Is Batman 222 the next Batman 227? 2 2

[D84]

Let's throw another molotov in this one.

Personally, I think The Beatles were a highly influential pop band, but The Rolling Stones were more influential on rock music.

[oakman29]

On 1/6/2022 at 7:40 AM, D84 said:

Let's throw another molotov in this one.

Personally, I think The Beatles were a highly influential pop band, but The Rolling Stones were more influential on rock music.

Without the Beatles there would be no Rolling Stones.

[oakman29]

It's an evolution of music. If there was no gospel and blues there would be no Elvis, or a Little Richard. If there was no Elvis there would be no Beatles. If there were no Beatles there would no Stones, Yardbirds, every other band of the sixties.  If there were none of them there would be no Hendrix. No Hendrix would be no hard rock. No hard rock would be no metal etc.

[EastEnd1]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:40 AM, D84 said:

Let's throw another molotov in this one.

Personally, I think The Beatles were a highly influential pop band, but The Rolling Stones were more influential on rock music.

The two bands get compared a lot and are often thought of as rivals but they were actually pretty close friends.  Paul McCartney gave the Stones one of his throw away songs "I Wanna Be Your Man" when the Stones were still a blues band trying to break out.  It was a modest hit for the Stones. The Beatles later released their own version sung by Ringo.  Mick Jagger later appeared on the Beatles global broadcast of "All You Need is Love" singing backgrounds.  And John Lennon returned the favor a year or two later appearing on the Stones TV special "The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus."  I think both bands were products of the British invasion, and it's true that there may not have been a British invasion without the Beatles, but I agree that the Stones did evolve ultimately from a blues/pop band into a rock band, while the Beatles really remained at their core a pop band throughout (though they obviously wrote some great rock songs, along with many other genres).   

[kav]

On 1/6/2022 at 11:14 AM, oakman29 said:

It's an evolution of music. If there was no gospel and blues there would be no Elvis, or a Little Richard. If there was no Elvis there would be no Beatles. If there were no Beatles there would no Stones, Yardbirds, every other band of the sixties.  If there were none of them there would be no Hendrix. No Hendrix would be no hard rock. No hard rock would be no metal etc.

[fishbone]

On 12/17/2021 at 7:44 AM, Randall Ries said:

I can split the difference and say that as a person who has owned over 200 live Zep recordings, they are way overrated. However, their finished studio projects smoke. I don't deny their impact on pop culture.

My friends were all goofy over that band but when I was playing Mahavishnu Orchestra or Gong, suddenly they were deaf. John McLaughlin or Steve Hillage could smoke Jimmy Page off the planet.

I used to ask my Deadhead friends why the Grateful Dead passed on playing with Hendrix as a guest. I think it's the same reason they hid under a table at Altamont and refused to go on. My friends cited "Hendrix had to catch a plane, ma-a-a-an!" Riiiight. That's why the GD showed up late for that show. Make sure Hendrix got on the plane. LOL!

Same thing with Dickey Betts. I'd kinda grin when we would listen to the one or two times Betts and Garcia played together. Then I'd say something to the effect "Betts is better than Garcia. That much is clear. He's eating his lunch!" The response was always "Yeah, well, ma-a-a-a-an. That's just your opinion! They have different styles!"

So, you know. I would just say "Oh, yes. Of COURSE." Then just keep smiling. Oh well. We were friends and cranked on each other at every given opportunity.

Was just listening to some great interviews on YouTube with Bill Bruford, and although he respects the fact that there is good pop music that has caught on with the masses over the last 50-60 years, it is clear that The Beatles et al. , musically, is really the very simplest arrangements of music available. For real music, Mr. Bruford keeps going back to Jazz and such as the "musician's music"..... if one is concerned with pushing the boundaries of what music is and can be. Some good pop music pushed things a bit, such as his bands Yes, King Crimson and others like old Genesis, Gong, etc. etc. etc., but even he admits they were still on the "primitive side"  ...... like the Beatles is kindergarten, King Crimson is grade 4, but great jazz is like high school .....

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 3:53 PM, fishbone said:

Was just listening to some great interviews on YouTube with Bill Bruford, and although he respects the fact that there is good pop music that has caught on with the masses over the last 50-60 years, it is clear that The Beatles et al. , musically, is really the very simplest arrangements of music available. For real music, Mr. Bruford keeps going back to Jazz and such as the "musician's music"..... if one is concerned with pushing the boundaries of what music is and can be. Some good pop music pushed things a bit, such as his bands Yes, King Crimson and others like old Genesis, Gong, etc. etc. etc., but even he admits they were still on the "primitive side"  ...... like the Beatles is kindergarten, King Crimson is grade 4, but great jazz is like high school .....

Pop has to be primitive, I guess. Or they aren't going to sell millions of "units". Jazz is nuts. Classical is, too. Bluegrass is otherworldly. You really have to have it together to play bluegrass. Some people might think it's "hick" music but try playing it.

I think in the cases of the Beatles and Led Zep, there is music to listen to while getting baked or laid. Then, there is music to listen to to listen to. Like listening to a kaleidoscope. The Al Di Meola, John McLaughlin & Paco De Lucia "Saturday Night In San Francisco" was just a taste of that tour. Listen to the audience recordings of that tour and you will be wearing you head in your back pocket.

It boils down to personal taste, I guess. Listen to Led Zeppelin all you want to. Just saying there's better stuff out there. We cut our teeth on that. After a bit we were like "Yes, yes. "Whole Lotta Love, Stairway To Heaven, Kashmir. What else is out here?" It gets tiresome after awhile. "Clapton, Ma-a-a-a-ann! PAGE, Ma-a-a-a-ann!" You go "Richard Thompson, Ma-a-a-a-ann!" or "Alejandro Escovedo, Ma-a-a-a-a-ann" and most people go "WHO?" Yeah. That's THEIR fault, not mine.

