F@$K the F@$king Beatles!

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
amishsixstringer
takin' a dinner break
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Northeast OHIO
Contact:

Post by amishsixstringer » Wed May 24, 2006 2:36 pm

haha, that it is, but Athens county (pretty much just OU plus 7000) voted 87% (I think that's the number I recall) for John Kerry last year. And you should see the hippies, man. wheew that's a lot of hippies.

Neil

globalsize
pluggin' in mics
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:09 am

Post by globalsize » Wed May 24, 2006 3:27 pm

I think the main problem is that the Beatles are considered the anchor for the current musical paradigm. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The whole idea of paradigms is that one creates a new foundation after the old foundation is no longer workable. Isaac Newton created a new paradigm, and while he may be an asshole for suggesting this whole "gravity" thing, we accept it because it is the best possible explanation for the world around us.

However, in order for one to create a new paradigm, there must be several flaws identified within the old paradigm structure. Intitially, these anomalies are ignored, but at some point must be addressed. In order for a new paradigm to emerge, there must be reasons for it to emerge. For example, the vaunted Beatles' techniques are no longer usable within the recording sphere. As an art form, this is perfectly plausible.

The new paradigm emerges, which leads to the phasing out of the old paradigm (which can take a while). Even after the old Beatles paradigm is left in shards, there can be a post-modernist revival of the techniques. However, this is like reverting to believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth. The old paradigm is gone, and with it the full set of ideas that allowed that paradigm to exist.

Simply put, instead of just bitching about how you don't like the Beatles, learn everything about them. Then, you can fully identify exactly what you didn't like. Then you can do what you think will work bettter, and be justified in your reason.

Whew. I knew this philosophy degree was worth something. For more on paradigmatic thought, read Thomas Kuhn's works.

nestle
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:11 pm
Location: around somewhere

Post by nestle » Wed May 24, 2006 8:35 pm

It's all too much
It's all too much
When I look into your eyes
Your love is there for me
And the more I go inside
the more there is to see

It's all too much for me to take
the love that's shining all around you
Everywhere it's what you make for us to take
it's all too much

Floating down the stream of time
form life to life with me
Makes no difference where you are
or where you'd like to be

It's all too much for me to take
the love that's shining all around you
ALL THE WORLD IS BIRTHDAY CAKE
SO TAKE A PIECE BUT NOT TOO MUCH

Sell me on a silver sun
where I know that I'm free
Show me that I'm everywhere
and get me home for tea

It's all too much for me to see
the love that's shining all around you
THE MORE I LEARN, THE LESS I KNOW
and what I do it's all too much

It's all too much for me to take
the love that's shining all around you
Everywhere it's what you make for us to take
it's all too much

It's all too much
It's all too much

With your long blonde hair and your eyes of blue
With your long blonde hair and your eyes of blue
You're too much

hammertime
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:17 am

Post by hammertime » Wed May 24, 2006 9:38 pm

I can kind of see your point about a bunch of middle aged guys with pony tails putting the Beatles on a pedestal. Personally, I think there were many better sounding recordings and bands in that era alone. Just a few that come to mind -- Frank Zappa, Miles Davis, Hendrix, Sly Stone -- and none of these guys really gave a shit what the Beatles were doing, all of them were breaking rules, and forging their own paths.

drewbass
buyin' gear
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 7:25 pm
Location: pacific grove

Post by drewbass » Thu May 25, 2006 12:45 am

paul on sgt. pepper and jimi:

'It (splhcb) certainly got noticed. It was released on the Friday, and on the Sunday Jimi Hendrix opened with "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" when we saw him at the Saville Theatre. That was the single biggest tribute for me. I was a big fan of Jimi's, and he'd only had since the Friday to learn it.'

sly:
Music came early to Sylvester Stewart, who at age four recorded his first side as a gospel singer with his nuclear family group, the Stewart Four. By high school, in Vallejo, California, he'd taken on the nickname Sly and played rock 'n' roll with Joey Piazza and the Continentals. He graduated to music theory at Vallejo Junior College and radio dj basics at the Chris Borden School of Modern Broadcasting, and went on to expand the playlist at KSOL to include tracks by Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Lord Buckley. Sly was to ingest all of these influences making a study of artists near and far to create new collages of sound.

