They’d be way down my personal list of pop/rock songwriters, but that’s not entirely relevant anyway as it’s a pretty easy form of music to write. I’ve heard parts of McCartney’s orchestral work and it’s terrible.
As for bassists, again maybe in the relatively narrow field of pop/rock music, but there’s a vast amount of jazz or metal bassists who are far superior.
I think this is my whole problem with Beatles fans. It’s not enough to say they were a hugely culturally important, talented and influential band. They have to be the best at everything, and they weren’t. The more I listen to pre-rock’n’roll music, the more I understand why older people at the time hated the new stuff. I don’t agree, and I think they entirely missed the point of it, but it was certainly simplistic compared to much of the music that was around at the time. Yes - the Beatles are simplistic compared to Miles Davis or Shostakovich or Nelson Riddle.
Of course that was part of the appeal, and a massive part of the cultural influence - a perception that suddenly anyone could make good music, and write their own, that the listener was far more of an active participant than an observer or admirer.
I can see that on some of his later stuff as a bandleader, although I don’t agree that it’s painful, but it’s certainly not true of the early stuff with Tommy Dorsey and others where he made his name.
The Royal Guardsmen, for example. Except for a handful of original songs, nearly all of which involve Snoopy, they were a cover band. Even the Snoopy songs hardly get any airplay these days.
Yes but Dorsey isn’t going to let him free-range as a member of his band.
I’m not sure he’s playing in this clip but that last 2 second burst at the end of the song was completely out of character with the song.
Of course, that is all my opinion. I just don’t like his interpretation (for want of a better word).
I would much rather listen to Mitch Mitchell with Hendrix. His drumming was an intimate exchange with the other musicians.
I’m still missing something. Were they ever a money-spinner for their label? Are you suggesting it’s an all or nothing venture to get a recording contract? If there’s an ounce of talent in a band it’s the function of a studio to wring it out of them. the money is not in cover bands and you don’t need a studio to make a career of it. We have tons of tribute cover bands in my area and they can cut their own CD’s at home.
Once it was obvious the Beatles had talent it was Martin’s job to push them in that direction.
Simply an example of a cover band whose few original songs, while hits, didn’t have a lasting impact. And the majority of their covers were hardly suited for Sesame Street’s target audience. Bobby Goldsboro’s “Honey” and Johnny Rivers’ “By the Time I Get to Phoenix” to name two.
Again, are you suggesting this is the goal of a record label and the thrust of their endeavors to make money? I really don’t know where you’re going with this? If Martin wanted a cover band he would have told Paul to take a hike. I seriously doubt he started his day with "does anybody know of another band who can play “All Along the Watchtower?” “We need another 50 renditions to fill in some studio time.”
Yet you don’t give any examples of pop-rock songwriters that were better. You say there’s a lot on the list. Everybody wants to curse the darkness but nobody wants to light one candle.
When you say it’s “an easy form of music to write” you have to admit it sound like you’re just passing gas. For starters you aren’t even acknowledging good and bad within the form. If it was that easy everyone would be doing it and succeeding instead of doing it and failing, no? It wasn’t McCartney’s function as a beatle to write oratorios. Irrelevant.
Classical and jazz composers are a different animal and I don’t think of them in the same category when I say “songwriter”. Comparing the Beatles with them is irrelevant. This wasn’t a discussion about the most complex forms of music.
For bassists, there are no metal bassist better than PM. Very little metal swings or breathes for one thing. It’s hard to be a better musician without doing the thing that makes music music. Also hard to be better without the better songs. It’s just the way art works. There might have been technical advances on bass playing by those metal heads but where are the musical advances? Are you mistaking the two? The way you talk about how easy rock music is I would think it’s possible.
I would never compare rock musicians with jazz players.
I never hear beatles fans say they were the best at everything, just one thing that a lot of people think might be the most important: songs. And this is a function of ingenuity, expressing your own ideas with heart, and passion.
When you have that, you can be the “better” musician because you have made the better vehicle. Anyone else driving that vehicle is doing a cover and it’s not the same. Then people can argue about who can play more notes per second, or who was more complex, but it won’t matter.
The fact that Rich was in his band for a long time, and for several stints, to me shows he was capable of playing nicely with others.
It could well be him, it’s certainly his style. I kinda like it, it works with each short solo getting more over-the-top. But then, any musician with a strong individual style is going to have people who don’t like it
I don’t see a great deal of difference in the effect of Mitchell’s intro or fills to Rich’s burst in the previous song, to be honest. And I think I prefer my jazz to have fiery individualism rather than intimate conversation.
None of which is to say you’re wrong, and certainly towards the end of his career Buddy Rich relied more on showmanship than musicianship, but his reputation based on thge earlier stuff is well deserved.
Agreed, McCartney should not have dipped his toe into orchestral music. He overreached his talent.
Compared to Mozart & the 3 B’s (good band name?), I agree the Beatles weren’t among the greatest composers of music. But, I believe a strong case can be made that they were the greatest pop/rock music composers of all time (made even stronger if you include their post-Beatle work).
