Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Anyone calling the Beatles overratted is ridiculous. There'd be no Radiohead, Phish, MMJ, Prince, you name it without the Beatles. Thank them.
The Chess Brothers and The Stones disagree. The Beatles made pop records that were commercially viable. They didn't invent anything new, they just made it easier to sell.
Oh and in my defense: I happen to love the solo work of Lennon and Harrison. My issues are with the other two. I have zero respect for Macca after he waited till after Lennon was dead to try and change the songwriting credits to McCartney-Lennon.
Last Edit: Dec 1, 2012 7:57:16 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by wannaberoo'ing on Dec 1, 2012 8:05:55 GMT -5
I agree with you, GL, that Paul is an ass, but to say that the Beatles didn't invent anything new is way off. The first concept album (Sgt Pepper), first (accidental but John decided to keep it anyway) recorded guitar feedback, sound effects, and samplings. I mean, really, Sgt. Pepper was incredibly groundbreaking in itself and I could discuss Rubber Soul/Revolver in such great length, I'd bore you to death.
You should watch the entire Beatles anthology- all 10 hours of it- and then get back to me :-)
I agree with you, GL, that Paul is an ass, but to say that the Beatles didn't invent anything new is way off. The first concept album (Sgt Pepper), first (accidental but John decided to keep it anyway) recorded guitar feedback, sound effects, and samplings. I mean, really, Sgt. Pepper was incredibly groundbreaking in itself and I could discuss Rubber Soul/Revolver in such great length, I'd bore you to death.
You should watch the entire Beatles anthology- all 10 hours of it- and then get back to me :-)
First Concept Record?
1940.
Feedback, I'm not sure of. I feel like Link Wray has that title but I may be making that up in my head. I wouldn't doubt if The Beatles have it.
The Stones were really good at innovating ripping off people from the southern United States. But to say that without The Beatles that rock wouldn't have existed is preposterous. They were a band, nothing more.
There's an interview I have of Hendrix talking about the first time he heard that track, and heard the feedback, and he basically states in the interview, that was his inspiration for delving more into feedback.
I just feel the Beatles inspired so many other musicians to employ certain techniques, both live and in the studio, they are the most groundbreaking band of all time. As far as not having rock without them, that's yes, preposterous! We already had rock. The Beatles just changed the landscape- pioneered countless studio techniques- and did influence the direction of pop music, more so than any other group.
Anyone calling the Beatles overrated is ridiculous. There'd be no Radiohead, Phish, MMJ, Prince, you name it without the Beatles. Thank them.
The main thing that keeps me from hating the Beatles is that I know that a good portion of my ill will towards them is that their fans bother me. The idea that modern music wouldn't exist solely without them is ridiculous. It is, at once, dismissive of both the other influences that existed at the time and the musical talent of the people in those current bands. Also, how are we talking about the origins of popular rock music without mentioning this guy?
Lastly, this is an orgy thread. I would like to notice that many of the girls have chosen all-girl orgies. The men of Inforoo really need to step up their game.
Post by wannaberoo'ing on Dec 1, 2012 10:30:21 GMT -5
Elvis despised The Beatles. When they all met at his house, I guess he sat with an acoustic guitar in his hands and hardly said a word to them. He even got Ringo's name wrong.
I'm full of interesting tid-bits this morning. I agree, over-zealous fans are incredibly annoying. But, I think alot of people have that one band they strongly feel over protective of- Rush, Radiohead, Phish, ect. They all annoy me.
I first heard of the Beatles when I was nine years old. I spent most of my holidays on Merseyside then, and a local girl gave me a bad publicity shot of them with their names scrawled on the back. This was 1962 or '63, before they came to America. The photo was badly lit, and they didn't quite have their look down; Ringo had his hair slightly swept back, as if he wasn't quite sold on the Beatles haircut yet. I didn't care; they were the band for me. The funny thing is that parents and all their friends from Liverpool were also curious and proud about this local group. Prior to that, the people in show business from the north of England had all been comedians. Come to think of it, the Beatles recorded for Parlophone, which was known as a comedy label.
I was exactly the right age to be hit by them full on. My experience — seizing on every picture, saving money for singles and EPs, catching them on a local news show — was repeated over and over again around the world. It was the first time anything like this had happened on this scale. But it wasn't just about the numbers.
Every record was a shock when it came out. Compared to rabid R&B evangelists like the Rolling Stones, the Beatles arrived sounding like nothing else. They had already absorbed Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers and Chuck Berry, but they were also writing their own songs. They made writing your own material expected, rather than exceptional.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney were exceptional songwriters; McCartney was, and is, a truly virtuoso musician; George Harrison wasn't the kind of guitar player who tore off wild, unpredictable solos, but you can sing the melodies of nearly all of his breaks. Most important, they always fit right into the arrangement. Ringo Starr played the drums with an incredibly unique feel that nobody can really copy, although many fine drummers have tried and failed. Most of all, John and Paul were fantastic singers.
Lennon, McCartney and Harrison had stunningly high standards as writers. Imagine releasing a song like "Ask Me Why" or "Things We Said Today" as a B side. These records were events, and not just advance notice of an album release.
Then they started to really grow up. They went from simple love lyrics to adult stories like "Norwegian Wood," which spoke of the sour side of love, and on to bigger ideas than you would expect to find in catchy pop lyrics.
They were pretty much the first group to mess with the aural perspective of their recordings and have it be more than just a gimmick. Before the Beatles, you had guys in lab coats doing recording experiments in the Fifties, but you didn't have rockers deliberately putting things out of balance, like a quiet vocal in front of a loud track on "Strawberry Fields Forever." You can't exaggerate the license that this gave to everyone from Motown to Jimi Hendrix.
My absolute favorite albums are Rubber Soul and Revolver. When you picked up Revolver, you knew it was something different. Heck, they are wearing sunglasses indoors in the picture on the back of the cover and not even looking at the camera ... and the music was so strange and yet so vivid. If I had to pick a favorite song from those albums, it would be "And Your Bird Can Sing" ... no, "Girl" ... no, "For No One" ... and so on, and so on....
Their breakup album, Let It Be, contains songs both gorgeous and jagged. I remember going to Leicester Square and seeing the film of Let It Be in 1970. I left with a melancholy feeling.
The word "Beatlesque" has been in the dictionary for a while now. I can hear them in the Prince album Around the World in a Day; in Ron Sexsmith's tunes; in Harry Nilsson's melodies. You can hear that Kurt Cobain listened to the Beatles and mixed them in with punk and metal.
I've co-written some songs with Paul McCartney and performed with him in concert on a few occasions. During one rehearsal, I was singing harmony on a Ricky Nelson song, and Paul called out the next tune: "All My Loving." I said, "Do you want me to take the harmony line the second time round?" And he said, "Yeah, give it a try." I'd only had 35 years to learn the part. It was a very poignant performance, witnessed only by the crew and other artists on the bill.
At the show, it was very different. The second he sang the opening lines — "Close your eyes, and I'll kiss you" — the crowd's reaction was so intense that it all but drowned the song out. It was very thrilling but also rather disconcerting. Perhaps I understood in that moment one of the reasons why the Beatles had to stop performing. The songs weren't theirs anymore. They were everybody's.
Post by Dave Maynar on Dec 1, 2012 11:07:38 GMT -5
"There's only one person in the United States we ever wanted to meet ... not that he wanted us. And we met him last night. We can't tell you how we felt. We just idolised him so much. ... You can't imagine what a thrill that was last night. Nothing really affected me until I heard Elvis. If there hadn't been an Elvis, there wouldn't have been the Beatles."
Post by wannaberoo'ing on Dec 1, 2012 11:15:56 GMT -5
"Do not trust people who call themselves musicians or record collectors who say that they don’t like Bob Dylan or the Beatles. They do not love music if those words come out of their mouths." — Jack White
"Do not trust people who call themselves musicians or record collectors who say that they don’t like Bob Dylan or the Beatles. They do not love music if those words come out of their mouths." — Jack White
"Do not trust people who call themselves musicians or record collectors who say that they don’t like Bob Dylan or the Beatles. They do not love music if those words come out of their mouths." — Jack White
I also don't trust a man that calls his ex-wife his sister
Oh and in my defense: I happen to love the solo work of Lennon and Harrison. My issues are with the other two. I have zero respect for Macca after he waited till after Lennon was dead to try and change the songwriting credits to McCartney-Lennon.
Dude, this is categorically untrue. You can't just say sh*t like this. Paul started switching the order of the names on a live Wings album from 1976 (which was obviously before Lennon's death). When he did this, Lennon never came out to express public disapproval of the order switch. A lot of critics/Beatles experts believe that this was because John and Paul had always agreed that whichever order they put the names in on future solo releases was up to them.
I'm not even on either side of a potential John/Paul debate (my favorite Beatle is George). I just hate when people try to set up this silly dichotomy that John was a peace-loving saint and Paul was a greedy, business-minded prick. As is usually the case, the truth is not so cut and dry. Both were total and utter geniuses as musicians and both had/have their good AND bad qualities as people, too. And together, as a team, they counteracted each other perfectly to the extent that they were the greatest songwriting tandem of the 20th century, a century in which American popular music changed entirely (thanks in large part to them).
And to say The Beatles didn't do anything new...I can't even wrap my brain around how you could possibly think that.
Everybody is correct in this thread. Except GL's part about the Beatles being "just a band." The history of music is filled with wonderful influences - Chuck Berry and James Brown and Otis Redding and Neil Young are just a few I don't believe have been mentioned. Many of today's artists themselves count the Beatles as an influence.
But remember, the most important point of all - the Beatles WERE just some teenybopper boy band until they started hanging out and sharing stuff with this guy:
This is why we could never have an inforoo orgy. Everybody would be ready to go and then we would just argue for four hours about what should be playing on the boom-box until everybody is too tired for the orgy.
This is why we could never have an inforoo orgy. Everybody would be ready to go and then we would just argue for four hours about what should be playing on the boom-box until everybody is too tired for the orgy.
It's why all inforoo orgies would be ladies only. If you look, the dudes are the only ones arguing. The ladies are setting their sights on people.
This is why we could never have an inforoo orgy. Everybody would be ready to go and then we would just argue for four hours about what should be playing on the boom-box until everybody is too tired for the orgy.
It's why all inforoo orgies would be ladies only. If you look, the dudes are the only ones arguing. The ladies are setting their sights on people.
Phil is sober and I'd just freak the Ladies of Inforoo out. How manyh confessions you want?
This is why we could never have an inforoo orgy. Everybody would be ready to go and then we would just argue for four hours about what should be playing on the boom-box until everybody is too tired for the orgy.
It's why all inforoo orgies would be ladies only. If you look, the dudes are the only ones arguing. The ladies are setting their sights on people.