• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

My dad doesn't like Paul McCartney :(

#86
Ritchie_Darling said:
FINALLY!! I regularly get the flames when I say I don't like blues.

I also don't like Southern rock.

But, in the immortal words of Roger Waters, "Fair enough. Not everyone can be a fan".
Click to expand...
As far as I am concerned you (and everyone else) are free to like and dislike whatever you choose.

My initial "mind boggling" comment was a thinly veiled dig at a previous poster who was mind boggled that someone did not like jazz!

Totally OT (but relevant to this OT) -

My parents didn't listen to jazz
Non of my friends listened to jazz
It wasn't played on any stations (certainly non that I listened to)
I wasn't in a school jazz band (we didn't have one)
I don't own any jazz records/tapes/CDs/mp3s (that I know of)
So I have never been exposed to jazz

Yet I am still expected to like jazz. Now that I find mind boggling.
 
#87
Coolhandjjl said:
Everything in pop is dervitave. And of course they used session guys. Billy Preston was practically the 5th Beatle towards the end.

The Beatles were formed as a vocals group with four part harmonies. Songs were primarily written that way. The Stones and Zep were always set up with one front man and the songs written and arranged accordingly.
Click to expand...

Um, no. The Beach Boys were a "vocals group." The Mamas and the Papas and the Association were "vocals groups". The Beatles were a rock & roll band. They cut their teeth playing marathon gigs in Liverpool and Hamburg to audiences that wanted rock and would have chewed up a "vocals group with four part harmonies" and spit out the pieces. Most early Beatles records had two- or three-part vocals--almost never four-part, because Ringo was a terrible singer--but the emphasis was always equally on the vocals and the instrumentals.

As far as jazz people not liking the Beatles, back in the day it was pretty much the opposite--the Beatles were the only rock group most jazz musicians would acknowledge as having anything to offer. My dad, a big band and Broadway trumpet player, was like that. He hated rock. But he liked the Beatles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: squidtastic, delta7fred and Joebone
#88
nightchef said:
Um, no. The Beach Boys were a "vocals group." The Mamas and the Papas and the Association were "vocals groups". The Beatles were a rock & roll band. They cut their teeth playing marathon gigs in Liverpool and Hamburg to audiences that wanted rock and would have chewed up a "vocals group with four part harmonies" and spit out the pieces. Most early Beatles records had two- or three-part vocals--almost never four-part, because Ringo was a terrible singer--but the emphasis was always equally on the vocals and the instrumentals.

As far as jazz people not liking the Beatles, back in the day it was pretty much the opposite--the Beatles were the only rock group most jazz musicians would acknowledge as having anything to offer. My dad, a big band and Broadway trumpet player, was like that. He hated rock. But he liked the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I should have footnoted that. It came from Keith Richards' book.
 
#89
Febs said:
Motown indisputably had a big influence on the Beatles. Among other things, they covered Motown tunes like "Money," "Please Mr. Postman" and "You've Really Got a Hold on Me," and McCartney has been quoted as saying that Jamerson was the biggest influence on his bass playing.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Motown had NO influence. Go back and listen to early Beatles and you'll hear much more rockabilly influence than Motown. They've always had more rock than Motown influence.
 
#100
mellowinman said:
By the way, the Beatles certainly did not need back room writers. You can tell the WHY of why their songs had all that sophistication. It was all accidental. They were idiot savants; people who just had a ton of natural talent, and no training. Did they sometimes come up against a problem, and ask Mr. Music, George Martin how to resolve something? MAYBE. PROBABLY.

I've never known of a songwriter like John Lennon, who switches time signature constantly, because he simply pays no attention whatsoever to structure of rhythm. He just writes what he feels, and it results in amazing stuff.

If you go to sites where proper music people analyze Beatles songs, it's beyond fascinating. The scholars can't figure them out, but every stoned kid for sixty years did so easily. The Beatles all had a natural ability to groove, and that's why they're so popular, and that's why they were attracted to each other, musically speaking.

They really were an amazing phenomenon, whether you like them or not.

Personally, I always DID, but I like the Stones, Zeppelin, the Who, Pink Floyd, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, and a lot of other bands of their era/genre/ilk just as much. These are all very accessible bands, who tried to do more than just a 4/4 time 3 minute pop song, and yet wrote a very good 4/4 time 3 minute pop song.
Click to expand...
very good analysis mellow-
idiot savants-perfect description
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back