| Author |
Message |
 
Galactus (galactus)
3-Pundit
Username: galactus
Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 207.144.253.114
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 3:33 pm: �� |   ��� |
Seeing The Beatles thread made me think of this....
Well.....when I was last on this board I was contemplating giving The Beatles a legit shot, after being strictly an r&b/soul fan all my life. I've gotten up to "Magical Mystery Tour" while gradually purchasing the CDs of the LPs in chronological order, and I have to say I'm not over-enthusiastic about the Fab Four. I was vaguely aware of their music prior to this....but never really listened to it in depth.
I can certainly understand their appeal to the mass audience...and I appreciate their talents for what they do......but I think my ears are so tuned to soul/r&b that I'm just not gettin' into the Beatles like other folks seem to think I should. I'm just not a big fan of rock music......I like Hendrix and Santana OK, because of the blues and Latin influences, but that's about as far in tha direction as I can get it seems.
Of the four, I definitely prefer the McCartney stuff over the Lennon stuff, as Paul seems closest to my kind of thing on occasions ("Got to Get You Into My Life", for example).....but overall, it baffles me how anyone could've preferred the Beatles or any other rock act over the great soul music of that era.....I get a "real" feeling when I hear the Tempts or Tops....or Hayes and Redding and Aretha.....or any number of smaller soul acts in the 60s. I don't get that feeling with the Beatles......
My Beatles experiment didn't really work out.... I'm interested in other opinions on rock acts from fellow soul fans. Soul � I get. Rock � I don't get. Sometimes I think (and I actually heard McCartney say something like this, once) that people are afraid to admit what they REALLY like....and instead, like what they think they're supposed to like. On the other hand, it's amazing how one person can hear something and hate it.....and the next person hear it and LOVE it!
Do you guys ever get the feeling we're feeling vibes no one else is tuned into? Especially when you look at the mass audience? Tell me I'm not weird. Folks at work see my CDs I play on my 'puter and think I'm just an old fuddy duddy...or a freak, I think! Of course, several of them are half my age!! lol... |
Davie Gordon (davie_gordon)
5-Doyen
Username: davie_gordon
Post Number: 279
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 81.157.247.173
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 4:49 pm: �� | ��� |
Must admit I'm not a fan of the Beatles - although I'd have to qualify that by saying that I haven't listened to "Sgt. Pepper" or the later albums since they were first issued. My favourite period for them is 65-66, "Paperback Writer"and the "REvolver" album
- the later stuff I've managed to live without for over thirty years and will no doubt continue to do so. I don't have any Beatles' solo records - in fact I don't think McCartney;s done anything solo that I'd want to hear twice. Lenoon - I used to share a flat with a Lennon fan and heard enough to last me a lifetime. Probably the best summation I can give is that if I heard them on the radio I wouldn't get up to change channels but equally I
wouldn't get up to turn up the volume ;)
I listen to almost as much "rock" as soul but it's mainly sixties garage bands and West Coast bands like Love and Jefferson Airplane.
I'm curious about how you feel about black rock bands like Mother's Finest - I thought their first few albums were amazing - but they're one of those groups that were seen as "too rock" for the
soul stations and "too soul" in their later days
for the rock stations. If it ever came down to logging number of plays on my record deck for say,
Rufus and Mother's Finest MF would be probably come out tops.
"ever get the feeling we're feeling vibes no one else is tuned into?" - I've felt that way since
1966. LOL.
Davie |
john c (john_c)
3-Pundit
Username: john_c
Post Number: 31
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 12.2.233.107
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:26 pm: �� | ��� |
I grew up loving the Beatles but I could take or leave soul and R&B. Today I think soul and R&B have stood the test of time very well. Rock has not fared nearly as well. I think a lot of the appeal for me as a kid was that they were a self contained band.
As to the Beatles experiment, once they got into the "solo artist with back up band" mode it was all over for me, even then. That includes everything post Pepper.
McCartney's melodic sweetness complemented Lennon's rockier cynicism. And when they did collaborate on a song it usually was better than their individual efforts. I think Getting Better was one of their last joint efforts.
What I appreciate more about them now is what a great bass player McCartney was. Especially on songs he did not write.
Best Lp's : Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's. |
Galactus (galactus)
3-Pundit
Username: galactus
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 207.144.253.114
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 5:54 pm: �� | ��� |
Davie, I feel a lot like you do. I'm pretty so-so about it.....could take it or leave it, but don't get overly excited about it. Though I actually kinda like some of McCartney's Wings material......"Silly Love Songs" is cool with me...
But again, that's one of his least "rock" styled tunes....
I actually LIKE groups that combine rock and soul....now THAT I can dig.....The Isley's early 70s material, for example.....especially their takes on soft rock......Mother's Finest is pretty good (I have their Nother Mutha Further LP)......Funakdelic and the Bar-Kays (still trying to get their "Black Rock" album)......Really dig Mandrill and War.....Haven't gotten any Chambers Brothers as of yet.....
Conversely, I also love blue-eyed soul groups like The Rascals and AWB.....
But the whole rock genre from the late 60s onward does little for me....with some very few exceptions.
My wife is really into the singer/songwriter genre of the early 70s, and I can dig some of that stuff.
