beatles songs which are actually quite good
- Thread starter killer b
- Start date
ouchmonkey
Singe Gainsbourg
or someone who doesn't give a fuck about the beatles or people that played with them
or someone who does know the answer but doesn't even want to think about it because it puts them in a rage that anyone would give a toss ( he's not god, he's not even very good - he's just a cunt OK?)
or someone who doesn't give a fuck about the beatles or people that played with them
i've just had to go back to find out who's being talked about. i had no idea. and i couldn't care less.
thats quite a nice story really. i apologise urban for being snotty andbeing bitchy and stuff when i didnt know what i was talking about.
sorry.
you never sound like that, MA *kisses MA and sends flurry of Angel hugs*
the beatles had and have nothing to do with stockhausen. Stop trying to sound all knowledgable when you aint got a facking clue about music. You need a musical ear to really 'get' it and are out of your depth here. Making clinical statements about music - which is something instinctual and non textbook - suggests that you dont understand it so well, displayed where you embarassingly describe the beatles music as 'generic'
for sheer comedy value, its quite funny though!
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
clueless!!!
Care to explain why my point is "clueless" (assuming, of course, that you're capable of doing so)?
describing their music as 'generic'
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Wrong.
Learn a little about what you're talking about before sounding off. That way you might look less foolish.
Of course I haven't. I've only played instruments for over 40 years, listened to music for as long, been in bands as a youth, seen over a thousand gigs, talked to musicians over the last 30 years...well, you get the picture of why I haven't got a clue, don't you?
What else do you call music that's the sum of it's influences?You need a musical ear to really 'get' which you dont appear to have if you embarassingly describe the beatles music as 'generic'
Not nearly as funny as your specious, intellectually-sloppy opinion-masquerading-as-serious-comment. believe me.for sheer comedy value, its quite funny though!
i mean, what does this mean??
the musical harmonies in the music were genius. Nothing detracts from that and its a pretty undisputed fact that the beatles really knew how to write fuckloads of brilliant, brilliant songs - melodically, structurally, harmoniously if you strip them down to vocals and guitars.
i reckon it means that they popularised analogue sampling as a method of musical manipulation and creation.
explain what you mean by that.
i think you shouldnt analyse it so much. Music is not clinical, something to be dissected in its minutae to reach some forensic 'conclusion' shrouded in erudite-sounding language. Like you are attempting to do.
i think you are very knowledgable on many subjects, VP, but you are out of your depth here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Do you actually understand what the word means in the context it was used?
It means that their music wasn't avant garde, it wasn't "cutting edge", none of the techniques that were used in the studio were new. Their music was characteristic of similar music within their genre that was being produced at the same time, their lyrics addressed similar themes.
see my point to dodgepot above.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Genuinely "genius" music generally transcends its' influences, it's more than the sum of it's influences. isitme mentioned Public Enemy, and they're a good example of a musical effort that succeeded in transcending its' influences and creating a new "whole".
What the Beatles didn't do was the above, they created nothing "new", they were merely seen as "first among equals" (at least in terms of sales) in a particular genre at a particular time.
I'm not attempting to do anything except elucidate clearly enough so that you don't and can't misunderstand me. I'm not dissecting anything to it's minutiae, I'm making what are very general and broad points about something that's fairly uncontentious: The nature of the music of the Beatles.
Fine, give me proof.
theres the proof.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It isn't relevant to addressing what was "generic" about the music of the Beatles. Analogue sampling (done by both George Martin and the various members of the Beatles, by the way) was a very small part of the studio "wizardry" used by many producers and engineers of the time.
you say you dont think the beatles music was 'avant garde or cutting edge,', erm, because the techniques used had been used before.
verdict: clueless.
Voley
🐀
That's not a very sensible thing to say when dodgepot's just destroyed your argument about the Beatles having nothing to do with Stockhausen.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That proves that I'm "out of my depth", does it?
How so?
I notice that you edited out the part where I said "Their music was characteristic of similar music within their genre that was being produced at the same time, their lyrics addressed similar themes.", thereby divorcing your interpretation of the point I was making from the actual point I made.
Well done you, more shoddy thinking.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Go back and read the whole quote. If you do so perhaps you'll be able to stop misrepresenting what I wrote.you say you dont think the beatles music was 'avant garde or cutting edge,', erm, because the techniques used had been used before.
Of course, whatever you say. After all, you're so credible, aren't you?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Now, how about stopping messing up killer_b's thread with your rather childish attempts to get attention?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I love it when cheesy passes verdict upon us.
ViolentPanda, you are not real urbans.
Sorry.
ViolentPanda, you are not real urbans.
Sorry.
That proves that I'm "out of my depth", does it?
How so?
I notice that you edited out the part where I said "Their music was characteristic of similar music within their genre that was being produced at the same time, their lyrics addressed similar themes.", thereby divorcing your interpretation of the point I was making from the actual point I made.
Well done you, more shoddy thinking.
too clinical^^^
i cant explain to you how to view it can i? depends on how you hear music, and how you understand it. I cant magic up a musical ear for you, youre just born with it. You are always going to look for forensic evidence and good songwriting is not like that.
Voley
🐀
lol
no he didnt!
Translation: "Lalalalalalaaaaa! I can't hear you!"
so why did they ask for his face to appear on the Sgt Peppers cover then, you stupid stupid stupid STUPID fucking cunt
