Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 14:40:22 GMT
I think he said he thought they were exotic birds!
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 14:45:37 GMT
People have a right to their individual tastes. But you’ll notice, unless I am missing something, that pretty much everyone arguing for The Beatles also speaks of The VU with great affection and respect. I’m not seeing any, “The VU are a bit meh” posts.
Not that there’s anything wrong with liking one and not the other. But it just becomes too easy to dismiss your arguments as just a matter of preference. What I’m not seeing a lot of are arguments for why The VU are better - as opposed to ‘more to your preference.’
The argument for why they are better shouldn’t rest on a deficiency of the other band in question. Jiust tell us what it is about The Velvet Underground that puts them on the upside of this equation. What do you go to them for that you can’t get anywhere else?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 14:50:22 GMT
d Now you can start to argue about any of that with me, and you're likely to come out on top. You're all in this with some years of knowledge and love of the music. You've probably got an internet essay on hand about the arpeggiated harmolodics of "Wild Honey Pie", and I'm not even sure that's the name of the song. This is the mistake Beatles detractors often make. They think because it is possible to write about The Beatles academically, that the appreciation must therefore be academic in nature, a collective brainwashing conducted by the mainstream cultural media. But of course, as any fan will tell you, there is something so pure and elemental in the way The Beatles music communicates. The arrangements, harmonics, melodies and singing hit the pleasure zones in very direct ways. Sounds (and reads)to me that Beatles fans are completely unaware that to many that what hits the pleasure zone isn't necessarily the Beatles. Actually, Dylan suffers from the academics and super fans more and yet it seems to boil down to be a case of whether you like his voice or not. My favourite Beatle songs are , I've got a feeling , Hey Bulldog and Helter Skelter. Pre Revolver it's the same record again and again with little innovative game changing music. They took a long time to get going and got better when they wanted to be a straight up rock band Truth is their hands more often than not were tied by having Lionel Bart on bass.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Sept 23, 2020 14:53:03 GMT
This is the mistake Beatles detractors often make. They think because it is possible to write about The Beatles academically, that the appreciation must therefore be academic in nature, a collective brainwashing conducted by the mainstream cultural media. But of course, as any fan will tell you, there is something so pure and elemental in the way The Beatles music communicates. The arrangements, harmonics, melodies and singing hit the pleasure zones in very direct ways. Nah, it was really just to try and discourage any level of argument about the background or construction of specific tracks. Nothing worse than an argument were someone is banging on about it being the first track recorded in a zephyr harness, or having the first use of contrapuntal fifths on glockenspiel. I don't care, and I'm not going to look it up for the purpose of an online debate. The academic argument that a band is factually the greatest is one of those annoying Beatley things. I mean, I don't really agree with a statement that says The VU are better than The Beatles, I'm not sure art works like that. You may prefer them, many people may prefer them, but surely a lot of it is actually about that hitting of pleasure zones - any argument about which is better is largely fabricated after you've decided which you prefer. There is some kind of objective criteria we apply though. That may differ from person to person but look at the level of agreement you get with the Beatles amongst folks like us. That's highly unusual but it's testament to their genius that there is some kind of consensus. Art is subjective - yawn - but that doesn't mean art is equal and there are measures of greatness and it's something I think we feel about certain bands or records or films or books or whatever. That they achieve a certain level that elevates them over most of the rest. I feel this very strongly. I'm not alone I'm sure but it's not a subject I feel we talk about that much anymore and culturally it feels like it's frowned upon almost. Why do we need to elevate certain artists though? Why talk as if these things are facts? What does it say about us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 14:58:11 GMT
Velvet Underground are more interesting, the bealtes become more "meh" to me as the the years go on. Maybe it's the constant and consistent hype around them. I feel that way about The Velvets if I'm honest. I don't want to fall into that trap of exaggerating criticisms for the sake of the thread, I still think The Velvets were a fantastic band, but I first started listening to them at 16 and there's only so many times you can listen to 'I'm Waiting for the Man'. The well is shallower with them. With The Beatles it's their intrinsic musical qualities which mean they manage to retain a freshness, despite their cultural ubiquity. It's much harder to get bored of a inspired key change or harmonies that climax at the exact right moment. That kind of thing just cuts through all that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 15:04:31 GMT