(Message edited by Galactus on October 15, 2004) |
Chi Drummer (chidrummer)
5-Doyen
Username: chidrummer
Post Number: 278
Registered: 5-2004
Posted From: 67.175.80.3
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:10 pm: �� | ��� |
Well Galactus, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. It is shared by alot of people. Especally those born after the band split. Let me see if I can help a bit.
The Beatles are probably the most studied band in all of music. There are literally hundreds of books out there about them from almost every conceivable angle. What you will find from all this information is that The Beatles had to be one of the hardest working and most creative bands in the relatively short time they were together.
Consider just some of the stats. In eight years:
12 albums - of all new material (always an album ready each Christmas)
22 Singles- 18 #1's all self-penned.
'62-'65 - Regular weekly radio appearances playing live.
'64 - '66 - one UK, USA & World tour each year.
Recorded well over 200 songs
Made more than 100 TV appearances around the world a good many of them playing live.
4 - movie appearances
And they did all this (& much more) while changing the way popular music looked, sounded and packaged.
In the music itself are some of the most enduring melodies you'll ever hear. It's greatest strength is it's simplicity. Yet in the simplicity you'll find some wonderful surprises. You've already noticed Paul's bass playing, but there's also George's use of augmented and diminished chords, John's use of wordplay and Ringo's always tastful drumming.
That's just some of what's in there. I feel you though, when I was younger I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about Isaac Hayes or Otis Redding. I just couldn't hear it. I felt the same way about jazz. But I kept listening and eventually I began to hear what others were talking about. So, take your time, that's what enjoying music is all about. |
Robb_K (robb_k)
6-Zenith
Username: robb_k
Post Number: 701
Registered: 4-2004
Posted From: 66.81.17.115
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:47 pm: �� | ��� |
I'm not quite sure what "rock" is, as I've listened to almost no radio since 1967, and what little "pop music" I heard by accident from the start (late '40s) left me wanting. I was raised on Jazz and Blues, and listened almost exclusively to R&B and later, soul stations. I like singers who can really use their voice, and sing from their diaphragms-not their mouth. I like well-written tunes, good musical instrument playing and great melodies. Beat is not that important (I like most of them -including 5/4). I like Jazz, Soul, Blues, Blue Grass, folk music that involves singers really using their voices,"classical music", 3rd World music. I don't like ANY heavy metal, hokey country music, weak pop.
I liked Elvis Presley singing his Sun stuff (but didn't like his RCA stuff (until "Suspicious Minds). I liked much of the early rockabilly. I liked the tunes the Beatles wrote in 1963-64, and their singing on them was tolerable, but really not very good. I liked Mary Wells singing "Please Please Me" much more than the Beatles. I didn't like their re-makes of R&B, soul and Girls Group songs (but I like that stuff a lot better than their funeral dirges of 1966-67, and their later stuff. I don't like The Rolling Stones stuff too much, but a lot of it is tolerable. Like Mike McLean, I marvel at the sound quality of some of their recordings. I Some of the "Blue Eyed Soul" sounds good to me -like "Girl Watcher","People Got To Be Free", most of The Righteous Bros., Chris Clark, Dusty Springfield and some other artists. I liked the Four Seasons and Del Shannon, and Leslie Gore. Some others, I don't like. I don't like Joe Cocker,and his ilk. I like Chicago Blues, but didn't like most of those British Blues groups from the late '60s and '70s. I like "surf music (vocals)" Beach Boys, Jan & Dean, Bruce & Terry, Fantastic Baggies, Ripchords, Tim Tam & Turn Ons,etc. up to 1965 or '66. I never liked most of the "pop" music. Most of the few "pop" singers I like can really sing like Barbara Streisand & the like. But, I don't like her material much. I did like her version of "Stoney End". If she sang soul songs, she'd do a good job of it.
I don't like rap, but didn't like funk, either. I hated "Shotgun", although it's great for doing the Jerk to. I didn't like "Twine Time" either. Those melodies were no good for my taste. However, I love most of Junior Walker & The All Stars' records.
Most, so called "rock music" has melodies I don't like, and is sung in styles I don't like. In addition, many, many of them can't sing, and aren't so great on their instruments, or do things with their instruments that aren't to my taste. I do like ancient Chinese and Japanese music, Indian, Gypsy,Spanish, Peruvian flute music, Bulgarian and Celtic bagpipe music, some ethnic Arab music (but not the monotonous Arab Pop music (I lived in Arab countries for much of 12 years); Yiddish Klezmer music. But really, there's been little in US pop music that I've liked from 1930s to the present that wasn't performed by African Americans, or been country or ethnic music. There seems to be a lot more feeling in it. US "commercial" pop music, aimed at a "mass market" has always left me cold. The Caucasian Cover Versions of R&B were simply AWFUL. The Turtles and Lovin' Spoonful did nothing for me. Dylan was extremely irritating (voice) -although I appreciate his writing skill. I did like Woodie Guthrie, however. To me, so many of the rock bands copied others in style. To me most of the ones I saw had visual gimmicks, because they couldn't really sing, and the way they played their instruments didn't impress me. I don't like screaming for screaming's sake, either. I can't really write too much on this topic, as I probably couldn't name 20 "rock" acts to save my life. |
|