Me no understand Tony, by musicianship you probably mean technical ability here ? To my understanding, actual musicianship (Keef being my archetype of a dreadful technician but great musician) is very important if you want to make 'popular music'. It's this very factor that ultimately gets people to move their arses.Musicianship has never had anything to do with great popular music and never will have.
Tony.
Was Hollywood Bowl a 100% proper live performance or is it rather a box full of old recordings and audience noise cobbled together ?
Interesting comments re-the group's influence. I commend (if you can find it) Howard Goodall's Big Bang documentary on them from a few years back. Arguably their influence and achievements are greater than any musician save, perhaps, the JS Bachs of this world.
It's certainly my belief that the band would have been too unpolished without George Martin, however, anyone with any doubt over the musicianship of Macca should analyse the use of tonality in Penny Lane or the symmetry of the Dorian melody of Eleanor Rigby. Anyone who doubts the raw genius of Lennon should do a harmonic analysis of I Am The Walrus. These two were some of the greatest composers ever. Goodall puts them (in their own genre) up there with Mozart. Aside from pure music they integrated music technology (musique concrete, loops, reversed sounds, metamorphosis by high/low speed tape) into pop, as well as classical, Indian influences and even invented flanging! Just listen to how the elements in Tomorrow Never Knows combine even just from a rhythmic perspective to make a coherent whole. Absolutely stunning given the limited technology of the day.
IIRC Something was Sinatras favourite ballad not bad for the third best songwriter in a group of 4.
As many will know I have little time for much music in the popular idiom finding it too repetitive for my taste (to quote Hiram K. Hackenbacker). However, my own admiration for The Beatles is up there with that for almost any classical composer.
Cheers,
Nic.
Interesting comments re-the group's influence. I commend (if you can find it) Howard Goodall's Big Bang documentary on them from a few years back. Arguably their influence and achievements are greater than any musician save, perhaps, the JS Bachs of this world.
It's certainly my belief that the band would have been too unpolished without George Martin, however, anyone with any doubt over the musicianship of Macca should analyse the use of tonality in Penny Lane or the symmetry of the Dorian melody of Eleanor Rigby. Anyone who doubts the raw genius of Lennon should do a harmonic analysis of I Am The Walrus. These two were some of the greatest composers ever. Goodall puts them (in their own genre) up there with Mozart. Aside from pure music they integrated music technology (musique concrete, loops, reversed sounds, metamorphosis by high/low speed tape) into pop, as well as classical, Indian influences and even invented flanging! Just listen to how the elements in Tomorrow Never Knows combine even just from a rhythmic perspective to make a coherent whole. Absolutely stunning given the limited technology of the day.
IIRC Something was Sinatras favourite ballad not bad for the third best songwriter in a group of 4.
As many will know I have little time for much music in the popular idiom finding it too repetitive for my taste (to quote Hiram K. Hackenbacker). However, my own admiration for The Beatles is up there with that for almost any classical composer.
Cheers,
Nic.
The Take That of their era.
I can remember - in a former lifetime - watching Juke Box Jury (David Jacobs)in February 1967. There were a few records which were in the Take That mould.
Then they played Strawberry Fields Forever.
Beatles are the Real Thing ;-)And their music is tirelessly great, which is why, wherever you go in the world, people know and love so many of the songs.