|
Post by oh oooh on Jan 10, 2023 9:14:28 GMT
They're talking shit
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 10, 2023 10:24:09 GMT
I don't want to derail the thread, or necessarily get into another Beatles discussion, but I really don't see that it would be that jaw-dropping. You have Coltrane doing Ascension, the likes of Stockhausen, Pierre Schaeffer, Delia Derbyshire, you know, in the end it's not that startling a sound. I like the song, but I can't be amazed by it, it feels like it only has a smidgen of that inventiveness. Adding "the world's most popular band" as a criteria just seems like a cheat to give the beatles another automatic load of acclaim that no-one else can get. None of which is meant to be snarky, btw, just a quick explanation of why I'm genuinely not excited by the track in a way that you expect I should be. You really do talk some right old bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Jan 10, 2023 10:35:29 GMT
Tomorrow Never Knows never dims for me. It's the kind of record you put on, crank up and you always get sucked into its majestic swirling vortex.
Just the cosmic heaviness and sonic weight of the record is extraordinary for its time and all time imo because it still sounds like some briefly glimpsed future of rock music. It's one of those perfect hybrid records that takes these random elements (the Indian drone, the avant garde loops, the Tibetan book of the dead lyrics) and magically combines them with rock/pop (Ringo's drum beat, that pulse like bass) and in doing so alchemises them to create something that is actually more exciting, dynamic and thrilling than the music and artists that have influenced it.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Jan 10, 2023 10:42:04 GMT
The idea that it's a 'dirge' - just to pick up on one point that was made - is clearly nonsense. It's propulsive, it pulls you in. And it's completely accessible, at the same time as keeping one foot in the avant garde - which is of course one of the great things about the Beatles at their best.
You can go back to Stockhausen and Derbyshire and of course they were doing magical, thrilling things earlier than 1966 - but they were making them for specialist audiences (lame term, I know, but you know what I mean). Taking them out of the laboratory, knocking off some edges, dressing them up in nicer clothes, and offering them up for public consumption was the Beatles big advantage.
|
|
|
Post by blue on Jan 10, 2023 11:42:00 GMT
Agree wholeheartedly. I think if you'd never heard anything but pop music, then "TNK" would be jaw-dropping. However, the Beatles had been dipping their toes in the avant-garde for a couple of years (well McCartney had), they were fabulously wealthy already and had access to recording studio TIME that was beyond most other musicians of the era. It's really not that great - the idea is great - but beyond the first few bars, it becomes something of a dirge. It's like a previous generation's "Fool's Gold" - a swerve in a different direction for a short time that has somehow become indicative of greatness, when in actual reality, beyond Strawberry Fields Forever (which is obviously far more sophisticated), A Day in the Life and Revolution #9, their avant-garde psychedelic pretensions did not run that far. I think the notion that hatz was imagining a pop fan was embedded in his scenario. Also - how much “avant- garden” McCartney had “stuck his toe into previous to this…”. What exactly are you thinking about? Singing in French, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 12:58:09 GMT
The idea that it's a 'dirge' - just to pick up on one point that was made - is clearly nonsense. It's propulsive, it pulls you in. And it's completely accessible, at the same time as keeping one foot in the avant garde - which is of course one of the great things about the Beatles at their best. You can go back to Stockhausen and Derbyshire and of course they were doing magical, thrilling things earlier than 1966 - but they were making them for specialist audiences (lame term, I know, but you know what I mean). Taking them out of the laboratory, knocking off some edges, dressing them up in nicer clothes, and offering them up for public consumption was the Beatles big advantage. This. The reason this track is still held up as groundbreaking is because of the fact that it was on an album by the biggest band in the world. Avant Garde music and art had been around for years, but the average man in the street in 1966 would most likely have never even heard the expression 'Avant Garde', never mind any of it's exponents. Even if it didn't feature the tape loops, it would still be a groundbreaking track, because of the drums. Drums had never been recorded like that before. If it had all the other elements, maybe with a bit of distorted, raga flavoured guitar on, it would still have been remarkable. Members of the Byrds and Jefferson Aiplane are on record, saying that when they heard it, it sounded like the future and they knew instantly that The Beatles had changed the game again.
