|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 23, 2020 9:28:14 GMT
It's just that...there ARE people who prefer the VU to the Beatles. And they're not 'adolescent' and they're not looking for 'darkness'. They just think they're a better band. I thought we might get some of those people coming forward, making articulate points.
Actually I didn't really. Well, maybe Ray. And D_F (a bit more).
It's all good, the Beatles were spectacular. But there were flaws. They're now SO exalted that people have to excuse these flaws ('well that's because they were young!'), you never see even tacit agreement, people fight back. Attacking them in any way has become an absolute no-no.
Anyway - the points about diversity aren't really good ones. They both excelled at it. You should look at songwriting or innovation or something for evidence of superiority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 9:28:47 GMT
'The Black Angel's Death Song' and 'Jesus'? 'White Light/White Heat' and 'Who Loves The Sun'? Do those really sound entirely different to you? They’ve all got that tight little guitar combo in the middle, don’t they? Davey are you actually being serious here? As I posted earlier, Sunday morning to European son on the first record ! The consensus seems to be the Beatles invented pop and dragged the world of pop with them. Ok, they are pop god's. The Velvets saw something else and it wasn't pop. Yet they don't seem to be seen as travelling far or have the ability to expand their range. This is evidently and patently not the case. Perhaps if heroin had an orchestral backing and some tape loops applied to the obviously lacking fairground Wurlitzer then opinions would change. |
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 23, 2020 9:29:56 GMT
A grand canyon that they themselves created - it's hard to realistically imagine that anyone else would've if they hadn't. Really? Is that such a canyon? It doesn't seem that big a leap to me, and you'd have to accept that the sub-nursery-rhyme banality of She Loves You is a positive thing to make that any kind of creative argument. Focusing on the lyrics of She Loves You seems to be missing the point somewhat. It's pop music and it's from 1963. I think it's one of the most volcanically exciting pop records ever made. An immensely thrilling thing and as good as any Motown record from that period. |
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 23, 2020 9:30:41 GMT
He misses Matt Wilson. Be kind. Wow, that's a low blow! |
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 23, 2020 9:30:42 GMT
I just think the Velvets are a more exciting band. That's all. And they didn't do any sappy shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 23, 2020 9:32:59 GMT
It's just that...there ARE people who prefer the VU to the Beatles. And they're not 'adolescent' and they're not looking for 'darkness'. They just think they're a better band. I thought we might get some of those people coming forward, making articulate points. Actually I didn't really. Well, maybe Ray. And D_F (a bit more). It's all good, the Beatles were spectacular. But there were flaws. They're now SO exalted that people have to excuse these flaws ('well that's because they were young!'), you never see even tacit agreement, people fight back. Attacking them in any way has become an absolute no-no. Anyway - the points about diversity aren't really good ones. They both excelled at it. You should look at songwriting or innovation or something for evidence of superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 23, 2020 9:33:00 GMT
Do those really sound entirely different to you? They’ve all got that tight little guitar combo in the middle, don’t they? Davey are you actually being serious here? I don't think he's listened to the songs. If there's a 'tight little guitar combo' in 'Black Angel's Death Song' then I can't hear it - it's mostly the discordant scraping of a viola. |
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 23, 2020 9:34:42 GMT
It's just that...there ARE people who prefer the VU to the Beatles. And they're not 'adolescent' and they're not looking for 'darkness'. They just think they're a better band. I thought we might get some of those people coming forward, making articulate points. Actually I didn't really. Well, maybe Ray. And D_F (a bit more). It's all good, the Beatles were spectacular. But there were flaws. They're now SO exalted that people have to excuse these flaws ('well that's because they were young!'), you never see even tacit agreement, people fight back. Attacking them in any way has become an absolute no-no. Anyway - the points about diversity aren't really good ones. They both excelled at it. You should look at songwriting or innovation or something for evidence of superiority. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 9:36:29 GMT
I just think the Velvets are a more exciting band. That's all. And they didn't do any sappy shit. Musically they don't give me the same feeling of transcendence as The Beatles. There's not the same layers of aural loveliness to what they do and they had one great songwriter whereas The Beatles had three so they are going to sound more singular. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 9:38:21 GMT
I wouldn't agree Lou couldn't sing, but The Beatles voices - individually and in harmony - are on a different level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 9:39:54 GMT
It's just that...there ARE people who prefer the VU to the Beatles. And they're not 'adolescent' and they're not looking for 'darkness'. They just think they're a better band. I thought we might get some of those people coming forward, making articulate points. Actually I didn't really. Well, maybe Ray. And D_F (a bit more). It's all good, the Beatles were spectacular. But there were flaws. They're now SO exalted that people have to excuse these flaws ('well that's because they were young!'), you never see even tacit agreement, people fight back. Attacking them in any way has become an absolute no-no. Anyway - the points about diversity aren't really good ones. They both excelled at it. You should look at songwriting or innovation or something for evidence of superiorit I guess for me after the Beatles split the four members themselves decided that they didn't want to sound like the band they left behind. Those seeking their 'wannabees' sound were able to take comfort in the sound of ELO. For me , me. The ideas and inspiration that the Velvets spawned were and are the sounds I prefer. |
|
|
|
Post by Crunchy Col on Sept 23, 2020 9:40:19 GMT
I was thinking about how the Rolling Stones (65/66) are exactly in the middle of these two bands. Would that be fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 9:41:10 GMT
Do those really sound entirely different to you? They’ve all got that tight little guitar combo in the middle, don’t they? Davey are you actually being serious here? As I posted earlier, Sunday morning to European son on the first record ! The consensus seems to be the Beatles invented pop and dragged the world of pop with them. Ok, they are pop god's. The Velvets saw something else and it wasn't pop. Yet they don't seem to be seen as travelling far or have the ability to expand their range. This is evidently and patently not the case. Perhaps if heroin had an orchestral backing and some tape loops applied to the obviously lacking fairground Wurlitzer then opinions would change. I am being serious - and I’m pretty sure I am right. Even on the songs you mentioned. Look, there’s not a thing wrong with the fact that The Velvet’s had a sound. They were pretty invested in sounding like a band. They didn’t try to be all things to all people. These attributes are strengths. But we’re putting them up against The Beatles, who managed to expand the whole concept of what a “band sound” was. There’s just no way the VU comes out on top if we’re just talking about the variety of sounds they presented. Some of that might be down to the larger budget The Beatles had, as well as the larger output. But much of it had to do with their collective imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 23, 2020 9:45:00 GMT
Heeeeroooiiiin He's not a great singer but he does enough. That's probably his best performance but a lot the time he does that half singing/half spoken thing. I like it, it's fine but.... John and Paul were great singers. Two of the best in rock n roll in fact. And when the Beatles harmonised they sounded like God had a plan. That's a big, huge, very pleasurable thing. It hits my pleasure zones and makes my balls fizz and it does it in a very direct, pure way cos....voices. Superior? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 9:45:06 GMT
Davey are you actually being serious here? I don't think he's listened to the songs. If there's a 'tight little guitar combo' in 'Black Angel's Death Song' then I can't hear it - it's mostly the discordant scraping of a viola. Of course Ive listened. I know it well. You don’t hear that guitar strum right at the center of the record? |
|