miles:
Miles and Kenny Garrett played together in Tokyo in December 1990 at a John Lennon tribute concert. They played over a backing track of "Strawberry Fields Forever."

zappa covered beatles tunes with his own lyrics, hated the beatles (therefore gave some sort of shit). just look at the cover of we're only in it for the money.

cgarges
zen recordist
Posts: 10890
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by cgarges » Thu May 25, 2006 2:08 am

hammertime wrote: mind -- Frank Zappa, Miles Davis, Hendrix, Sly Stone -- and none of these guys really gave a shit what the Beatles were doing, all of them were breaking rules, and forging their own paths.
Actually, all of those guys were acutely aware of what was happening around them and applied what they liked. Frank Zappa was a master at utilizing musical cliches, Hendrix played all sort of cover tunes, and Miles started using guitar players because of how much he liked Hendrix and effects because of Sly's influence. Sure, they all did their own thing, but there wasn't a "fuck you" attitude about what was going on around them. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

User avatar
bannerj
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:40 pm
Location: Holland, MI
Contact:

Post by bannerj » Thu May 25, 2006 6:56 am

drewbass wrote:paul on sgt. pepper and jimi:

'It (splhcb) certainly got noticed. It was released on the Friday, and on the Sunday Jimi Hendrix opened with "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" when we saw him at the Saville Theatre. That was the single biggest tribute for me. I was a big fan of Jimi's, and he'd only had since the Friday to learn it.'

sly:
Music came early to Sylvester Stewart, who at age four recorded his first side as a gospel singer with his nuclear family group, the Stewart Four. By high school, in Vallejo, California, he'd taken on the nickname Sly and played rock 'n' roll with Joey Piazza and the Continentals. He graduated to music theory at Vallejo Junior College and radio dj basics at the Chris Borden School of Modern Broadcasting, and went on to expand the playlist at KSOL to include tracks by Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Lord Buckley. Sly was to ingest all of these influences making a study of artists near and far to create new collages of sound.

miles:
Miles and Kenny Garrett played together in Tokyo in December 1990 at a John Lennon tribute concert. They played over a backing track of "Strawberry Fields Forever."

zappa covered beatles tunes with his own lyrics, hated the beatles (therefore gave some sort of shit). just look at the cover of we're only in it for the money.
This is awesome.

herodotus
pluggin' in mics
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:56 am

Post by herodotus » Thu May 25, 2006 7:34 am

cgarges wrote:
hammertime wrote: mind -- Frank Zappa, Miles Davis, Hendrix, Sly Stone -- and none of these guys really gave a shit what the Beatles were doing, all of them were breaking rules, and forging their own paths.
Actually, all of those guys were acutely aware of what was happening around them and applied what they liked. Frank Zappa was a master at utilizing musical cliches, Hendrix played all sort of cover tunes, and Miles started using guitar players because of how much he liked Hendrix and effects because of Sly's influence. Sure, they all did their own thing, but there wasn't a "fuck you" attitude about what was going on around them. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
I agree, but it could be argued that the Beatles get way more 'press' than all of the others.

Reading many history and music appreciation texts, one might think that the Beatles stood alone as innovators while the rest of the world followed in their wake. This is definitely a falsehood, and I will admit that after hearing it 10,000 times it gets a trifle grating on the ears.

I mean look at what Frank Zappa did with a tiny percentage of their budget and without George Martin. And yet he is still a fringe figure that is given but a few footnotes amidst the reams of musicological 'Beatlemania'.

JASIII
george martin
Posts: 1418
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:59 am
Location: On the Tundra

Post by JASIII » Thu May 25, 2006 9:42 am

I think most of the early Zappa stuff sounds pretty crappy, recording-wise.
"If you will starve unless you become a rock star, then you have bigger problems than whether or not you are a rock star. " - Steve Albini

nestle
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 713
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:11 pm
Location: around somewhere

Post by nestle » Thu May 25, 2006 3:53 pm

JASIII wrote:I think most of the early Zappa stuff sounds pretty crappy, recording-wise.

zappa, uuuuhhhgggg, i never got the joke with him. I think with the exception electric jamima his records suck

cgarges
zen recordist
Posts: 10890
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by cgarges » Thu May 25, 2006 9:02 pm

herodotus wrote:I agree, but it could be argued that the Beatles get way more 'press' than all of the others.
Well, the Beatles wrote much more accessible material, like it or not. I think there's plenty of validitity to that. But my comment wasn't directed at the Beatles, it was about the incredible ability of the people hammer mentioned to absorb what was around them instead of ignoring it.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

herodotus
pluggin' in mics
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:56 am

Post by herodotus » Thu May 25, 2006 10:13 pm

nestle wrote:
JASIII wrote:I think most of the early Zappa stuff sounds pretty crappy, recording-wise.

zappa, uuuuhhhgggg, i never got the joke with him. I think with the exception electric jamima his records suck
So have you listened to them all?

