The Beatles

I f*cking hate it when people say a band (any band) is about one musician. It's not, I don't care who contributes most, everyone contributes something, either in terms of songwriting or musicianship. This includes every band, even The White Stripes.

Don't even bring up Sid Vicious as a counterpoint, he didn't even play on the recorRAB OR live (his "bass playing" was all mime) so he dosen't count. He did sing that hillarious version of My Way though.
 
Abbey Road, followed by Revolver.

Sgt Peppers was culturally significant, and has a lot of recording techniques that have greatly influenced modern music-but there are some duffers on there-let's be honest!
 
:stupid::stupid::bonkhead: You don't know what you are talking about Paul McCartney is a true musicial genuis,he's rightfully widely regarded as one of the best rock bass players,singers and song writers and he can play any instrument great! He wrote quite a lot of The Beatles rockers including a few great early rockers,as The All Music Guide says The Beatles showed they could rock really really hard with John's song I Feel Fine,and Paul's great blues rocker She's A Woman,and they said Paul's peerless rocker I'm Down which they said was one of The Beatles most frantic rockers and that they did a really wild performance of this song at the August 1965 Shea Stadium concert! Paul as many people have said wrote the first true heavy metal songs,Helter Skelter on The Beatles great 1968 rock White Album!

And John Lennon never said that Paul's Beatles songs had no substance,he may have referred to a few of Paul's solo songs that way,and he and John did not stop writing together by 1962,they co-wrote songs in 1964,1965, 1966 and 1967! They both co-wrote With A Little Help From My FrienRAB at Paul's piano and they wrote it for Ringo to sing. Also it was Paul McCartney who contributed the interesting Sea Gull sounRAB from his own tape loop experiments on John's song Tomorrow Never Knows,and Paul wrote most of the great music in A Day In The Life and it was his idea to have the notes from an orchestra rise up and then crash down with the piano too. He half conducted The British Philharmonic Orchestra at age 24 with George Martin!

And read the June 1975 online John Lennon Rolling Stone interview,he says that Paul McCartney's 1973 album Band On The Run is a great album,and that it's Paul's music and it's good stuff! When he was having an affair for a year and half with May Pang while John and Yoko were seperated, John almost went to New Orleans in early 1975 to play on Paul's great 1975 rock Wings album Venus and Mars but he got back together with Yoko instead who became pregnant with his second son Sean soon after.Also John said that Paul was one of the best and most innovative bass players ever and that half of the stuff thats going on now is directly taken from Paul's Beatles period!


Yoko called Paul up not long after John died and told him that John often would tell Yoko with tears in his eyes that he really loved Paul! Paul also plays great lead guitar on his own song Another Girl,John's Ticket To Ride and on George's Taxman as well as that great bass on Taxman! And Bass Player Magazine recently voted Paul # 5 Greatest Bass Players of all time and # 2 creators of best most creative bass lines!
 
It is refreshing to finally hear people agree that the musical talents of the Beatles were questionable!! The four merabers were simply the worst musicians ever to become famous. In my opinion they were responsible for the decline in musical ability shown in my generation's radio-friendly (dont get me started) artists. It is a simple premise that, the beatles music could be played by anyone that could pick up a guitar. Of course simplicity is not always fatal but in this case, i fail to see the attraction of such a MEDIOCRE band, :banghead: I realise this post will cause controversy but, seriously, the word "over-rated" has never been so apt.
 
I am completely in agreement with Booboo. Calling the Stones the greatest, or even one of the greatest banRAB just seems bizarre to me. From what I've seen of the Stones playing live, pretty much all they give is energy. Yes, they give a lot of energy, but there's no real improvisation, no spontaneous musical moments, no virtousity, nothing that really seperates what you're seeing live from what you heard on your CD.

Or judging by this video, the difference is that it sounRAB much worse live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4-5rqlhePQ

Apart from Keith Richard's guitar part, there is nothing in this performance which differentiates the Rolling Stones from your extremely average amateur pub banRAB. By the way, I'm not being selective in my choice of video, this was the first live peformance I got when I typed 'live rolling stones' into Youtube.
 
There are many people who feel The Rolling Stones are dinosaurs and that they haven't done anything great for 35 years! And of course you can't believe and don't want to believe that Dave Navarro or any other musician really doesn't like The Rolling Stones.
 
Back
Top