Scouse as a derogatory term is intended, valid and continuingly amusing.indiansummer wrote:Thanks for adding the word 'scouse' there in an implicitly derogatory fashion.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.
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.
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.