saying in regards to Ringo's style, I dont think anyone (including Ringo and The Beatles) actually feels like he couldve really played like Bonham even if he wanted to.
sethmadsen wrote:
This is a joke, but nonetheless awesome:
Funny but there is truth in the statement! *cough* Metallica *cough* (etc)
AfterHours wrote:
I do not know what you've listened to (except when I do!) but the idea that these songs did that for their time is just not true except in a vacuum (to their fans or mainstream music fans at the time, or people now that havent heard the complete picture). I dont know why this is a "bad" thing for me to say. It is what it is and there are several examples that demonstrate this...
sethmadsen wrote:
I don't know what "that" refers to as highlighted above, so I'm not sure what you are refuting. I'm also not saying bringing up other artists is a bad thing or the whole web of influences. What I am saying is bad is to completely dismiss that Helter Skelter by many music critics is equally equated to proto-metal. That's just a fact.
I don't know what "that" refers to as highlighted above, so I'm not sure what you are refuting.
Just referring back to the previous point about their degree of heaviness/distortion compared to Led Zepp/others of the period, which I (perhaps incorrectly) thought was among the main points you were trying to make.
sethmadsen wrote:
AfterHours wrote:
As for "depth", the Beatles were certainly above avg for a pop band but I've never seen anyone say how or why in a way that shows they should be considered in a superior light to most other artists. The Beatles, by and large didn't make music that expressed emotions/concepts with a great degree of depth. They usually tended towards dipping their feet in an idea/expression and not doing much more with it than that, and generally lacked dimension or immersion in their expressiveness song-to-song until they made something of a leap around 1967. They weren't (usually) composers or technicians that either could or did explore and develop emotional, conceptual or creative ideas/expressions to much degree or extent, or in a way that illuminates or details insight or in-depth experience. Unless you know of more than maybe a small sample of somewhat significant/standout examples here and there?
That is pretty sweet that you can play the bass for Dazed and Confused btw. Did not know you were a Zeppelin fan.
1. Beatles have musical depth over Led Zeppelin, hands down (and when I say Beatles, I am including the 5th Beatle) I feel there are few more surrealistic bands than the Beatles who weren't one off artists... artists who could repeatedly master surrealism. I'll correct your 1967 to 1966 (Revolver had plenty of a leap if compared to any contemporaries of their time) to 1970 they wrote 6.5 amazing albums (not too fond of Yellow Submarine). I once showed you a musicianships break down of how amazing the work of the Beatles were and I'm not sure you really assimilated it. Thing is Beatles are a musicians best band... whether you are Leonard Bernstein or the music theorist I showe. One day I'll have to dissect why some of Scaruffi's arguments against the Beatles actually are wrong and that he doesn't give proof of many of his statements, whether from musical theorists, historians, or what's key for me... actual musicians. When you have so many musicians back up The Beatles it's hard to want to agree with a review from someone who can't back up the argument.
What do you mean by "musical depth"? If all you mean is something like "# of genres attempted/dabbled in/played" then okay.
Howard Goodall, if I remember right. It's a good analysis of the interesting points about their music, but definitely contains glaring falsehoods about how unique or extraordinary these points were in historical context. If he were to analyze other music of the period and before with the same gusto (Jazz, Classical, several other Rock artists) he would have a hard time not drawing the conclusion that the Beatles were novel and charming amateurs by comparison, even if more interesting than many other pop bands. His general point about their inclinations toward Pop Art is valid. The more "Pop Art" they became, the better, more compelling and significant, their music tended to be.
Not sure if I could summon any interest to watch it again in order to go into detail, but I might try and pull together various refutations for more specifics.
sethmadsen wrote:
2. Dazed and Confused opening bassline was one of the first things I learned because it's an open E and then just walking down on the A string. As I matured I wanted to master the fast pentatonic interlude/breakdown... that crazy spaced out part and the energy put into it is quite amazing. JPJ is a fantastic musician... on par with Paul McCartney as a bassist for sure ... (I kid, but I'm actually not kidding, they both are amazing musicians).
This is a great conversation and as we've said in the past, doing this in person might make more sense... I do think some of our writings get misunderstood/caught in semantics, etc. Sorry for pooping on your diary. I suppose you organize it though so that the first page is the "meat" and having conversations in the middle of it all doesn't really mess with flow or anything.