This is the mistake Beatles detractors often make. They think because it is possible to write about The Beatles academically, that the appreciation must therefore be academic in nature, a collective brainwashing conducted by the mainstream cultural media. But of course, as any fan will tell you, there is something so pure and elemental in the way The Beatles music communicates. The arrangements, harmonics, melodies and singing hit the pleasure zones in very direct ways. Sounds (and reads)to me that Beatles fans are completely unaware that to many that what hits the pleasure zone isn't necessarily the Beatles. Actually, Dylan suffers from the academics and super fans more and yet it seems to boil down to be a case of whether you like his voice or not. My favourite Beatle songs are , I've got a feeling , Hey Bulldog and Helter Skelter. Pre Revolver it's the same record again and again with little innovative game changing music. They took a long time to get going and got better when they wanted to be a straight up rock band Truth is their hands more often than not were tied by having Lionel Bart on bass. You're (I'm assuming it's Jimboo I'm talking to) into krautrock and art rock, like Darkness Fish. You're both a bit distrustful of pop and don't necessarily look for melody in things. Basically the more you're into pop and melody, the more you like The Beatles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 15:14:57 GMT
Velvet Underground are more interesting, the bealtes become more "meh" to me as the the years go on. Maybe it's the constant and consistent hype around them. I feel that way about The Velvets if I'm honest. I don't want to fall into that trap of exaggerating criticisms for the sake of the thread, I still think The Velvets were a fantastic band, but I first started listening to them at 16 and there's only so many times you can listen to 'I'm Waiting for the Man'. The well is shallower with them. With The Beatles it's their intrinsic musical qualities which mean they manage to retain a freshness, despite their cultural ubiquity. It's much harder to get bored of a inspired key change or harmonies that climax at the exact right moment. That kind of thing just cuts through all that. I'm not saying the beatles were shit, it's more i just generally don't see what's so great or groundbreaking in their music for their time. I'm talking more about their later stuff, plodding pianos, discorded orchestras, george westernizing indian music techniques, they can't be the first do that but people seems to treat them like they were.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 15:21:44 GMT
Why do we need to elevate certain artists though? Why talk as if these things are facts? What does it say about us? Why are we on a message board comparing 50-year old bits of taped music against other 50-year old bits of taped music? At some level there is an identity component to this. For people who place The Beatles closer to the center of their identity, they stand as both a gateway drug and a standard-bearer. There are also many who have built parts in f their personal philosophy around the humanism they projected. For folks who identify more with The VU, there is a sense of having found something of great value that others don’t hold dearly enough. The thrill of The VU is that they worked in miniature, but created a whole world of their own that most pass over too quickly. Or maybe there’s something else that I don’t get? But the key is - we identify with this music. Our connection to it (or other music) helped all of us shape who we are.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 15:23:46 GMT
I feel that way about The Velvets if I'm honest. I don't want to fall into that trap of exaggerating criticisms for the sake of the thread, I still think The Velvets were a fantastic band, but I first started listening to them at 16 and there's only so many times you can listen to 'I'm Waiting for the Man'. The well is shallower with them. With The Beatles it's their intrinsic musical qualities which mean they manage to retain a freshness, despite their cultural ubiquity. It's much harder to get bored of a inspired key change or harmonies that climax at the exact right moment. That kind of thing just cuts through all that. I'm not saying the beatles were shit, it's more i just generally don't see what's so great or groundbreaking in their music for their time. I'm talking more about their later stuff, plodding pianos, discorded orchestras, george westernizing indian music techniques, they can't be the first do that but people seems to treat them like they were. Some things they were first. Some things they popularized. Either way, most listeners heard both types of things from them first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 15:28:16 GMT
