Just a rambling observation about the Beatles

For me I think that I've been looking more and more at lyrics than music for the new stuff. When I hear a song I don't really seem to critique the music as much, but will notice the lyrics.

For me it's also abut the discovery factor. I don't take the time to look......anymore. My son spins me a couple of tunes every now and then, but I have not dug anything he's played all that much. I think he calls it "Thrash Metal". I'd like it better probably if it didn't hurt to listen to it at the intended volume. :evil: My wife is into hip-hop or pop music. I can't stand to listen to it.

We had a radio station here that was nationally recognized as a good Rock station. Then one day came and it was almost as if they ran out of music to play and became a "Classic Rock" station. Nothing more than my CD-collection. The other two rock/pop stations went into seperate directions. One stayed along the hip-hip & R&B Pop music scene and the other went into Heavy Rock. I caught a couple of tunes listening to them, but I couldn't keep up. And then one day, poof. Gone. The Classic Rock station is gone too, but I think it got replaced, and boy oh boy, it was almost an Ozzy Osbourne station. On the hour, every hour. At least one Ozzy song. He wasn't that popular back when it was fresh! ARRRRRGH!!!!

I agree with what everyone has said, though, about the timelessness of music. It's forever etched into my memory banks as if it was some soundtrack for all my visual memories.

i guess it's part of growing older today in this age of instant gratification and seemingly endless choices on the internet.
Started out listening to Motown, Blues, Beatles and AM pop in New Orleans as a kid in the 60s
Then mostly harder edged rock leaning (i still love it). but the boredom from what Roy mentioned (listening to my own cd collection played on the "classic" stations) set me looking for more.
David's lessons and the folks on these boards turned me on to other artists i had not previously given much attention and now i'm really into the indie, singer songwriter, softer (acoustic) based pop stuff that wasn't concidered "kewl" when i was younger.
give the streaming internet radio stations a shot, there's a lot of variety out there if you poke around a bit. and it's kinda fun as well.
right now i'm listening to this local station , scroll down and klik on "listen live" show times for various genres etc are listed as well.
http://www.ktbg.fm/

That is the problem in my case. There are not interesting new bands or recordings.

But there ARE! They're just not being played on mainstream radio any more. Go check out some college stations and public radio stations geared towards the indie audience. Especially, go check out your local music scene and the bands there.

There's tons of great music out there, but you have to go find it. The mainstream media outlets aren't going to present it. They're focused on presenting nice, safe, homogenized pap for the tin-eared masses.

Probably you are right (Chris and Hyperborea... and the also others but I want to focus on that line).

I am getting older and, effectively, the music or some music has a target age. It is a good point!

Probably since we are getting older, we are also more experienced and we are intuitively comparing the new music (songs, bands) with the old music. That old music has been filtered. Surely everybody remember a lot of bad or even horrible bands but they aren't with us now. We mostly remember our favorite albums, songs, bands... and they are really good! At least for everyone! Could those songs compete against a new theme? It's pretty hard!

On the other hand, concerning the 'discovery' of new music. It is true, there are some moments that it is easier to discover new music. And I never liked the 'big radio stations' with commercial hits but sometimes you discovered some good songs or bands there. Now, at least here, the music in those radios are based on singers (not bands) from 'x-factor', 'Spanish-idol' TV programs. There aren't new bands (there are old bands or bands that make music similar to the previous 'hit bands', sometimes they change the vocalist and there is a 'fork': the old band with the new vocalist and the old vocalist with a new band, both make the same music).

I remember the 80s... There were many really good bands just in Madrid! They appeared suddenly but they were there, they played all styles: metal, 'techno-pop' (do you remember the 'techno-pop'?), etc. And it was the same in Europe and America. Unfortunately it doesn't exist now.

I try to 'discover' new music everyday. There are one or two radio stations in which you can listen new bands (Spanish and international) but it is not usual that those bands get more audience. Almost all bands in the 80s started in those stations.

Internet is another way to discover music now but it seems the big companies disagree... at least you use iTunes, Napster or you mobile phone.

That is the problem in my case. There are not interesting new bands or recordings.

But there ARE!
We are writing at the same simultaneously! (Ok, I'm very slow!)