Re: Howard Goodall on the Beatles... some miscellaneous refutations from other musicians/composers/teachers/students etc:
From Rene P:
In this vid, the guy tries to explain McCartney's genius in a way that, although interesting when he talks about specific songs, is really wrong.
1. He claims that Paul knows very well what he is doing, according to classical harmony. Paul could not even read sheet music, as he said himself. He claimed to be afraid that knowing too much would affect his talent in a negative way.
2. Already the harmonies of Mozart (1747 to 1773 ) are way more advanced. The example of the F7 chord (the fifth or dominant in a major or minor scale) is pathetic. The dominant function (it wants to go to another chord) has been there for ages and even in the simplest folk music. Its one of the most basic things in Western music. Are there even blues schemes out there without the dominant seventh? In whatever style, a decent musician will use such cords on the 'right' moment.
3.Modern classic composers would go back to melody thanks to the Beatles. Well, some composers might have liked the Beatles but the evolution of tonal-atonal-contemporary music has nothing, but really nothing to do with the Beatles. It would take to much space to explain that here and there are posts about it here.
I could say much more but in general: the context the guy sets in the vid is ridiculous.
However the Beatles were certainly innovatory in their domain.
Kewkabe:
Wasn't 20's-40's pop music, folk music, film music and broadway music also tonal? I don't see how the Beatles "revived" that format.
Kirk Landau:
Compared to the giants of classical composition, the Beatles were simple amateurs. On the other hand, in the domain of rock, there were many musicians who were much more creative and innovative than the Beatles as well.
Sandor Szarvas:
This documentary is very confused in trying to relate a pop music phenomenon with the Goodall's obvious distaste for serialism and contemporary classical music in the 1960's. The 2 are not connected at all and he portrays a very banal thesis.
Better to read Alex Ross, The Rest is Noise. Composers did not get "bored" with tonal music, in case you haven't noticed the twentieth century witnessed 2 great World Wars with millions killed displaced and total upheaval. Obviously music would reflect that sense of alienation, dislocation & confusion. At least he acknowledges that Stockhausen and Berio extend the musical pallete. But there were so many pioneers before e.g. Ives and Varese in the 1920's, Debussy & Bartok who used pentatonic scales, Cage was experimenting with his 4'33" opening the ears to ambient sounds and music. Nothing amazing there, just standard musical history.
And why is there no reference to the visual arts with the corresponding breakdown of figurative art and use of abstract art (Picasso, Kandinsky?) and also writing (Joyce Ulysses stream of consciousness). Goodall talks at such a low level, I covered all this in O level studies.
The surprise of dominant seventh chords was not rediscovered by the Beatles, it has always been there. The trick is to make it not cliched or hackneyed.
karlakor:
This documentary is evidently aimed at non-musicians who already worship the Beatles. The observations made here could be applied to virtually any songwriter. There is nothing presented here to convince a trained musician that the Beatles rescued tonal music, and to suggest that they did so ignores the music of George Gershwin, Cole Porter, and jazz artists, to name a few, who preceded them. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
One of the most technically astounding and violently intense albums ever. 7.9/10 might prove too low. The 8.1 for Mother of Virtues too (which has potential for 8.5 or 9).
Re: Howard Goodall on the Beatles... some miscellaneous refutations from other musicians/composers/teachers/students etc:
Those are all great comments and none of them are false because they all are refuting a claim Goodall never made: The Beatles are musical geniuses this world ever saw and no other did what they did.
The claim I think he made is that they are using musical elements much more complex than their contemporaries (in the pop/rock world) and that they tie back to a classical tradition (meaning their music is much more serious than simple pop music, but that also they tie back to a classical tradition - along with Brian Wilson - probably more than 95% of other musicians of the time) and that their music does what GREAT composers do (remembering from months ago): have surprises, do things that are uncommon musically yet cleverly, deal with unique philosophical and social issues, etc.
