London, pfffffft. VIENNA PHILHARMONIC KICKS ASS!!!
(Flicks his lighter and holds it up in the air)
Wow. I thought Phil only donated to the New York Harmonic Orchestra.
I’ve never listened to much of the Kinks. Not because I don’t like what I’ve heard, just that I never got into them. I need to pick up some CDs the next time I’m in Rasputin’s.
Consider yourself lucky, there’s a wealth of good music to explore. I recommend Face To Face and The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society (but really, all their albums up until 1972 or so are great). Compare 1964 Kinks’ proto punk/garage/heavy rock with what they did just two years later on Face To Face, it’s miles apart.
Everyone talks about how “great” Vienna Philharmonic is. Vienna Philharmonic isn’t so great. They never got their picture on bubblegum cards, did they? Have you ever seen their picture on a bubblegum card? Hmmm? How can you say someone is great who’s never had their picture on bubblegum cards?
For those who don’t get the reference.
ps: I didn’t get the reference until I went to search source material to Photoshop the VP into a card (project abandoned)
I got the quote from “Charlie Brown Christmas.” Didn’t know it was a strip, too.
Can you play, “Jingle Bells”? 
Here’s a list of Beatles songs that were #1 in the US. AFAIK, they were all written by one or more of the Beatles.
That’s why they call it the PHIL Harmonic Orchestra.
In the early 1960s, singles were more important than albums. In fact, in the UK the tradition was to leave hit singles off albums so that people weren’t made to buy the songs twice. (The Hey Jude album consisted solely of non-album singles and b-sides and was released only in America so they could be on a convenient album.) Albums had lots of filler on them, not surprising when you consider that they were expected to be finished in a single day, as the first Beatles album was.
The Beatles of course loved early American rock ‘n’ roll and played it constantly in their club days. Putting those songs on their albums was a natural impulse. The Beatles wanted to play them and their fans wanted to hear them. (Americans wouldn’t know that they played those songs constantly on their numerous BBC radio dates, but UK fans would demand them.)
But singles were different. Record companies wanted groups to put out familiar and famed songs. The Beatles were the first group to successfully fight that. From the beginning they insisted that all their singles be songs they wrote. That alone would be enough to make them a landmark group in 1962.
They were the exact opposite of a boy band, therefore. They knew what a boy band was; all of England did. Before the Beatles the stars mostly belonged to Larry Parnes, who would take a hick kid with moderate talent, give him a new attention-getting name, and provide his music. “Among those he managed with at least some degree of success were Billy Fury (originally Ron Wycherley), Vince Eager (Roy Taylor), Dickie Pride (Richard Knellar), Lance Fortune (Chris Morris), Duffy Power (Ray Howard), Johnny Gentle (John Askew), Terry Dene (Terence Williams), Nelson Keene (Malcolm Holland), and Georgie Fame (Clive Powell).” The Beatles killed that genre and started rock on its path to group-written songs as the default for bands.
It’s hard to express just how fantastically wrong the idea that The Beatles were a boy band who didn’t write their own songs and were the puppets of others is. It rivals birtherism and creationism for sheer insanity and turning the world upside down.
Maybe this should be moved back to CS. We’re all just trading info about music we like. WTF is wrong with us? 
Really well done.
I think Zeke’s animosity is weirdly personal. Like one of the Fab Four slept with mother and then never called her. Or Ringo never answered his letters. He seems far to invested in proving that which is, by all objective measure, a ridiculous premise.
The potential target is in the penalty box and can’t be body-checked into the wall.
Much appreciated.
Did someone say they were? They must have confused the Beatles with the Duke Ellington Orchestra. Or maybe Count Basie.
…Zeke is just an angry poster with a problem controlling his temper. In this thread:
He witnessed something and passed it onto the limo company, then lost his shit with the poor person on the other end of the phone, then he lost his shit with everyone else in the thread. This thread turning out to be a trainwreck is no surprise at all.
I won’t poke **Zeke N. Destroi **with my Bar-B-Que skewer while he’s on vacation. I’ll just say I disagree with his assessment of the Beatles.
I believe the Beatles were the greatest musical group of all time, and Lennon-McCartney were the greatest songwriters of the 20th century. One may quibble about the meaning and application of “great”, but using a mix of all important criteria, not placing the Beatles at least in the top 5 “greatest band” list is absurd.
The Beatles started off as a skiffle band, then cut their teeth playing gritty R&R in Hamburg, amassing a large, appreciative European following. Then they switched gears (forced in part by Epstein) in the early '60’s, cleaning up their look and sound and exploded onto the world stage. Then they changed gears again and created a paradigm shift in popular music itself, in much the same way Beethoven broke the Classical mold and ushered in the Romantic era of music.
That they did all this in the span of 6 or 7 years is mind staggering. That they did so with no formal musical training is impossible—yet, they did it…and made it look easy.