Rock music isn’t meant to compare to classical music, or even jazz. It’s a more primitive, simpler art form—but, powerful and important in it’s own rite. Aesthetically, I prefer classical and jazz music. But, when I want to slum it and shake my booty (…as I get older, my booty’s getting shakier and shakier), I listen to rock—and the Beatles are still my (and many others) favorite rockers after all these years.
If Mozart had no formal music training like the Beatles, and didn’t start playing and composing in the womb, I doubt he’d be known today. On the other hand, if the Beatles (and other great rockers) started formal training at a young age, it probably would have taken away their edge to become great rock musicians, and they too would be unknown today. Apples/oranges.
As instrumentalists, I (and many others) rate McCartney among the best rock bass players. He plays bass melodically. No other Beatle was as close to being a virtuoso, but they blended exceptionally well together and were good enough to do justice to their great songs.
McCartney was a decent rock guitarist, but his gift in that department was pickingtalented guitarists to play with him. He was versatile with other instruments, too—good enough to get the job done when needed.
Lennon and McCartney were also among the best rock vocalists (I prefer Lennon in this department). And, in yet another synergistic example of the sum being greater than the parts, when they sang together, the sound was truly great rock and roll.
Epstein found Martin via a music publisher named Sid Coleman, who ran the music publishing company Ardmore & Beechwood from offices above the HMV record store in Oxford Street, London. During his quest for a record deal for the Beatles, Epstein had gone to the record store to have some acetate discs cut as demonstration samples. When he casually mentioned to Coleman that he had been rebuffed by several companies, Coleman phoned George Martin, who warmed to the Beatles and to Epstein. Together, they were to help chart the evolution and revolution of popular music.
Ardmore & Beechwood was an American subsidiary of Capitol Records, which in turn was a subsidiary of EMI Records. Typically, Epstein showed his gratitude to Sid Coleman for steering him to George Martin by telling him that his company could be the publisher of the Beatles’ first two songs, ‘Love Me Do’ and ‘PS I Love You’. But Epstein was disappointed with the lack of energy, as he perceived it, of Ardmore & Beechwood in promoting the Beatles’ vital debut. He had vowed to everyone who would listen that the group would be ‘bigger than Elvis Presley’. Inauspiciously, that first single had reached only seventeen in the British chart and Epstein felt personally humbled.
pp. 10 etc.
BTW there is one great book out called “Tune In” which is one of a trilogy which is being written. It only covers up to Jan 1, 1964. I assume the others will be “Turn On” and “Drop Out” but who knows. It will end up being almost 2000 pages, the biggest most detailed beatles bio.
I’m saying there are many others I prefer, rather than claiming that others are technically better. But the obvious one for me would be the Rolling Stones, I mkuch prefer their lyrics and music.
One of the big changes post-Beatles was the vast increase in the amount of people writing and performing their own songs.
That’s literally nonsense. That’s like saying orchestral musicians aren’t good musicians because they don’t improvise.
No, I’m not confusing them. Technical advances are a big part of musical advances, and if we followed your argument to its logical conclusion we’d just accept that the best songs were written 50 or 60 years ago and stop bothering.
Why not? They’re often the same people, and loads of rock musicians who don’t play jazz talk about the influence from it. And the other way round, from the 70s onwards. One of the reasons the Stones were such a great band was their jazz drummer…
In this very post you’ve claimed that McCartney is the best bassist, and others have claimed Ringo Starr is the best drummer.
Whoever played it better did it better. So, Garcia.
Free lunch? You’re the one making the claim here. Your cite does not back up your assertion that the publishing deal influenced Martin to take them on.
Phil Lesh, Rick Wakeman, Elton John, Eddie Van Halen, Jimmy Page…
I agree with most of what you wrote, but this is the one part I’ve genuinely never got. Their singing has never struck me as particularly moving or hugely technically impressive, and McCartney especially just sounds bland. Lennon and Harrison have more character, though.
The stones were beatle followers, and the songs?: c’mon. You said there are many but you won’t say who. Who’s fault is that? Not mine.
The second pp is not germane as an answer. Prove that it’s easy.
No. Metal doesn’t swing or breathe. So it doesn’t have better bass players inhabiting it. Don’t know what you are saying about Orchestral, it’s non sequiter. Musical advances have happened but no better bassists have happened. Unless you can name them.
I don’t compare them because I think they are different skill sets. Songwriters can be vernacular, and can write in their heads and sometimes don’t play any instrument. Jazz and classical composers almost always need to read music. They need to be able to hear intervals in their heads, and hear what they play before they play it. Rock songwriters don’t have to do these things. There are many differences.
I never said Ringo is the best drummer. However there is no one else in the world who I would prefer for them. They weren’t the best at everything in the least.
Garcia: Now I get where you’re coming from. The Dead were the worst covers band in history. Just listen to them do country or blues or R and B and, if you can tell the difference, you’ll see. Terrible Merle Haggard, Otis Redding covers specifically, if you need a cite. I know they have covered the Beatles a lot but I have avoided it. It sounds like the rest of the set.