People have a right to their individual tastes. But you’ll notice, unless I am missing something, that pretty much everyone arguing for The Beatles also speaks of The VU with great affection and respect. I’m not seeing any, “The VU are a bit meh” posts. Not that there’s anything wrong with liking one and not the other. But it just becomes too easy to dismiss your arguments as just a matter of preference. What I’m not seeing a lot of are arguments for why The VU are better - as opposed to ‘more to your preference.’ The argument for why they are better shouldn’t rest on a deficiency of the other band in question. Jiust tell us what it is about The Velvet Underground that puts them on the upside of this equation. What do you go to them for that you can’t get anywhere else? Because Davey a complete disregard of pop sensibilities and sound is where it's at man . It isn't that now you cannot find it anywhere else. It's that where you find it and because you can find it originated with them. I don't understand where the sound of white light and it's production came from. I just know that there is where my button gets pushed.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. FOLLARD on Sept 23, 2020 15:30:22 GMT
subtext throughout the thread: 'if you want to have a sensible discussion about this then you have to accept that the Beatles did no wrong. THEN we can discuss that other band'
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 15:35:51 GMT
People have a right to their individual tastes. But you’ll notice, unless I am missing something, that pretty much everyone arguing for The Beatles also speaks of The VU with great affection and respect. I’m not seeing any, “The VU are a bit meh” posts. Not that there’s anything wrong with liking one and not the other. But it just becomes too easy to dismiss your arguments as just a matter of preference. What I’m not seeing a lot of are arguments for why The VU are better - as opposed to ‘more to your preference.’ The argument for why they are better shouldn’t rest on a deficiency of the other band in question. Jiust tell us what it is about The Velvet Underground that puts them on the upside of this equation. What do you go to them for that you can’t get anywhere else? Because Davey a complete disregard of pop sensibilities and sound is where it's at man . It isn't that now you cannot find it anywhere else. It's that where you find it and because you can find it originated with them. I don't understand where the sound of white light and it's production came from. I just know that there is where my button gets pushed. This is just me, but ultimately I only give out a limited number of points for innovation. Arguments about where things originate are useful when you are talking academically about who to respect. But unless you have a visceral memory of ‘that thing hitting like a bolt of lightning out of the blue’ - that shit is too academic for me. If we’re talking in 2020 about what has endured for us - for me it has to still make me feel like a visit to a world that means something right now.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Sept 23, 2020 15:36:15 GMT
subtext throughout the thread: 'if you want to have a sensible discussion about this then you have to accept that the Beatles did no wrong. THEN we can discuss that other band' Nah. Dismissed.
|
|
Sneelock
god
you're gonna break another heart
Posts: 8,535
|
Post by Sneelock on Sept 23, 2020 15:44:53 GMT
subtext throughout the thread: 'if you want to have a sensible discussion about this then you have to accept that the Beatles did no wrong. THEN we can discuss that other band' John Coan, did you bring enough gum for everyone? no? then I'm going to have to ask you to spit it out & sit up straight in your chair while you're at it. if you don't behave yourself then I'll have to ask you to stay after class and write "The Beatles did no wrong" 150 times on the blackboard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 15:46:06 GMT
Because Davey a complete disregard of pop sensibilities and sound is where it's at man . It isn't that now you cannot find it anywhere else. It's that where you find it and because you can find it originated with them. I don't understand where the sound of white light and it's production came from. I just know that there is where my button gets pushed. This is just me, but ultimately I only give out a limited number of points for innovation. Arguments about where things originate are useful when you are talking academically about who to respect. But unless you have a visceral memory of ‘that thing hitting like a bolt of lightning out of the blue’ - that shit is too academic for me. If we’re talking in 2020 about what has endured for us - for me it has to still make me feel like a visit to a world that means something right now. Well Davey the hidden sex and drugs gender bending once hidden world is very much a visit you can relate to now. To be fair we are all only of an age where we were not there at the time. Except Rayge. I suspect had I been 18 or 21 in 1967 the Beatles wouldn't have been my go to band. I think I would have still bought their albums (except Pepper that's just drivel).
|
|