Beatles music was never “bubblegum” or disposable. Even their early pop songs had maturation of form and showed glimmers of the genius to follow.
They wrote ~300 songs. I bet a high percentage of the world’s population can hum most of the melodies they created. No matter how you slice it—that’s influence.
Here are a few other artists who count the Beatles as influences on their creativity.
Some people slight the Beatles, citing George Martin as a significant factor in developing their unique sound. He was. So what? Consider Martin the 5th Beatle. John and Paul were intelligent enough to heed and incorporate Martin’s ideas into their music, turning them masterpieces.
Sure, the Beatles appealed to multitudes of teenyboppers when they first broke onto the scene. So what? If that was all who they appealed to, perhaps the charge of “vapid” boy-band music could apply. But, the Beatles appealed to young and old alike; amateur enthusiast and professional musician alike. They appeal to accomplished musicians across all genres; many cite them as influences on their own creativity. To have the global appeal that the Beatles maintain to this day isn’t a fluke, or simply a marketing success story—it’s the result of significant raw talent. The Beatles were the real deal.
Once upon a time, we had 4 living generations of Beatles fans in my family alone. Nana listened to Lawrence Welk, Bing Crosby…and the Beatles. Mom (a WWII British war bride) listened to opera, Vera Lynn…and the Beatles. My older sister (a talented jazz and classical pianist) plays Chopin, Liszt, Beethoven, Bach…, Gershwin…and the Beatles. My oldest daughter listens to Skrillex (…maybe that was last week)…and the Beatles. My youngest daughter listens to Florida Georgia Line (country)…and the Beatles. I awoke to music and have been addicted to the Beatles since I got Meet the Beatles one Christmas as a child. Pop pop called it all hippy crap—but what did he know!
Sure, the Beatles had only one virtuoso instrumentalist (Paul, on bass). But, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. Would you really want 4 virtuoso Beatles? George shredding a Fender on Here Comes the Sun? Ringo going all Buddy Rich on Octopus Garden? John singing like Caruso on Strawberry Fields? Not me. 1 virtuoso plus 3 solid, reliable instrumentalists, plus 2 of the best rock vocalists in the business, plus a talented producer, plus the finest song-writing team of the 20th century is good enough for me.
Can you name one band who has a song-writer as talented as George Harrison in it and have him be only the 3rd best in a group of 4? I can’t
And, you may not click with Lennon’s lyrics, but I don’t see how you can call them inferior to any others. His word-salad often non-nonsensical lyrics painted a picture. The picture was often fractured, disjointed and caustic, but almost always powerful, colorful and exactly what the music called for. John was the Picasso of words.
The Beatles were fine club and stadium performers. They were stellar studio performers. But, the real magic was the Lennon-McCartney collaborative songwriting. I’m confident that much of their oeuvre will have staying power similar to that of the great classical masters. I’m not so confident about the staying power of Kris Kristofferson or Anthrax.
One mark of genius is the ability to take something complex and make it appear simple and accessible. I believe the Beatles did exactly that. Many of their songs sound quite simple on the surface. Yet, there’s something going on under the surface that draws you in, like bees to nectar. If you have a spare 48 minutes, this video highlights some of what’s going on under the Beatles hood.
Paul is a musical prodigy (not unlike Mozart)—he didn’t need to be taught his craft; it was innate. John was a tortured, artistic genius (not unlike Beethoven), having lost his beloved mother Julia twice at an early age (first by abandonment, finally by death). Imagine a song-writing team of Beethoven-Mozart. That’s what Lennon-McCartney is to popular music.
I wish the Beatles didn’t skyrocket to fame as quickly and intensely as they did. I believe that was a major factor in their breaking up as soon as they did. Not many artists can withstand that level of fame and adulation without cracks forming. Much of the individual Beatles’ music is noteworthy, But, I’d love to have seen what direction Lennon-McCartney and gang would have taken music in the '70’s. If I could do an alternate history, I’d have Brian Wilson join the Fab Four in 1970. Lennon-McCartney-Wilson songs with Beach Boy backing harmony would be joy to experience.
I believe the Beatles would have re-united in the 80’s. John was lifting from his mental fog and creating again. The group had a decade to relax and heal old relationship wounds. The world was poised to receive a more mature Beatles sound. Mark David Chapman stole that from us all.
Since the one person that everyone was fighting with isn’t here, this has turned into a nice discussion about music, so I’m bouncing it back to CS.
Well I am not going to hold back on this thread. So get ready to put it back. I don’t think it’s fair to move it back and forth after what’s been posted already. All this ignorant shotgun illogic and abuse and now we have to be polite again because some idiot is still lurking after his suspension?
Did you ever think that those with something to say in the pit have been waiting for the conversation to start again?