Why the Beatles? (2 Viewers)

So, we've found some common ground.

1) Keith Moon was a good drummer.
2) Dave Mathews is lame.

I can let all the rest go if you can.
 
Yeah , Keith Moon was a good drummer , Ringo too , and Charlie Watts , John Bonham and all drummers where good . The 60-70`s was another generation like mjp says and thats right . It`s a generation thing .

But shit , I was working in a musicstudio in the 90`s and I see bands (and drummers) and a lot of musicians from Africa and they playing his ass of . And everyone of them are good on his instruments , so what ? Nobody knows them and they are full of soul and emotion to do their own music .
Sometimes you feel it ,sometimes not , that`s music .
And every person is individual.
What`s on with new Bands , listen to them too.
I was born in the sixties and I listen to all music that touch me . New or old .
 
And just to provide some rockin', here are the lads on David Frost, circa Spring 1968. This is not one to showcase Ringo or anything like that. I'm not sure how much of this is live; certainly some of the vocals are, and certainly Nicky Hopkins' piano part seems to have been canned in from tape, but it's good nonetheless.

 
More rockin'. Many clips of


on youtube. Ringo is beating the crap out of his kit on this one. In a more recent interview he says he's left handed and his drum kits are right handed. Not sure what that means. If nothing else, with Paul, two lefties in the band.
 
Ringo is beating the crap out of his kit on this one. In a more recent interview he says he's left handed and his drum kits are right handed. Not sure what that means. If nothing else, with Paul, two lefties in the band.

A left-handed drummer will have the high-hat on his right, using his left hand to play on top of the high-hat, and his right on the snare. Ringo, like most drummer's you'll see, have the high-hat on the left side (from the drummer's perspective), and will use their right hand to hit the high-hat from above, and the left to hit the snare when using the high-hat. I've always thought that Ringo considered himself abidextrous, even if he couldn't spell it (or even know what it meant).

P.S. - great clip, Digney, nice find. That appears to be from their first US concert in Washington, DC (before anyone coughs; Ed Sullivan was a live TV broadcast in a small studio) where Ringo's riser had to be rotated every song, along with the mics and amps, to face the circular audience at different times. Ringo is wailing away indeed, and using his crash cymbal like a ride cymbal because of the din (in other words, he's riding the crash, which would ordinarily be used as an ormament; the ride cymbal is the larger one to Ringo's left).

Just to close out the Ringo discussion: Surely, he wasn't anything of the ilk of Bonham, Moonie or Peart, or any number of other drummers (and I'm a jazz guy, so let's not even go there), but one thing he did really well was ride the high-hat and the snare, and manage to get a fair bit of music out of a very limited strinking area, as it were.
 
I see! I remember a TV program where Ginger Baker explored all kind of native drums (from Africa and what have you). The program made him into some kinda "King of the drums". I never knew if it was all hype or if he really ranked among the best drummers of his time.
 
That appears to be from their first US concert in Washington, DC [...] where Ringo's riser had to be rotated every song, along with the mics and amps, to face the circular audience at different times.
I had that whole concert on tape for a long time, but it's gone now. It is painful to watch them lugging their equipment around the stage like a bunch of god damned performing monkeys.

Notice how many mics are on Ringo's drums and the guitar amps: zero. Must have been great to see them live back then. You could hear some screaming and if you were lucky maybe the vocals over the stadium PA. Sweet.
 
Ringo was Greg Maddux and vice versa (if I can throw in a baseball metaphor here).

Greg Maddux never had a blazing fastball, an elusive curveball, or an especially deceptive slider, but he knew EXACTLY how to place those "average" pitches for maximum effect in a given situation.

Same with Ringo. No great chops, but he had terrific instincts on when to deploy those chops.

...now join us for the 7th-inning stretch as Ringo Starr leads the crowd in "Death Cab For Cutie"...
 
who is oasis?

watched a movie a couple of night ago...can't remember which one, but there was a great and true line in it....it said, 'saying no to the beatles is like saying no to life'
 
Not for nothing, but I always thought Oasis was pretty good. Saw them live a few times and they always left me impressed. I always thought of Liam as a cross between John Lennon and Johnny Rotten. One of the best live quotes I ever heard was last December at the Staples center while watching Oasis. The gig was over, Liam grabbed the mic, and addressing the audience said, "thank you, you were brilliant and we were brilliant!"

That still makes me laugh!
 
They are funny and clever, no doubt. I'll always read or watch an interview with them. But there's nothing there to back it up. The music is boring. Typical 90's drone snooze muzak.
 
I personally have always been more fond of The Kinks (Waterloo Sunset, completely stops me in my tracks) but the The Beatles had a brilliant fundamental grasp of the "chord" to the blues. Lennon was once quoted as saying "the blues is a chair" and it's a very Plato 'The Cave' like comment. Their career as a band was sadly unique - we witness a band journey from naive and innocent to worldly-wise and jaded right before our eyes (or ears).
 
