The Beatles!

everything else

Moderator: Paquito

User avatar
mutantchoux
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 22:08
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Contact:

Re: The Beatles!

Post by mutantchoux » Mon Jan 04, 2010 00:39

indiansummer wrote:
mutantchoux wrote:Not long before that, they played Failsworth. It's now a haven for religious nutters, next door to a caravan sales place. But quit near PlanetMicro, so it'd not all bad.

Except it is. The Beatles were shit. Trite, obvious, done before tunes, dressed up in whatever clothes they could sanitise from the more adventurous folk around them. They had some fun early on, like making Ringo (I'm a drummer! I can't drum! My son is better than me, because of my neighbour, and he hasn't been born yet!) Starrr sing about "Boys", and letting John actually do something worthwhile (other than being shot) on some howling studio vocals. A big, scouse, collective percursor to Simon Cowell, except with some limited instrument ability. "Oh, we wouldn't have pop music without the Beatles!" Yes, yes we would. And by christ, it'd be a lot fucking better without those interminably shit cyphers in the way.

I don't mind Paul's first solo album, not sure why. But then, I quite like having toothache, just for that minute when it goes, and you feel like the King of All Creation.
Thanks for adding the word 'scouse' there in an implicitly derogatory fashion.

The Simon Cowell comparison is rather odd. I can understand that you don't like them but it seems like you're trying really hard to squeeze some extra reasons in there that seem a bit contrived. We would of course have pop music without The Beatles, and for every time they applied someone else's experimental technique to tried'n'tested pop structures, it's perfectly valid to say 'if The Beatles hadn't done it, someone else would have done anyway'. The point being, of course, that like when your dad looks at a piece of modern art and says 'pfft, i could have done that', ultimately they didn't.

This is a pet peeve of mine, so sorry to be a bit of a twat about it, but it's a total myth that Ringo wasn't a very good drummer. There's plenty of evidence on the records and live footage to suggest that he was fine - he doesn't overplay because those melodies (still fresh and exciting to me, i'm afraid - not trite at all!) don't need someone to play like John Bonham or Keith Moon. If you want to hear someone really struggle to play Beatles songs on the drums, listen to the anthology recordings with Pete Best - yeesh. Ringo was fine; the 'he couldn't play' line is inaccurate and getting old.
Scouse as a derogatory term is intended, valid and continuingly amusing.

Ringo couldn't particularly play. Not a line, a fact. As someone fairly proficient on the drums, I can "do" Beatles drumming. Plenty of drummers I can't "do", but the Beatles? Every single fucking time. The "line" that is getting "inaccurate" and "old" is the one from Beatles obsessives that insist that he was the best drummer in the world. Because for them, everything about the Beatles has to be the best. Only, sadly, it isn't. It's largely shit. They were, are and remain, ridiculous cyphers, standing in the way of entertainment. No myth, no being a twat, they just weren't particularly impressive at anything other than spotting the talent of others and maximising its commercial potential. Hence the Simon Cowell comparison. Which isn't, therefore, particularly odd.

One of the points, the one you missed in "it's perfectly valid to say 'if The Beatles hadn't done it, someone else would have done anyway" is that the Beatles didn't need to do it, as it had already been done, by someone else (not my Dad), just not in such a sales/chart friendly way. The Beatles are continually and incorrectly lauded for innovation, rather than the grubby profit inducing and generally trite and sappy interpretation of others' talent that they were actually responsible for.

You like the Beatles? Fine, not a problem. Want to validate them? Try harder.

User avatar
Wheatabeat
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 08:47
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Manchester

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Wheatabeat » Mon Jan 04, 2010 00:46

mutantchoux wrote: You like the Beatles? Fine, not a problem. Want to validate them? Try harder.
It does sound more like you have a bigger hump about "Yay! The Beatles" obsessives rather than the Beatles themselves.

Anyway, I do think they were incredible. There's not a band in the world who carried as much appeal to both teenyboppers and serial killers in equal measures. Something to be lauded for, I'm sure.
Fuck your tea room.

