Miscellaneous Its Not Jazz But It Will Open Your Ears

Yawn. The Beatles. You'd think there was nothing else happening in the 60's. And putting them on a level with Mozart? I was listening to Tamla Motown, Chess and Atlantic. Holland Dozier Holland have a massive song book.
The Beatles for me are simple folk tunes for simple folk.
 
Yawn. The Beatles. You'd think there was nothing else happening in the 60's. And putting them on a level with Mozart? I was listening to Tamla Motown, Chess and Atlantic. Holland Dozier Holland have a massive song book.
The Beatles for me are simple folk tunes for simple folk.

Don't hold back Colin tell us how you really feel ...:rofl:

Greg S.
 
Thanks Trimmy. Really interesting. It's easy to dismiss them, but Goodall makes a very convincing case. Thinking back, they took me from trivia like Obla Di Obla Da to a stage where I was open to Cream, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. Their White Album lost me. But unlike Colin I rejected the commercialness of Tamla /soul. But never the later deeper Beatles music, despite it being fashionable to do so. The sixties and seventies were important for me - classical/pop -> underground/rock -> folk and later back to blues and classical.

ELP did something similar, mixing rock and classical, but much later. They never had the same following and influence, though.

As chart toppers, but inventing and pushing they Beatles had a huge influence and I think Goodall makes this clear.
 
I was never a Beatles fan and am still not but there are certain songs from the later years that i do like, but watching the video opened a different perspective on the Beatles or at least Lennon/McCartney and to some extent Harrison (being influenced by Indian music).
I thought it was a fascinating insight into what the Beatles achieved musically, i liked the way Goodhall explains the ideas behind the way Lennon/McCartney had at the time, which he also explains may have been accidental because of the inbuilt library they had from performing sets of 6/7hours a time.
I found it interesting regardless of it being the Beatles.
 
I really enjoyed that a lot.

Howard Goodall is a good presenter and makes a clear argument with lots of interesting examples. He doesn't make much mention of the many composers in other genres (like the Great American Songbook and Jazz) who had done and were doing similar things with harmony, but not going so far or being so diverse over a short period of time as Lennon and McCartney.

I often wondered how much Beatles arrangements and even compositions were influenced in the studio by George Martin.

Rhys
 
I watched till I got bored. Did I miss something?

I've been aware of the Beatles since they started and can remember them coming on the scene. I've heard their entire output. They were big news when I was at school. I was never impressed and have never bought one of their recordings. Elevating their song book to some sort of musical masterpiece and revolutionary approach to music amazes me. I did enjoy McCartney's early Wings stuff and have Band on the run on Vinyl some where.

While my friends were raving about the Fab four I was more interested in black and white reruns on the telly of Fred and Ginger films with Irving Berlin scores. West side story made a big impression. as did The Stones, The Hollies, Tamla Motown. It was a rich era. I have vinyls from the trad revival. Ken Collier , Acker Bilk et al. It was around this time that I discovered Sinatra, Glen miller, and Emerson Lake and Palmer and then there was Hendrix.

The Beatles archive is an interesting social record. I put them in the same bucket as Lloyd Webber and Disney.
 
I watched till I got bored. Did I miss something?

............

The Beatles archive is an interesting social record. I put them in the same bucket as Lloyd Webber and Disney.

Yes, you did miss something. The rest of the programme would explain why you shouldn't consider the later Beatles output as "simple folk tunes for simple folk" or comparable to "Lloyd Webber and Disney".

Rhys
 
If you can get it take it, it pays the bills !!
A tricky subject, which could get political. Yes, I'd take it to pay my bills and buy a saxophone or two, but imagine Mr G is fairly comfortable already, and he could do stuff that's a bit more meaningful than appearing on quiz-coms (not that I've seen him do that for a while, to be fair).
 
Yes, you did miss something. The rest of the programme would explain why you shouldn't consider the later Beatles output as "simple folk tunes for simple folk" or comparable to "Lloyd Webber and Disney".

Rhys

I really don't need a fifty year old pop group explaining to me...again. I get it. I don't agree and don't rate it
 
I really don't need a fifty year old pop group explaining to me...again. I get it. I don't agree and don't rate it

Can't make you like something you don't like or rate it as "good", which is obviously subjective.

But the programme makes a convincing case that their later output is harmonically much more interesting and adventurous that what had happened up to then in their sphere of "pop music". That doesn't necessarily make it good or enjoyable for all, but it does mean it is more than "simple folk tunes."

Rhys
 

Similar threads... or are they? Maybe not but they could be worth reading anyway 😀

Members' Blogs

Trending content

Forum statistics

Topics
29,582
Messages
512,885
Members
8,735
Latest member
Idelone
Back
Top Bottom