There was nothing naive about their early records. They were all very calculated to appeal to the largest possible audience.

What The Beatles had was a unique chemistry and a fresh (punk rock!) attitude. A kind of, "That's all well and good, but we're going to do it our way" outlook that recording artists just did not have in those days. "Chemistry" is hard to quantify, and sounds like a load of bullshit, but it's real, and it's one of the most important ingredients in a band.
 
Someone who aims for technical perfection (see: Peart) leaves me cold. Go play classical music if that's what you want. I like that too, and I'll appreciate you more there.

Rock and roll needs slop. Rock and roll is slop. ;)
Have you ever seen/heard the Classic Album DVD about Lennons "PLastic Ono Band"?
I love what Ringo says about his drum fills there:

[This video is unavailable.]

Ringo about fills (go to 2:55).
It made me hear the album in a whole new way.
They talk about how John could say a deep thing in a simple way.
Well, thats where Ringo's drumming is at too.
And talking about band chemistry, Ringo demonstrates his importance here:




(hey isn't that Macca on the backup vocals?).

Peace and love!

Oh, and



would be a good song to represent Buk.
But thats another thread, isn't it...
 
Thanks for that.

Now when someone asks me, "Is there anything worse than a drum solo?" I can send them to that link and say, "Yes, three drum solos at the same time, played by progjazzfusionrock twats in suits."

Then together we shall gaze upon it and know true horror.

Chilling!
 
Well, nice try, but I always thought it was clear to everyone that after the drum solo in Iron Butterflys 'In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida' there never needed to be another one.

It's the drum solo to end all drum solos.
 
Well, nice try, but I always thought it was clear to everyone that after the drum solo in Iron Butterflys 'In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida' there never needed to be another one.

It's the drum solo to end all drum solos.

And after all the drum solos ended
Get you postdrumsolo kit
 
Wow. I never realised how much I disliked Paul McCartney's voice until I watched that.

Drums (and solos thereon) don't suck necessarily. It's just that most drummers do.
 
Their voices sound better together, but I like Paul's voice. It must be a Northern Hemisphere thing. Maybe sound waves spin different up here.
 
McCartney always sounded like your little sister screaming that she didn't get enough ice cream when he tried to "rock up" his voice. So shrill and phony, and trying way too hard. Compared to someone like Lennon who just had the grit built in to his vocal chords and could call it up when needed.

It's funny that McCartney even tried to sing "rough," considering he had the real deal sitting next to him. Why not accept that he had a smoother, more pedestrian voice. It just goes to show how competitive and egotistical he was (is). (Okay they were both very competitive, granted.)

"Oh, John is rocking one out again? I'll have to rock one out too. Six of one, half dozen of the other, eh mate?" Fail.
 
It's real nice with the repeating zoom in on a still photo like anime for a drum solo.

Paul McCartney has a fine voice you must have fucked up hearing.
 
I didn't say he didn't have a fine voice, he just doesn't rock. Much to his dismay, I'm sure.

He's real good at those tin pan alley granny songs though. No one better. Real snappy, those.
 
I agree he has written some songs that are like goofy musical productions- tin pan alley granny songs may be the right words. When I'm 64, She Came in Through the Bathroom Window,Maxwell and most of the Wings stuff. Even Hey Jude had that kind of over the top glee club sound to it. Like "Everybody sing along like a big rock show!" as Flo and Eddie said with Frank Zappa and the Mothers.
He did rock and he did follow John because John was the older more experienced member of the group who, I believe, they looked up to.
(maybe not counting Ringo who came along later)


Here this explains many people's attitudes about the Beatles, although the writer Johnny Moon seems to enjoy those tin pan alley granny songs.
 
"Now get out of my fucking bus!"

Man, that was great. Those horns must have really been fucking up badly to get Rich so steamed.
 
...he did follow John because John was the older more experienced member of the group who, I believe, they looked up to.
In most ways, Paul was John's superior, just not by age. He is a natural musician, and a talented songwriter. John was never more than an average musician, but he was also a talented songwriter. The combination of those two was interesting and unique, and the influence they had on each other (inspirationally, competitively, even when they hated each other) made that group what it was.

You can't take any one of those four out of the mix and have the same result. But the Lennon/McCartney push/pull was really something.
 
I didn't say he didn't have a fine voice, he just doesn't rock. Much to his dismay, I'm sure.

He's real good at those tin pan alley granny songs though. No one better. Real snappy, those.

While McCartney is no Lennon from a rawness perspective, I can think of a few thousand musicians deserving of this type of crap before McCartney. You make it sound as if McCartney's voice is a prepared piano, or something.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top