User avatar
Uncle Ants
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 13:04

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Uncle Ants » Mon Jan 04, 2010 03:10

It sound like he's got the hump about something anyway and I don't mean the George Harrison tune. I like the Beatles and always have but I'm not going to waste my time justifying that to some smart alec on a forum with an axe to grind.
In Recordeo Speramus

User avatar
MJHibbett
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 09:03

Re: The Beatles!

Post by MJHibbett » Mon Jan 04, 2010 08:52

There's only one thing more dull than people going on about how great the Beatles were, and that's people thinking they can BLOW YOUR MIND by having the incredibly original opinion that they weren't. Well done, you have FREAKED US OUT.
mutantchoux wrote:Ringo couldn't particularly play. Not a line, a fact. As someone fairly proficient on the drums, I can "do" Beatles drumming. Plenty of drummers I can't "do", but the Beatles? Every single fucking time.
WELL DONE. I can write down the theory of relativity on a piece of paper. THIS MEANS I AM BETTER THAN EINSTEIN.

User avatar
Big Nose
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 09:27

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Big Nose » Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:14

Didn't Ringo hate drum solos? He had to be persuaded to lay one out on Abbey Road, the last thing they recorded and that was only a few seconds long. Ringo didn't even, I think, consider himself a drummer, he probably hated fucking huge kits, having cut his teeth gigging out of the back of those tiny 60's vans and earning 1s4d and so on. The idea of lugging around John Bonhams fucking gong and a 68 piece behemothic kit in an articulated lorry wouldn't occur to someone who began like that and probably just drummed by default.

Pauls quip about him not being the best drummer in the band wasn't even an insult, quite the opposite. Drum bores banging on about Ringos drumming (no pun intended, see also Meg from The White Strips) miss the point by miles.
My apple pies go off today.

indiansummer
Posts: 6658
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 09:52
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/heartsturnblue
Location: from Liverpool / in Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: The Beatles!

Post by indiansummer » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:01

i've heard that he hated drum solos, but then again who doesn't? I really like listening to John Bonham or Todd Trainer playing drums, but i'm not thinking 'wow, rad solo, what an incredible musician, i hope he gets to play for ten minutes without anyone else to show off how proficient he is'.

Different styles work for different bands - some work best with flashy, technically brilliant drummers trying to hit as much as possible. Some work best with a drummer who can barely play but gives it their all and just twats everything to compensate.

To my mind, Ringo works for The Beatles because he's restrained, doesn't try to get in the way of the songs by aiming to be the star of the show and sticks to simplistic-but-well-suited arrangements that work with the songs. He's not the best drummer in the world, but he's still decent (to sell him as short as possible), and has a strong enough sense of musicianship to know that they're a band and not a profiency competition.

Or something.
halo my middle, a hula hoop hug

User avatar
Uncle Ants
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 13:04

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Uncle Ants » Mon Jan 04, 2010 13:36

indiansummer wrote: To my mind, Ringo works for The Beatles because he's restrained, doesn't try to get in the way of the songs by aiming to be the star of the show and sticks to simplistic-but-well-suited arrangements that work with the songs. He's not the best drummer in the world, but he's still decent (to sell him as short as possible), and has a strong enough sense of musicianship to know that they're a band and not a profiency competition.
He's not flash but he swings and it's an important part of the way they sound ... I think anyway. We are being presented with a false dichotomy. I'm not aware of many people saying he's the best drummer in the world (who is anyway?), but it doesn't mean the only other alternative is that he's the worst. I'd say he's pretty good. There is obviously a potential career for mutantchoux as drummer in a Beatles tribute band ... though not, apparently, in a Led Zep tribute band.
In Recordeo Speramus

indiansummer
Posts: 6658
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 09:52
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/heartsturnblue
Location: from Liverpool / in Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: The Beatles!