But yes, perhaps the whole issue here is we might be refuting claims that don't exist. The Beatles clearly aren't the best ever... but a hell of a lot better than Appetite for Destruction (had to laugh at Scaruffi's write up to be honest), or Limp Bizkit's whatever/forgot name album, who Scaruffi also places at the same level as Sgt. Pepper. I suppose that's what I'm refuting is that The Beatles are only barely scratching the surface that other artists were doing or that they weren't really great musicians/songwriters.
This is kind of a dead topic... perhaps once I'm done with my project I'll take on the project myself to try and discuss The Beatles in this light, but for now there's Handel and Bach.
Those are all great comments and none of them are false because they all are refuting a claim Goodall never made: The Beatles are musical geniuses this world ever saw and no other did what they did.
The claim I think he made is that they are using musical elements much more complex than their contemporaries (in the pop/rock world) and that they tie back to a classical tradition (meaning their music is much more serious than simple pop music, but that also they tie back to a classical tradition - along with Brian Wilson - probably more than 95% of other musicians of the time) and that their music does what GREAT composers do (remembering from months ago): have surprises, do things that are uncommon musically yet cleverly, deal with unique philosophical and social issues, etc.
But yes, perhaps the whole issue here is we might be refuting claims that don't exist. The Beatles clearly aren't the best ever... but a hell of a lot better than Appetite for Destruction (had to laugh at Scaruffi's write up to be honest), or Limp Bizkit's whatever/forgot name album, who Scaruffi also places at the same level as Sgt. Pepper. I suppose that's what I'm refuting is that The Beatles are only barely scratching the surface that other artists were doing or that they weren't really great musicians/songwriters.
This is kind of a dead topic... perhaps once I'm done with my project I'll take on the project myself to try and discuss The Beatles in this light, but for now there's Handel and Bach.
To each his own as they say I dont want to invest any time to watch it again (to double check), because its just not that important to me and I didnt find it to be worth a revisit (though entertaining), so l will let others who may want to watch it be the judge. Unless yours is an edited version from what I saw years ago, I remember all those points being claimed, mentioned or referred to in various ways (scratching my head as I went along), including that they were among the greatest musical giants/geniuses of all time, right alongside Beethoven and Wagner or some such claim ("okay" ). I did like his attitude and appreciation in his way of explaining some of the underlying elements of The Beatles art, but several claims were pretty difficult to take him seriously. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
In just watching the first minute the thesis seems to not say they are the greatest musicians ever or even better composers or even most innovative. Instead he said he thinks they were the most important *of the 20th century*. Important is a pretty nebulous word which I think was used on purpose. I think he backed this claim not only with their cultural influence, but also very clearly debunked that they were just a boy band musically. Greatest ever - no one ever did what they did (perhaps except the melting pot of musical/conceptual ideas all within a 3-4 year period of time), but no, I don't think he's making that claim. That they might be remembered 200 years from now like we remember Beethoven... sure. And I think he's looking at this from the public/music history at large, not "serious" music critics.
Anyone familiar with academic claims is usually familiar with the concept of qualifiers... just sayin.
I also don't think he made the argument that The Beatles single handedly restored tonal music to all music. I think the argument he actually made was that The Beatles played a hand in bringing tonal music back to CLASSICAL music.
I'm not sure he's entirely wrong. I have a hard time believing history won't agree with him besides a few outliers. Here we are 50 years later and their music still tops nearly every musical list out there, with very few outliers. And these lists are not just popularity lists, they are serious musicians, music critics, and even classes are taught at university already about their music. An important musician doesn't top every musical list in the past 50 years if they are total garbage or get taught at serious music schools). Sure there will be historians who study other artists during this period, undoubtedly, but I don't think it's too far fetched to think they won't continue to be a massive part of musical history. No one artist did all that they did, as he also argues. In "brilliant" anti-beatles arguments of the past there's always someone who has the logical fallacy to say, well so and so did what The Beatles did before the Beatles, so the Beatles are hacks. First, that could be said of nearly any artist (including Beethoven), and secondly very few if any really incorporated all that they did in their musical endeavors, and the key amazing thing is they did it really in a span of 3 to 4 years. VU didn't play with Indian Music. The Doors didn't play with musique concrète, or have Stockhausen contacting them. Leonard Bernstein didn't talk about The Doors or VU, but he did The Beatles... I'm just saying...
