Nothin. Marvin's great. But I find it hard to believe you actually think The Beatles sucked. For all intents and purposes, they are the embodiment of Barry Manilow's "I Write The Songs". They in fact are the "Music". All those awsome harmonies can only be original once and it was/is The Beatles who are the envy of the rest.
Honestly. Just ask them, I mean, the rest.
Honestly. Just ask them, I mean, the rest.
If someone doesn't like a particular artist(s), fine, their choice. I daresay there are people who can't stand Bach, Frank Sinatra or Charlie Christian.
I can't stand some artists, hate others, and detest pretty much whole genres of music, but there are plenty of people who like what I don't. But I'm not going too say they 'suck' just because I don't like them.
Geoff
I can't stand some artists, hate others, and detest pretty much whole genres of music, but there are plenty of people who like what I don't. But I'm not going too say they 'suck' just because I don't like them.
Geoff
What's Going On (album) happens to be my fave Marvin Gaye.
And yes, you are entitled to think that the Beatles sucked to the highest degree, assuming you are talking about personal taste.
I was probably being over harsh there... But I have Help and Rubber Soul, which are quite poppy, but rarely play them. You don't hear the Beatles much on the Radio any more either.
Most of their albums seem a mix of good and bad to me. Especially after Sgt. Pepper, when they became too self indulgent and druggy IMO.
Ringo and George did very good things on solo albums. I was less fond of John and Paul's solo efforts.
Most of their albums seem a mix of good and bad to me. Especially after Sgt. Pepper, when they became too self indulgent and druggy IMO.
Ringo and George did very good things on solo albums. I was less fond of John and Paul's solo efforts.
Again I find your lack of enthusiasm for Paul perplexing as he could have been a solo effort and called himself The Beatle. He wrote most of the tunes. To wit, the vast majority of the most popular ones. Without him the band would have been just one of the others of the time without any special merit. Very good mind you but lots of the others were also "very good". But because of Paul they were the FAB FOUR!
Well, I think that is not a fair characterization of the contributions of the other three members. Paul "may" have written the majority of the hits, but that does not mean that John and George did not also write some amazing songs.
Furthermore, songwriting is just one part of the mix; another part is the playing of the instruments. George has the amazing ability to come up with perfect riffs and grooves for each song. not to mention interesting pick-ups, instrumental solos in the breaks and bridges, and nice rhythmic touches to accent the solos. Ringo also has very interesting drum patterns that support the song, and great accents that do not clutter the soundstage. Think of the Beatles as striving to make a single integrated musical presentation in each track where each measure is nonetheless filled with interesting tidbits and oftentimes surprises. The is why one can always go back to each song, analyze it and find new things to think about.
Of course everything you say is correct, hence their FAB FOUR attribute. However I do believe I'm correct in my characterization of the other members. As I said they were "very good". In order, Paul, John, George, and last but definitely not least Ringo as he came up with very original drum techniques and sequences. John's political topics were cutting edge hip and George's endearing love songs were over the top but my fav of his is Old Brown Shoe, great departing tune. Ringo's musical writing contributions were marginal. It's a similar comparison to declare Kieth Richards is The Rolling Stones all by himself. After all he wrote virtually every tune recorded by the group, did all the music, co-ordinated the accompaniment, et al. Mick is the front man. Anything he ever did on his own is a piece of crap, and they did do stuff on their own. Kieth's is fabulous, enter Talk Is Cheap. So there's always a driving force in a band. Look at the Guess Who...all Randy Bachman who went on to prove who's who after they split.
As an aside, I wonder how many rock and roll songs were written under the influence of intoxicating substances?
Even Robert Johnson was said to be a user of narcotics.
Even Robert Johnson was said to be a user of narcotics.
Pete could be listening to 'The Beatles Channel' on Sirius XM Radio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Channel
Er..no, they are right here
However I think those who say this are being less than honest, having some kind of an axe to grind..could be anything, who knows. But music soothes the savage breast and The Beatles produced the melodies that accommodate this regardless if it was them or other artists. There is a finite number of appealing melodies and they produced a large % of them.
Last edited:
I'm sure The Beatles wrote their fair share under such circumstances. Enter Paperback Writer.
Sir Mick is on the Radio tonight. I am already tuned in to Radio 2!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0015txz
Cilla Black is playing right now. "Something is Gonna Happen". Another famous Liverpudlian. Very nice foot-tapper!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0015txz
Cilla Black is playing right now. "Something is Gonna Happen". Another famous Liverpudlian. Very nice foot-tapper!
Something always does, no? 🙂
But tell us why there needs to be a 'd' in Liverpudlian as there is no 'd' in Liverpool, or even a 'u' I might add. Shouldn't it be Liverpoodlian?
Isn't this always the problem between "us" and "them"? Such trivialities are always getting in the way of seemingly good intentioned interactions and conversation. Ah yes, but such is the spice of life, no?
I love Mick, having gathered no moss to speak of thanks to Kieth.
Imagine if he was left to fend for himself in the jungle of rock n' roll?
Reminds me of Mungo Jerry, shuffling off.
But tell us why there needs to be a 'd' in Liverpudlian as there is no 'd' in Liverpool, or even a 'u' I might add. Shouldn't it be Liverpoodlian?
Isn't this always the problem between "us" and "them"? Such trivialities are always getting in the way of seemingly good intentioned interactions and conversation. Ah yes, but such is the spice of life, no?
I love Mick, having gathered no moss to speak of thanks to Kieth.
Imagine if he was left to fend for himself in the jungle of rock n' roll?
Reminds me of Mungo Jerry, shuffling off.
If you have a problem with "Liverpudlian", just say "Scouser".
P.S. Keith Richards only signs his name as "Kieth" when he is stoned!
P.S. Keith Richards only signs his name as "Kieth" when he is stoned!
Don't go kiddin yerself about George's guitar prowess. No doubt he had some talent, but it was John's rythm guitar/progressions that made the songs what they are...all of them. Honestly, I'm not impressed with George's playing/composing ability. You can bet he had direction from John and Paul.
Yes, we know. There is a form of cannabis called keef btw. 🙂If you have a problem with "Liverpudlian", just say "Scouser".
P.S. Keith Richards only signs his name "Kieth" when he is stoned!
not that there's a relationship of course.
Make that 'Liverpoolian'. There's no 'd' either. What gives??If you have a problem with "Liverpudlian", just say "Scouser".
P.S. Keith Richards only signs his name as "Kieth" when he is stoned!
"Scouser"? I'm looking that UP!
Okay, may I ask what are the ingredients of lobscouse? Lobster and?