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 13:05:22 GMT
When you think that the band had been together a matter of a few weeks when this was recorded makes it even more extraordinary. You've heard numerous live versions, but listen back to the studio recording again and be swept away. No effects on the guitar, just a fluid, soulful little solo, with an astonishing foundation from Mitchell and Redding. Love the female backing vocals too.
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 13:06:59 GMT
When you think of this coming out in 1966, you almost have to double check that you have the year right.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,797
|
Post by rayge on Jan 10, 2023 13:10:26 GMT
When you think that the band had been together a matter of a few weeks when this was recorded makes it even more extraordinary. You've heard numerous live versions, but listen back to the studio recording again and be swept away. No effects on the guitar, just a fluid, soulful little solo, with an astonishing foundation from Mitchell and Redding. Love the female backing vocals too.
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 13:12:10 GMT
Motown's finest single of the decade?
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 13:13:14 GMT
When you think that the band had been together a matter of a few weeks when this was recorded makes it even more extraordinary. You've heard numerous live versions, but listen back to the studio recording again and be swept away. No effects on the guitar, just a fluid, soulful little solo, with an astonishing foundation from Mitchell and Redding. Love the female backing vocals too. Ah right, didn't spot that. Sorry boss, duly noted.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Jan 10, 2023 13:14:38 GMT
When you think of this coming out in 1966, you almost have to double check that you have the year right. One of the first things I ever heard by them, and it stunned me. I just hadn't considered music could DO that! And it still sounds absolutely thrilling. There's a kind of arrogance behind it all - they've got this story and this unique band driving behind it and they're kicking without compromise.
|
|
rayge
Administrator
Invisible
Posts: 8,797
|
Post by rayge on Jan 10, 2023 13:16:27 GMT
Ah right, didn't spot that. Sorry boss, duly noted. No problem - which of yours would you like to submit? And do you fancy adding to any of the earlier lists (the more the merrier)?
Oh, and please, not even in jest, don't call me 'boss'
|
|
|
Post by riggers on Jan 10, 2023 13:24:32 GMT
Ah right, didn't spot that. Sorry boss, duly noted. No problem - which of yours would you like to submit? And do you fancy adding to any of the earlier lists (the more the merrier)?
Oh, and please, not even in jest, don't call me 'boss' Sorry Ray, it was meant ironically, or possibly as an unconscious Frank Sidebottom reference 😆... Er...I think I'll submit 'Hey Joe' and have a think about some choices for earlier years
|
|
|
Post by tory on Jan 10, 2023 13:26:29 GMT
The idea that it's a 'dirge' - just to pick up on one point that was made - is clearly nonsense. It's propulsive, it pulls you in. And it's completely accessible, at the same time as keeping one foot in the avant garde - which is of course one of the great things about the Beatles at their best. You can go back to Stockhausen and Derbyshire and of course they were doing magical, thrilling things earlier than 1966 - but they were making them for specialist audiences (lame term, I know, but you know what I mean). Taking them out of the laboratory, knocking off some edges, dressing them up in nicer clothes, and offering them up for public consumption was the Beatles big advantage. This. The reason this track is still held up as groundbreaking is because of the fact that it was on an album by the biggest band in the world. Avant Garde music and art had been around for years, but the average man in the street in 1966 would most likely have never even heard the expression 'Avant Garde', never mind any of it's exponents. Even if it didn't feature the tape loops, it would still be a groundbreaking track, because of the drums. Drums had never been recorded like that before. If it had all the other elements, maybe with a bit of distorted, raga flavoured guitar on, it would still have been remarkable. Members of the Byrds and Jefferson Aiplane are on record, saying that when they heard it, it sounded like the future and they knew instantly that The Beatles had changed the game again. But as a composition it goes hardly anywhere. It is a dirge in many ways. It has a particular sound that appeals because of the context of when it was released, which was that here was a band that was composing simplistic songs 4 years previously. However, as a composition in itself, it has little in the way of any memorable change beyond that (admittedly fantastic sounding) drum break and a few tapeloops. It is still an achievement in many ways, but as a song in itself it, beyond that initial, arresting first minute or so, there isn't exactly much going on. Sure, no-one else was doing anything like this beyond the fellow explorers such as Stockhausen and other Musique Concrete composers. They are to be lauded for it, but these days, to be honest, I'd much rather listen to Doctor Robert or Eleanor Rigby.
|
|