I absolutely agree! In fact I wrote (or tried to write) the same ideas. I think we are living a moment where there are (or will be) important changes. Scorpions wrote a song, isn't?

Many members write lyrics, play songs and upload them to SoundClick. Some are cover as well. But did you listen the music there? It is great! You can listen practically every style and some songs are pretty good!

I remember when I went to the stores and I asked for music. I had to wait several weeks for some records! If I can get them!
And many times were impossible (I'm referring to stores specialized in imported music, a normal store didn't know anything about the band, the record, or how to get it).

Well I think the Beatles were unique in many ways and not just the music they made but the time when they made it, the infancy of rock n roll at the time etc, etc. all that plays a big part in their "legacy" and I don't doubt that there may never be another Beatles but not just because of the music but because the events and everything else going on at that time will probably never be duplicated but just like sports records, someday someone will surpass them.

As for new music and connecting with it, it's not just a matter of listening because every listener has been shaped by their experiences, age, peer group etc. So a 15 year old and a 50 year old listening to the same music may have very different ideas about the music which would generally follow others in the same age group.

Why do so many older people not like metal or rap or hip hop yet the magority of younger people will say they like at least one of those styles. It's not that those genres don't have good music it's because the older people (and I include myself to some degree) do not live in that world of the younger generation and for the most part we will never "get it".

I can only realte my own experiences but I agree with what Twisty said when I was in high school/college music was a huge part of everyday. Sitting around listening to albums all day talking about them with my friends, which bands were cool which weren't etc. To me those are th musical formative years where you kind of define your musical tatses, and those seem to stay with a person for the rest of their lives. I think it's more related to the psycology of human nature.

The other part of Frank's original post that I didn't comment on was who will we be listening to in 40 years, well it may not be the bands of today but it won't be the Beatles either, sure they will get some play but nothing like today. You have to remember although it's been forty years since they started most of the people who grew up with the music are still alive and still hold on to those memories, kids today for the most part are not holding on to the mempories of Beatles songs. Once our generation is gone so will most of the Beatles music.

i forgot to mention Pandora (for those who can get it) and my absolute fav, lastfm. yea it costs a small monthly fee for full function, but it absolutly kicks a**

On the other hand, concerning the 'discovery' of new music. It is true, there are some moments that it is easier to discover new music. And I never liked the 'big radio stations' with commercial hits but sometimes you discovered some good songs or bands there. Now, at least here, the music in those radios are based on singers (not bands) from 'x-factor', 'Spanish-idol' TV programs. There aren't new bands (there are old bands or bands that make music similar to the previous 'hit bands', sometimes they change the vocalist and there is a 'fork': the old band with the new vocalist and the old vocalist with a new band, both make the same music).

I know right! thats why I dont listen to spanish music, there are a few groups out there that sing spanish rock and are good, but I cant name any xD. And then everything here is based on singers and not bands, yes it sucks. Its like uh, La Oreja de Van Goh, supposedly they changed the singer, but its still the same deal, and the singer is now singing alone, but its the same!

What I do like are some spanish bands that sing in english, but most are local bands, that Ive seen.

Where are you from Nuno, Spain ?

Yep, Madrid, Spain! Olé! :note2:
Its like uh, La Oreja de Van Goh, supposedly they changed the singer, but its still the same deal, and the singer is now singing alone, but its the same!
Exactly!!! :D La Oreja de Van Gogh and Amaia Montero. The new vocalist (who comes from a TV program, Operación Triunfo, like David Bisbal and many others) has the almost same timbre. I never liked that band and now I have two! :(

There are some good bands that sings in English but it is not usual. Probably the most famous is Dover. And there are many good bands that sings in Spanish, but some years ago there were many more! Examples, Vetusta Morla, Pereza, Mago de Oz, M Clan...

I dont like em either. So I guess Operacion Triunfo is like Spains (? ) American Idol, we have one of those too xD, lol the person who won the last of those things was the girl who came in second place in the one David Bisbal won.

well a local group that is worth listening to ( I dont know if they are known or anything over there ) is La Secta which has some good stuff pretty old group, its been playing since before I was born O_O , also Black Guayaba, that one I know is a bit more famous because they won some prizes etc etc, but they are really cool guys, when I was starting like a year and a half ago, my uncle told me he had jammed with them, and they were really nice guys.

La Oreja de Van Goh is pretty big over here right now, like on all the time in the radio, oh and the damned Fabulosos Cadillacs with their spanish cover of Should I Stay or Should I go, and well, its faithful, but some things in spanish, to me atleast, just sounds lame.

My search for music is pretty much at a standstill, I like new stuff no doubt, but school has got me so busy, I use the time I have playing and practicing for stuff, and while I can listen to hardcore, meh Im not really interested in it right now.

A few random thoughts on the fab four.....

Back in the musical hothouse that was the early 60's, the Beatles rewrote the rule book...

You CAN write songs about everyday life that will strike a chord.....

You CAN cover songs and make them meaningful to YOUR audience....

You CAN have fun playing rock'n'roll.....

You CAN experiment with new sounds...

You CAN express yourself through your own music and your own songs....

You CAN basically do anything you want, musically - the sky's the limit.

The Beatles took everything that had gone before, distilled it down to a simple formula - appeal to the common people - and worked that formula for everything it was worth. They did it better than anyone had done before (Elvis, Fats Domino, Little Richard etc)....they distilled the formula for success and wrote the blueprint for every single band that came after.

Innovations? The fab four and George Martin virtually re-invented the recording studio.... every innovation that came about in the 60's came about as a result of a Beatles song. OK, maybe Keef used a fuzzbox first - or was it the Yardbirds, with "Heart Full Of Soul?" - but I'd say about 90-95% of today's studio techniques came about by route of Lennon of Martin saying, "Well what if we tried this....."

As for who'll we'll be listening to in 40-50 years time....I betcha anything you like the Beatles will still be on the radio. They were far and away the biggest influence on music in the 20th century...and they'll still be playing Beatles records in 2109.

Good music will NEVER die....

:D :D :D

Vic

I'm old (in my 50s). I hear a lot of new music that I think is pleasant enough to listen to, but little of it is great. I think what is lacking is complexity. If you listen to Beatles songs from anything but their earliest stuff, each instrument and each harmony is interesting in itself and all of the pieces fit together so well.

It's also amazing that they wrote and arranged most of what they recorded.

Today songs become hits largely because of the videos. When the Beatles were performing, there was no such thing as music videos. Yeah, they made a few movies, but mostly the songs sold themselves.

Instead of starting another thread, I thought I'd just do an add-on here, since it has to do with the latest publicity over Beatles material.

So, in light of recent discussions on re-release of The Beatles' albums, and the release of Rock Band: The Beatles, I'm curious about the TV commercials for Rock Band.

In the live scene from the cover of Abbey Road, how were all those people intermingled with images of what I assume to be originals of the Beatles?

There is a little girl handing a guitar to George Harrison, who looks at it approvingly, a shot of John Lennon with a big grin, Paul and Ringo in the back.

Is this all done digitally, or were those outtakes from the filming and photo shoot? Or horror of horrors, were they look-alikes of the Beatles for the commercial? If they were, they were pretty darn good.

i think it's an unfair comparison. the beatles weren't an average band for their era, so you can't look at the beatles and compare them to an average band in this era. they were a once in a generation band, although at the time, the rolling stones and beach boys were competing for the top position. so you have to wait for the smoke to clear and see through the lens of history who the greats are. when they first came out, with twist and shout and i wanna hold your hand, no one was saying that they were going to be singing these songs in 50 years. it's only in retrospect that we can look at their careers as being the greatest of an era.
so you can't compare them to an average band. you have to compare them to unique entities, like prince or michael jackson or nirvana or i don't know who the greatest around is today. radiohead, maybe.
and even though many do consider them the greatest, they had contemporaries that i'd put right up there. besides the aforementioned stones and beach boys, i'd say that dylan and hendrix were greater, as well as led zeppelin and miles davis. and even though i'll never convince the older ones here of this, a lot of their material seems childish or unappealingly like british marches, and they lacked the musical ability of some of the others i've mentioned. they may have seemed revolutionary, but they sound, to me, like a logical progression of what came before them. i've never been blown away listening to their stuff. i've enjoyed it, definitely, but i've never gone "whoa! where did that come from?!?" like i have with dylan or davis or hendrix. i'd even put "pet sounds" or "exile on main street" up there with anything the beatles did.