[Beyonder123]

On 12/16/2021 at 12:18 PM, Randall Ries said:

But for the most part, I have no idea what they are even singing about. Butter pie? The butter won't melt so put it in the pie. You got it!

This may be arguing semantics, but thats a solo Paul Mccartney song. I still get what you mean though. Dig A Pony is probably a better example.

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 6:59 PM, Beyonder123 said:

This may be arguing semantics, but thats a solo Paul Mccartney song. I still get what you mean though. Dig A Pony is probably a better example.

All I know is The White Album and Let It Be always have a place in my collection. "Dear Prudence" was one of the most beautiful songs that ever came out of a Beatle. "Across The Universe" was as well. You saw "Pleasantville".
 

 

[Randall Ries]

 

[Point Five]

On 1/6/2022 at 5:16 PM, Randall Ries said:

You go "Richard Thompson, Ma-a-a-a-ann!" or "Alejandro Escovedo, Ma-a-a-a-a-ann" and most people go "WHO?" Yeah. That's THEIR fault, not mine.

Oddly enough, I saw Richard Thompson live a month ago, and was completely blown away. I was a casual fan before, but I'm a superfan now. Finally broke down and got the Richard/Linda box set I've been flirting with, and have been bingeing his solo stuff from all eras as well. 

 

[oakman29]

The Beatles were far from simplistic music, its layered . As a musician myself I know its alot more difficult than you would think.

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:23 PM, Point Five said:

Oddly enough, I saw Richard Thompson live a month ago, and was completely blown away. I was a casual fan before, but I'm a superfan now. Finally broke down and got the Richard/Linda box set I've been flirting with, and have been bingeing his solo stuff from all eras as well. 

 

Good job! I have seen him live several times. Just sit there dumbfounded. Then stare at my own guitar for 2 weeks.

"Why can't YOU do that?" LOL!

One of my favorite pro vids of VBL 1952. Even his stage co-hosts are awestruck

 

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:28 PM, oakman29 said:

The Beatles were far from simplistic music, its layered . As a musician myself I know its alot more difficult than you would think.

The new 5.1 mixes of The White Album bear that out. Each tune is treated to 3 mixes. Rear, front then center channels. Rev9 is interesting to say the least. Some are nearly karaoke.

[EastEnd1]

On 1/6/2022 at 9:28 PM, oakman29 said:

The Beatles were far from simplistic music, its layered . As a musician myself I know its alot more difficult than you would think.

During their experimental years... 1966, 1967... the Beatles were purposefully making music that COULDN'T be played live.  Strawberry Fields was just one example.  I remember listening to an old Billboard top 40 countdown this past summer on Sirius.  It was from 1967.  Some great songs came up... Bernadette (Four Tops), Happy Together (The Turtles), For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield)... even "This is My Song" (Petula Clark) and  "Something Stupid" (Frank and Nancy Sinatra)... catchy stuff, but stylistically such typical straightforward 1960s pop.  I remember wondering what the #1 song for that week was going to be... and then it arrived... Strawberry Fields Forever... my goodness, peppered (no pun intended) among that list, it sounded like a song that landed from outer space... so ridiculously different from the rest of the list with swirls and sounds that had never been heard before on a record.  The Beatles creative output really can't be over-estimated.  Competing musicians from the 1960s themselves have commented that they waited eagerly for the next Beatle album "to see where music was going". 

[Point Five]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:21 PM, Randall Ries said:

Good job! I have seen him live several times. Just sit there dumbfounded. Then stare at my own guitar for 2 weeks.

"Why can't YOU do that?" LOL!

One of my favorite pro vids of VBL 1952. Even his stage co-hosts are awestruck

 

Thanks! Those solos are dazzling. And it was much the same at the show I just saw. It was all solo acoustic, but there were many jaw-dropping moments where if you closed your eyes you'd swear it was 2 (or maybe even 3) guitarists playing together.

 

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:37 PM, Point Five said:

Thanks! Those solos are dazzling. And it was much the same at the show I just saw. It was all solo acoustic, but there were many jaw-dropping moments where if you closed your eyes you'd swear it was 2 (or maybe even 3) guitarists playing together.

 

Yes! I would look at what he was doing and almost yell "OH, COME ON! THAT ISN'T EVEN A CHORD!" Haha!

[Randall Ries]

On 1/6/2022 at 10:26 PM, EastEnd1 said:

During their experimental years... 1966, 1967... the Beatles were purposefully making music that COULDN'T be played live.  Strawberry Fields was just one example.  I remember listening to an old Billboard top 40 countdown this past summer on Sirius.  It was from 1967.  Some great songs came up... Bernadette (Four Tops), Happy Together (The Turtles), For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield)... even "This is My Song" (Petula Clark) and  "Something Stupid" (Frank and Nancy Sinatra)... catchy stuff, but stylistically such typical straightforward 1960s pop.  I remember wondering what the #1 song for that week was going to be... and then it arrived... Strawberry Fields Forever... my goodness, peppered (no pun intended) among that list, it sounded like a song that landed from outer space... so ridiculously different from the rest of the list with swirls and sounds that had never been heard before on a record.  The Beatles creative output really can't be over-estimated.  Competing musicians from the 1960s themselves have commented that they waited eagerly for the next Beatle album "to see where music was going". 

They really took a hard right, didn't they? They didn't seem to like performing live anyway. They couldn't be heard. Everything changed when Paul died and they hired Faul.