Try perhaps "The Perfect Stranger" (played by the Ensemble Intercontemporain) or better yet his stuff as played by the Ensemble Modern ("The Yellow Shark" for starters).

There are some who claim that he was, along with Charles Ives, one of the great American composers of the twentieth century. These albums, among many others, furnish some compelling evidence for such a claim.

But enough boring Zappa talk.

Back to the timeless genius of the fab four......



sigh

hammertime
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:17 am

Post by hammertime » Thu May 25, 2006 11:48 pm

Yeah, I heard that Hendrix cover of Sgt. Peppers. What would you expect him to do? Do like Pete Townsend and say they sound like shit or that Lulu show or whatever it was? Miles Davis 1990? You've got to be kidding. Like Hendrix, he wanted to make money, too. Read his autobiography, in which he says that all that crappy English rock was just rehashed r&b riffs. Sly stone played the Beatles on his radio in the sixties, like any d.j. in the sixties. Zappa made fun of the Beatles in records like we're only in it for the money -- records which were miles ahead of that hokey little girl music those guys played. Just my opinion -- I'm sick of the Beatles. I never listen to their records, even though I own them all, and I honestly hope I never hear that banal, played out shit ever again. I'm going to get another beer. :D
drewbass wrote:paul on sgt. pepper and jimi:

'It (splhcb) certainly got noticed. It was released on the Friday, and on the Sunday Jimi Hendrix opened with "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" when we saw him at the Saville Theatre. That was the single biggest tribute for me. I was a big fan of Jimi's, and he'd only had since the Friday to learn it.'

sly:
Music came early to Sylvester Stewart, who at age four recorded his first side as a gospel singer with his nuclear family group, the Stewart Four. By high school, in Vallejo, California, he'd taken on the nickname Sly and played rock 'n' roll with Joey Piazza and the Continentals. He graduated to music theory at Vallejo Junior College and radio dj basics at the Chris Borden School of Modern Broadcasting, and went on to expand the playlist at KSOL to include tracks by Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Lord Buckley. Sly was to ingest all of these influences making a study of artists near and far to create new collages of sound.

miles:
Miles and Kenny Garrett played together in Tokyo in December 1990 at a John Lennon tribute concert. They played over a backing track of "Strawberry Fields Forever."

zappa covered beatles tunes with his own lyrics, hated the beatles (therefore gave some sort of shit). just look at the cover of we're only in it for the money.

numberthirty
steve albini likes it
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 11:39 am

Post by numberthirty » Sat May 27, 2006 1:43 am

First off, I think someone needs to get Amish the Walter Sear interview from Tape Op. Second: I'd take a few minutes to consider whether you think smelly liberal hippie-types deserve the same level of recorded quality as someone you deem worthy of the full use of your skills. We'll assume both folks are paying the same amount for you're time. Something to think over...

As for the Beatles, it's fine if you couldn't care less about the Beatles. That said, it's up to you to find something valid you can take from a Beatles-heavy day in the classroom. Take vocals being run through a Leslie, not exactly standard practice a the time. Now let's say you couldn't care less about the Beatles. What's to stop you from applying the technique(and assumption about what is and is not correct in regards to what you run through a Leslie) in a more up to date set of circumstances? I think if you're willing to get around your personal dislike of a groundbreaking band(in the technical sense) there may be a lot to learn from their way of going about getting new sounds.

Rigsby
mixes from purgatory
Posts: 2908
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 12:34 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Post by Rigsby » Sat May 27, 2006 2:29 am

JASIII wrote:I think most of the early Zappa stuff sounds pretty crappy, recording-wise.
Totally. That's also my favourite of his stuff, the things that sound like they were recorded in a very low-tech laboratory.
The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.

rigsbysmith.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests