I have a Beatles problem

[msquared]

Here is my problem: I think that the Beatles wrote some great songs. Paul is a bass luminary, great songwriter, and worthy of study for any bassist whose vocalist isn't Cookie Monster.

But I think that as a general rule the band sucked. Call it being uninspired, having weak links, or production issues. You can even chalk it up to me having different standards than they did after years of being in bands and listening to music that's been produced more recently. Whatever. I can't listen to the crap.

I routinely get Beatles songs stuck in my head and want to hear them, and for a while I would go listen. But anymore I know I'm going to get let down. It's not going to sound like what's in my head because I haven't listened to the albums a zillion times and learned to "appreciate" all of the imperfections.

Does anyone else have this problem or am I just nuts?

And more to the point, who has done decent covers of these songs?

[Joe Nerve]

Did mommy not give you your hug today? Are you in need of attention? The Jaco sucks threads work better than this, but I give you points for creativity.

[mnadelin]

Originally Posted by msquared

Does anyone else have this problem or am I just nuts?

You're just nuts.

[j-bass-kreep]

No problem I also don't like the beatles in general but there are a few songs that are not so bad .

[DWBass]

The songwriting was good but the musicianship was ummm, not so good! Imagine if the band had some 'real' players (other than Paul)?! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying George and John couldn't play their instruments but they were both very basic players! Ringo? Well we all know about Ringo!

[msquared]

Originally Posted by Joe Nerve

Did mommy not give you your hug today? Are you in need of attention? The Jaco sucks threads work better than this, but I give you points for creativity.

No, no, possibly*, thanks.



* ...but I'm over 30 and dead serious. I doubt anyone dissing Jaco on a bass forum can claim either.

[bassmonkeee]

Originally Posted by DWBass

Well we all know about Ringo!

What? You mean the fact that he was about as rock solid a drummer as ever existed in popular music? You know, having such a steady beat that they could splice different takes together without problem? You want John Bonham on drums? Yeah, that would have worked real well...

In my book, people who bash the Beatles' musicianship or George Martin's production skills instantly earns the title "fool." Learn some prospective, people. Sheesh....

[tkozal]

Sell your stereo, iPod, radio, whatever, for you should not be listening to anything. In fact, you may want to consider donating your ears, even though you are still alive...you may want to consider the absolute silence of a Carthusian Monastery, or a good Buddhist one....

[Vandelay]

Originally Posted by msquared

But I think that as a general rule the band sucked. Call it being uninspired, having weak links, or production issues. You can even chalk it up to me having different standards than they did after years of being in bands and listening to music that's been produced more recently. Whatever. I can't listen to the crap.

Well, I'm leaning towards "nuts", but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Can you provide ANY specific songs or parts of songs as examples of what you're talking about? Because I'm just not gettin' it.

[mrmoonjam]

I guess if you started out hearing and loving the more advanced musical skills and production techniques of the 70's, 80's and 90's, it could be hard to appreciate most 50's-60's music, at least technically. Lucky for me, I was an early-teenager who loved R&R, R&B when the Beatles showed up. I didn't have enough musical knowledge to find fault, I was just blown away and inspired to keep working on my playing.

[Headroom]

I think that instrumental virtuosity would have upset the wonderful balance the group achieved between the quality of the songwriting, arrangements, performance, and recording. Each aspect allows the other components to shine.

[morf]

The Beatles is rock n roll. And thats what rock n roll's all about.

They didnt make music to sound good or to get far in music. They made music people would enjoy, simple songs that spoke to people and that they had fun making/playing.

If you dislike it its a matter of taste. They weren't perfect musicians, but they fit perfectly in the band with each other, and thats what makes great music, not the other way around.

[mb1]

The problem of course is, Who is the decider? Admittedly, decidering difficult stuff like this is, well, difficult and often arbitrary. It's hard work requiring dozens of hard working people to work really hard.

But wait! One test we can apply to help us out of this decidering quandry is known as the "Test of Time". Currently people have been playing, remembering, covering, learning, imitating, referencing and most importantly BUYING the Beatles music -- in significant numbers -- for 40 years. This trend shows no signs of stopping any time soon.

Now 40 years may not hold a candle to the likes of Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, etc., but it's a decent start and I think that really gives the boys from Liverpool a fighting chance. How many of your current favorite bands will be so influential after 40 years?

Problem with the Beatles? Nah, the problem is with all those other bands, the vast majority of whom will utterly fail the Test Of Time.

[MagicianMan]

Problem with the Beatles? Nah, the problem is with all those other bands, the vast majority of whom will utterly fail the Test Of Time.

Well said indeed. To truly appreciate the Beatles you have to look at what acts came before them, and what was after them to see how far reaching their effects are.

[Sugarbone]

Paul bassplaying is so white the reflection in the sun can blind you. If can't play bass with that infectious groove that oozes with primal sexuality than forget it. Paul plays guitar licks on the bass when he isn't playing oompa, oompa, for all the little marching slices of white bread. Tell me one damn song that paul grinds it out with humping hips and all it's like how classical music was before the stiffs descovered polyrythms. They had decent harmony and good songs. I love the way a black group renders a Beatle tune. The beatle sound is castrated symphonic, Hill Billy Rock.

[Joe Nerve]

Originally Posted by msquared

No, no, possibly*, thanks.



* ...but I'm over 30 and dead serious. I doubt anyone dissing Jaco on a bass forum can claim either.

Good answer!

I actually felt bad about my sarcasm after posting last night (posted that right before going to bed), but i'm on an old computer cuz my good one crashed and to boot up to delete my post would have taken a half an hour. I make lots of posts here that I immediately delete.

I like most of the world disagree on the beatles sucking thing though. They were no masters of technique on their instruments, but harmony and vocal wise it's another story - and creatively, come on - they started soooo many different things and managed to keep they're fans following them straight through even beyond the end of it all.

[bassmonkeee]

Originally Posted by Sugarbone

Paul bassplaying is so white the reflection in the sun can blind you. If can't play bass with that infectious groove that oozes with primal sexuality than forget it. Paul plays guitar licks on the bass when he isn't playing oompa, oompa, for all the little marching slices of white bread. Tell me one damn song that paul grinds it out with humping hips and all it's like how classical music was before the stiffs descovered polyrythms. They had decent harmony and good songs. I love the way a black group renders a Beatle tune. The beatle sound is castrated symphonic, Hill Billy Rock.

That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

[cheezewiz]

Originally Posted by msquared

Here is my problem: I think that the Beatles wrote some great songs. Paul is a bass luminary, great songwriter, and worthy of study for any bassist whose vocalist isn't Cookie Monster.

But I think that as a general rule the band sucked. Call it being uninspired, having weak links, or production issues. You can even chalk it up to me having different standards than they did after years of being in bands and listening to music that's been produced more recently. Whatever. I can't listen to the crap.

I routinely get Beatles songs stuck in my head and want to hear them, and for a while I would go listen. But anymore I know I'm going to get let down. It's not going to sound like what's in my head because I haven't listened to the albums a zillion times and learned to "appreciate" all of the imperfections.

Does anyone else have this problem or am I just nuts?

And more to the point, who has done decent covers of these songs?

You're just nuts.

[cheezewiz]

Originally Posted by bassmonkeee

In my book, people who bash the Beatles' musicianship or George Martin's production skills instantly earns the title "fool." Learn some prospective, people. Sheesh....

I own, and subscribe to the same book.

[superbassman2000]

Originally Posted by msquared

Here is my problem: I think that the Beatles wrote some great songs. Paul is a bass luminary, great songwriter, and worthy of study for any bassist whose vocalist isn't Cookie Monster.

But I think that as a general rule the band sucked. Call it being uninspired, having weak links, or production issues. You can even chalk it up to me having different standards than they did after years of being in bands and listening to music that's been produced more recently. Whatever. I can't listen to the crap.

I routinely get Beatles songs stuck in my head and want to hear them, and for a while I would go listen. But anymore I know I'm going to get let down. It's not going to sound like what's in my head because I haven't listened to the albums a zillion times and learned to "appreciate" all of the imperfections.

Does anyone else have this problem or am I just nuts?

And more to the point, who has done decent covers of these songs?

i dunno, i don't think they sucked overall, i will admit that their early ones weren't amazing, but i think in the end, they were fantastic songwriters with great harmonies, and catchy tunes...which is something i notice a lot of bassists (and other musicians) get caught up on...musicians tend to look more towards the instrumental part, which is natural, because thats the part they play...paul doesn't do diminished triad runs and i am sure thats a reason a lot of musicians don't get into the beatles. if you ask me, the beatles wrote good solid songs that are capable of having a long shelf life. I think that is talent in itself, because if that were easy, everyone could do it...

as for george martin, i believe he knows what he is doing, wasn't he the guy that did some amazing things with a 4 track recorder?

another thing i would ask the OP is what kind of music do you listen to? if the beatles don't fit into the music that you like, of course you are not going to "get" them, because you don't listen to much of that music...thats what i get from the "i don't get jaco" threads, because the majority of people who say that listen to either metal or punk rock, which is different from jazz...