Again. Someday this will need to be visited in seriousness and I suppose the key here is the web of influences, not just single so and so did this.
Not really interested in discussing the possible semantics of what Goodall means...
I think such a memory of them is possible from a historically ignorant public, but probably eventually unlikely, because their music doesn't hold up to evaluative scrutiny as emotionally/conceptually or creatively significant without limiting them to qualifiers such as "for a pop band" (the most common one).
In the last 15-20 years of discussing The Beatles Ive never once seen a case made for their greatness, discounting reversions to statements such as "such and such lists have them as the top ranked artist/album" ... "Rolling Stone magazine says..." or generic assertions such as "they were just so important/influential/great" (or the like). Can any one point out what is EXPRESSED in their music that is extraordinary -- relative to history? I don't think so because it's not there except perhaps in temporary, small doses. It doesnt appear to me that the hardcore Beatles fan evaluates music as an expression if at all. And in approx 95% of those cases, I have found that they are largely unfamiliar with most of the historical context they were making their claims against (whether "Rock history", "Jazz history" or "All time, including Classical"). This is a rather interesting phenomenon to me, so I just don't listen to it anymore unless someone somewhere can explain their relative greatness or superiority.
I would be shocked if you could summon from yourself or even find (anywhere on the internet, a book...) an evaluation that explains how they were:
*Compositionally extraordinary relative to others of the period, Rock history, All time
*Technically extraordinary relative to others of the period, Rock history, All time
*Any emotional expressiveness from their songs and if/how it was among the most affecting/impinging and stands out from most/all others as historically great/amazing
*Any conceptual expressiveness from their songs and if/how it was among the most compelling and stands out from most/all others as historically great/amazing
*Developed a creative idea(s) in such a way that it was explored to a great degree/extent or culminated... (depth)
*Expressed an emotional state(s) in such a way that it was explored, particularly experiental, given great insight, dimension, immersive... (depth)
*Expressed a concept(s) in such a way that it was explored, particularly experiential, given great insight, dimension, immersive... (depth)
At best, you may come up with some examples that meet some of these 1/2 way... Now try it with other artists such as Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Shakespeare, Coltrane, Mingus, Capt Beefheart, The VU, Welles, Joyce, Michelangelo, Miles Davis, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Bob Dylan (etc) and all these answers (or at least nearly that, met beyond 1/2 way) will be very evident in their work to a remarkable degree (providing at least a decent eval and assimilation has occurred). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
even classes are taught at university already about their music. An important musician doesn't top every musical list in the past 50 years if they are total garbage or get taught at serious music schools). Sure there will be historians who study other artists during this period, undoubtedly, but I don't think it's too far fetched to think they won't continue to be a massive part of musical history.
If The Beatles weren't hugely popular (hence lots of enrollment) it is very unlikely such a class would exist based purely on technical/compositional grounds, except as a very good introduction to dabble in the basics of lots of formats (which btw I would agree that they are if that was being argued). It is probably a good gateway class but no one is learning that much you couldnt learn from many other artists. From a compositional, technical perspective they are undoubtedly good to learn as an introduction to several fundamental variations but arent going to produce any of the next great composers without much further study and practice being required, as they didnt develop their ideas to any great extent.
sethmadsen wrote:
No one artist did all that they did, as he also argues.
No one artist did what any other artist did when you get right down to it.. It's a matter of perspective. He is viewing their attempts at many formats as wholly successful, even though other artists took these formats/genres much much further and did way more with them creatively/compositionally/expressively. There is no avoiding that the Beatles took these formats and dumbed them down, made them less expressive and impactful in probably every example -- than others who culminated/developed them. Fundamentally, he is impressed with the less significant fact that they touched onto several genres without doing so much with any of them --
relative to the artists that did. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
... just kidding). So unless I'm posing a legit analysis that I've clearly spent some time on (or something) some of my responses can be haphazard when first stated. It's not canned -- I just usually shoot for what is fundamental to the issue (when, if not oriented to, said argument or discussion will likely be pointless).
(I kid, but I'm actually not kidding, they both are amazing musicians).
). I did like his attitude and appreciation in his way of explaining some of the underlying elements of The Beatles art, but several claims were pretty difficult to take him seriously.