Post by indiansummer » Mon Jan 04, 2010 14:03

Uncle Ants wrote:He's not flash but he swings and it's an important part of the way they sound ... I think anyway. We are being presented with a false dichotomy. I'm not aware of many people saying he's the best drummer in the world (who is anyway?), but it doesn't mean the only other alternative is that he's the worst. I'd say he's pretty good.
I can dig all of that, sister.
halo my middle, a hula hoop hug

User avatar
Thee SPC
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 23:55
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Thee SPC » Mon Jan 04, 2010 20:00

I think the drums on "Rain" are fucking amazing! For that alone Ringo rules, imo.

biglankyian
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 22:24

Re: The Beatles!

Post by biglankyian » Tue Jan 05, 2010 14:24

i got Beatles Rock Band for christmas.

so far my favourite is Helter Skelter because it's even got a computer ringo exclaiming "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON ME FINGERZZ!"

every song i record from now on will have this at the end of it!

Rimbaud
Posts: 207
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 14:55
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/JoshH1991
Location: Glasgow

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Rimbaud » Wed Jan 06, 2010 01:15

[quote="biglankyian"computer ringo exclaiming "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON ME FINGERZZ!"[/quote]

It was John that said it though...

biglankyian
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 22:24

Re: The Beatles!

Post by biglankyian » Thu Jan 07, 2010 09:30

Rimbaud wrote:[quote="biglankyian"computer ringo exclaiming "I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON ME FINGERZZ!"

It was John that said it though...
Ringo said "Igot blisters on me fingers!"

John said "How's that?" in the fade out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helter_Skelter_(song)

Wikipedia wouldn't lie!....would it?

:p

User avatar
MJHibbett
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 09:03

Re: The Beatles!

Post by MJHibbett » Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:03

It says Ringo in The Mark Mark Lewisohn book! GOSPEL!!

User avatar
andyroo
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:15
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Irlanda

Re: The Beatles!

Post by andyroo » Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:27

indiansummer wrote: "What do you call that haircut?"

"Arthur."

Probably fair to say they were pissing about in press conferences.
"George. What did you think about a nightclub, Arthur's, being called after your haircut?"

"I was flattered. Until I saw the nightclub."

George was teh ace.
There ain't no-one gonna turn me round

linus

Re: The Beatles!

Post by linus » Sat May 22, 2010 23:25

Image

the tweetles!

User avatar
popfiction
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 00:39
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Location, Location.

Re: The Beatles!

Post by popfiction » Thu Jun 03, 2010 22:56

Thee SPC wrote:I think the drums on "Rain" are fucking amazing! For that alone Ringo rules, imo.
I couldn't agree more! Possibly one of the most underappreciated Beatles tracks (if such a thing is possible).

The scouse/derogatory thing is disappointing though, I must say. I expected so much more from you, 'rakkies!

linus

Re: The Beatles!

Post by linus » Tue Jun 22, 2010 07:08

Image

here's a picture of them beatles with an all grown up child star shirley temple (sat next to paul), on ringo's lap is shirley's daughter, lori

here's lori a few years later playing bass with the melvins

Image

such was the corrupting influence of the beatles

indiansummer
Posts: 6658
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 09:52
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/heartsturnblue
Location: from Liverpool / in Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: The Beatles!

Post by indiansummer » Tue Jun 22, 2010 09:01

fogofideas wrote:here's a picture of them beatles ... the corrupting influence of the beatles
and that, kids, is how you spell A-W-E-S-O-M-E
halo my middle, a hula hoop hug

User avatar
andyroo
Posts: 1831
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:15
Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/user/
Location: Irlanda

Re: The Beatles!

Post by andyroo » Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:41

Shirley Temple's daughter played bass in the Melvins? Whu-whu-whu-what?

That's mental. But brilliant.
There ain't no-one gonna turn me round

User avatar
Uncle Ants
Posts: 2389
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 13:04

Re: The Beatles!

Post by Uncle Ants » Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:16

fogofideas wrote:such was the corrupting influence of the beatles
... or the corrupting influence of sitting on Ringo's lap anyway.

Actually Temple Jr. playing bass in The Melvins is pretty cool hmm?
In Recordeo Speramus

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest