112
2
1138

About the Author

JackT

view my other 2304 articles

www.fasterlouder.com.au

Thom Yorke turns down Sir Paul

Wed 14th Nov, 2007 in International News

When you’re as formidably talented as Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke, even a former Beatle can’t seduce you with his star power. Sir Paul McCartney told Channel 4’s T4 program in the UK that he’d approached Yorke to record a song together, and was turned down.

“My daughter was putting an album together and she put us in touch,” he revealed. “I asked Thom to do a duet, but he said he couldn’t because he only felt happy working on his own and Radiohead’s material.”

Surely that’s some kind of landmark snub? Yorke must have changed his tune (or not fancied the proposal), because in 2000 he joined PJ Harvey on the excellent This Mess We’re In.

Comments

www.fasterlouder.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

11742

clashpalace said on the 15th Nov, 2007

elaborate then

music as it is today would not exist without the beatles

cannot even be argued

exactly.. dissing the beatles is like saying your parents never did anything to make you who you are.

it's not a lack of music taste its just a fundamental lack of understanding of history and the evolution of music. no respect. basically your kids with brains not big enough to view the scope of things.

you can have your opinion that 'yeh mann they totally suck'
but its invalid.

dkos

dkos said on the 15th Nov, 2007

exactly.. dissing the beatles is like saying your parents never did anything to make you who you are.

it's not a lack of music taste its just a fundamental lack of understanding of history and the evolution of music. no respect. basically your kids with brains not big enough to view the scope of things.

you can have your opinion that 'yeh mann they totally suck'
but its invalid.

Did you read my above post?

I don't see how that opinion is any more invalid or valid than any other regarding music, which (shock, horror) is subjective...

Dexter Ramone

Dexter Ramone said on the 15th Nov, 2007

Not in this case Tom.

The beatles are great. End of argument.
Go see 'Across the Universe' Beatles fans, its so good.

sarahanne

sarahanne said on the 15th Nov, 2007

Dkos likes Something With Numbers.

Nuff said.

CureMe

CureMe said on the 15th Nov, 2007

Anyway this is about Thom York not the beatles and its probably made him more famous by saying no.... do you think we would even be discussing this if he said yes?

dkos

dkos said on the 15th Nov, 2007

Not in this case Tom.

The beatles are great. End of argument.
Go see 'Across the Universe' Beatles fans, its so good.

My point is that any band, at any stage do not have to be loved by everyone. Let's face it, the Beatles were just another band, who found a niche for their musical style which just continued to grow, in a time period that is now considered revolutionary...

Doesn't change the fact that they simply write inoffensive pop songs that would be rubbished would they be released today.

Dkos likes Something With Numbers.

Nuff said.

Your point?
I think their album is good.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 15th Nov, 2007

i was totally thinking the same thing. geez the beatles were the beatles. and thom york doesnt like sir paul who gives a fuck?

Dexter Ramone

Dexter Ramone said on the 15th Nov, 2007

My point is that any band, at any stage do not have to be loved by everyone. Let's face it, the Beatles were just another band, who found a niche for their musical style which just continued to grow, in a time period that is now considered revolutionary...

Doesn't change the fact that they simply write inoffensive pop songs that would be rubbished would they be released today.

They invented pop, thats totally different to writing inoffensive pop songs.
The beatles must have found the biggest niche ever then... as in, 90% of people ever.

dkos

dkos said on the 15th Nov, 2007

They invented pop, thats totally different to writing inoffensive pop songs.
The beatles must have found the biggest niche ever then... as in, 90% of people ever.

Lol, niche as in they found something that worked at the time, do you think that when they were writing and performing it they were thinking "Omg, we are totally going to be loved by everyone"?

I disagree that they invented pop. They just had a different slant on it to other bands at the time.. Much the same as say Rihanna has a different slant on pop to Britney Spears.. (Yes, I just compared the Beatles to Rihanna)

Lurgee

Lurgee said on the 15th Nov, 2007

yes the beatles were hugely influential. does that mean every artists from there on out is obliged to record with them-no. I dont have anything against the beatles but at the same time I cant see Thom Yorke and Paul McCartney getting together for a jam. One's too happy the other is way too into his computer..or radiohead.

Lurgee

Lurgee said on the 15th Nov, 2007

yes the beatles were hugely influential. does that mean every artists from there on out is obliged to record with them-no. I dont have anything against the beatles but at the same time I cant see Thom Yorke and Paul McCartney getting together for a jam. One's too happy the other is way too into his computer..or radiohead.

radical_man

radical_man said on the 15th Nov, 2007

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 15th Nov, 2007

I'm with Dkos. I have large amounts of respect for the Beatles in terms of what they did for the evolution of music. Personally, I feel that they just wrote cheesy pop songs that wash over you without you realising. For their time, their skills were bullshit which created a lot of hype. And if hype can get a nationalist Nazi Government into the third reich then it sure as hell can get a simple pop band to the top of the pile for bands from that era. At the end of the day it was just paperthin pop music, if they're music sounds amazing then so does Daniel Powter's. Good on you if you want to hold onto the music from that era and show your respect to the pioneers of pop but if the Beatles didn't do it, I'm sure another band would have. They are quite overrated.

dkos

dkos said on the 15th Nov, 2007

HOOORAY for sanity. :D

Bodhisattva said on the 15th Nov, 2007

Umm, I would say the Beatles really did invent pop. and I'd also say that was pretty huge. You made a comment about them being not so great musicians. I think thats got nothing to do with how good a band is. Its how the players styles integrate that makes a band. And thats my two cents.

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 15th Nov, 2007

excuse me how can you say songs like helter skelter are cheesy pop songs
fucks sake

also posting to say that i love something with numbers

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 15th Nov, 2007

The Beatles must be the only band in history who were a worse band whilst on drugs than when they were sober. Not raising that as part of the argument, just an interesting note.

dkos

dkos said on the 15th Nov, 2007

excuse me how can you say songs like helter skelter are cheesy pop songs
fucks sake

Would you say that the majority of their music can be classified as "inoffensive pop" though? That wouldn't change even if they had recorded a couple of death metal tracks..

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 15th Nov, 2007

yeah but to say they were soley a cheesy pop band is just not true

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 16th Nov, 2007

To say Nofx are a ska band probably isn't true even thought they did quite a few ska tracks. It is what the band is predominantly renowned for that we have to go by here. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "The Beatles are the greatest pop band ever" I probably wouldn't spend my time on FL forums.

radical_man

radical_man said on the 16th Nov, 2007

What's your favourite Beatles album? I'd have to say "Best of the Beatles"

radical_man

radical_man said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Blues Brothers and "Great Drinking Songs"

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 16th Nov, 2007

excuse me how can you say songs like helter skelter are cheesy pop songs
fucks sake

also posting to say that i love something with numbers

Something with numbers are shithouse grouse

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Bodhisattva said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Nah. "The Beatles: Best of" is way better

Chinese-Whispers

Chinese-Whispers said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Something With Numbers are one of THE worst bands to comeout of OZ in a long fucking time.

I suspect dkos- that you have heard three Beatles songs in your entire life. And clearly been exposed to too much SWN.

CureMe

CureMe said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Something With Numbers are one of THE worst bands to comeout of OZ in a long fucking time.

I suspect dkos- that you have three Beatles songs in your entire life. And clearly been exposed to too much SWN.

ha ha ha ha ha ha i am not sure if its because i am hung over but that made me laugh

dkos

dkos said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Something With Numbers are one of THE worst bands to comeout of OZ in a long fucking time.

I suspect dkos- that you have heard three Beatles songs in your entire life. And clearly been exposed to too much SWN.

Did you actually read anything posted in this thread at all.. I made it clear my girlfriend (of a long time) is a Beatles manic, and whenever she drives anywhere it's Beatles album after Beatles album.. I have heard every album from start to finish and the only song that was remotely ok was "I've Just Seen A Face".

CureMe

CureMe said on the 16th Nov, 2007

take the joke and run with it DKOS, its the only way!

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Something With Numbers are one of THE worst bands to comeout of OZ in a long fucking time.

I suspect dkos- that you have heard three Beatles songs in your entire life. And clearly been exposed to too much SWN.

totally agreed with you

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 16th Nov, 2007

you need a new fucking girlfriend - quick smart

dkos

dkos said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Haha, no... I think I'm alright.

As for running with the joke, I would if the joke actually made sense given the context of the thread.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 16th Nov, 2007

ha ha ha ah shit

CureMe

CureMe said on the 16th Nov, 2007

Haha, no... I think I'm alright.

As for running with the joke, I would if the joke actually made sense given the context of the thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz7_3n7xyDg

Dexter Ramone

Dexter Ramone said on the 16th Nov, 2007

I think if you read any of the Beatles lyrics you will find they really did know what they were doing. Their choruses sucked you in by being singable and inoffensive, yet their verses had some of the most amazing lyrics ever written IMO.

Take the song Blackbird for example..

disasterplan

disasterplan said on the 16th Nov, 2007

What the fuck? Are you honestly trying to say that tracks like She Loves You are better than the likes of Helter Skelter and Tomorrow Never Knows?

The Beatles invented the pop rulebook and then from Revolver onwards they started tearing it up.

And I know I am coming in late but I would just like to high-five Sarah for her SWN comment.

CureMe

CureMe said on the 16th Nov, 2007

ho hum, Thom probably turned down Paul because he is lazy

letter8

letter8 said on the 16th Nov, 2007

I like The Beatles. Blackbird is an awesome song.

But curse them for inventing pop music :mad:

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 16th Nov, 2007

ha ha ha i love how you post this video... perfect for the occasion

tom_slater1

tom_slater1 said on the 16th Nov, 2007

FIrst of all, The Beatles didn't invent pop music - it had been around for at least ten years before they released anything. Secondly, they were never sober - they'd been on speed and amphetamines since they were 18 in Germany. Third, they are pretty much the greatest band ever and that's because they went from albums like Please Please Me which was bubblegum pop to Revolver which was urgent and divergent to Sgt Peppers which has such complex beauty that if you don't like it then you hate music. If they invented anything, it was modern rock. Anyone from Led Zepplin (took their lead from The White Album and Let It Be) to Radiohead itself, who experiment and push boundaries, both lyrically and sonically, in the very same way the Fab Four did, owe a great deal to the Beatles. Without them, these bands simply wouldn't have had the same milieu from which to create.

Even if you don't respect the music, respect that they spurned the pop world that obsessed over them, because they thought touring jeopardised their creative output. The result: Sgt Peppers onwards. Good call, I say.

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 18th Nov, 2007

FIrst of all, The Beatles didn't invent pop music - it had been around for at least ten years before they released anything. Secondly, they were never sober - they'd been on speed and amphetamines since they were 18 in Germany. Third, they are pretty much the greatest band ever and that's because they went from albums like Please Please Me which was bubblegum pop to Revolver which was urgent and divergent to Sgt Peppers which has such complex beauty that if you don't like it then you hate music. If they invented anything, it was modern rock. Anyone from Led Zepplin (took their lead from The White Album and Let It Be) to Radiohead itself, who experiment and push boundaries, both lyrically and sonically, in the very same way the Fab Four did, owe a great deal to the Beatles. Without them, these bands simply wouldn't have had the same milieu from which to create.

Even if you don't respect the music, respect that they spurned the pop world that obsessed over them, because they thought touring jeopardised their creative output. The result: Sgt Peppers onwards. Good call, I say.

watev.

theworldisround

theworldisround said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

I feel somewhat obliged to comment...
precisely the reason why I should not go through with said comment.

Firstly, to clarify a few matters (many of which will merely be reiterations):

- One should not remove credit where credit is due. Joseph Lister is (arguably) the founder of antiseptics. To pipe up with "Oh, but if he didn't, then someone else would have" is ludicrous, because the simple fact is, someone else didn't. HE founded antiseptics, so HE deserves the credit. As do The Beatles deserve credit for their contribution. (Should we no longer congratulate the winner of a race? After all, if they didn't win someone else would have?) Excuse me while I go console my sister, because HECK! If Einstein hadn't of developed the Theory of Relativity, then she would have!

- The Beatles didn't invent pop music. We all know that pop music was stolen from the black man. End.

PS Nothing is ever reallllly invented. All inventions stem from a previous discovery. The world - and the inventions/discoveries that occur within it - are in a constant state of flux.

- As for 'inoffensive', I wish to remind (or perhaps inform) your-lovely-selves of a few (non-exhaustive) instances that occurred throughout The Beatles career (for this, I choose to quote from Wikipedia, just to nudge my credibility). While these instances may not involve the raping of small children, they still suggest material of an offensive nature (always remember to process material within the context of the time it once existed):

1. "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you, if you'll just rattle your jewelry."
* Royal Variety Performance in London (4 November 1963) attended by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret. John had intended to say "fucking jewelry", but was persuaded against doing so by Paul McCartney and the group's manager Brian Epstein.

2. "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first � rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
* One of the most controversial statements Lennon ever made, this was published in England's Evening Standard newspaper (4 March 1966) as part of an interview with writer Maureen Cleave. This single quote (taken out of context � Lennon was often misquoted as stating the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus") was to spark protests across the Bible Belt in America. Beatles records were burned en masse, and the Ku Klux Klan burned a Beatles effigy and nailed Beatles albums to a burning cross. The band members were dismissive of this, as they pointed out that first the people had to buy the albums in order to burn them.

3. Elvis Presley disapproved of The Beatles's anti-war activism and open use of drugs, later asking President Richard Nixon to ban all four members of the group from entering the United States. Peter Guralnick writes, "The Beatles, Elvis said, [...] had been a focal point for anti-Americanism. They had come to this country, made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling." Guralnick adds, "Presley indicated that he is of the opinion that The Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s."

Look no farther than the 'intellectual goldmine' that is Wikipedia, and you may indeed find that The Beatles offended their share of high-profile figures; the Queen, the Lord (Jesus) and the King (Elvis).

And before anyone harks up with a royal "Yeh, well that jus provezzz that Da Beatlez were offensive ppls, but deir muzick is still inoffensive", I'll salute you with a "Plz go listen to da White Album".

- As for the 'music revolutionaries' tag, again, I wish to cite Wikipedia for all it's convenience and iconic status. I also refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_music_recording for further examples:

1. The song "Rain" has the first example of a backwards vocal. John Lennon had taken a tape of the song to his house to see what he could do with it and accidentally played it backwards, which he liked.

2. During the recording of "Eleanor Rigby" on 28 April 1966, McCartney said he wanted to avoid "Mancini" strings. (It is possible that Mantovani was actually the style that McCartney wanted to avoid.) To fulfil this brief, Geoff Emerick close-miked the strings � the microphones were almost touching the strings. George Martin had to instruct the players not to back away from the microphones.
In 1966, this was considered a radically new way of recording strings; nowadays it is common practice.

3. The song "I Feel Fine", recorded on 18 October 1964, starts with a feedback note tone produced by plucking the A-string on McCartney's bass guitar, which was picked up on Lennon's semi acoustic guitar. Speaking in his last interview � with the BBC's Andy Peebles � Lennon said this was the first use of feedback on a pop record. In The Beatles Anthology series, George Harrison said that the feedback started accidentally when a guitar was placed on an amplifier but that Lennon had worked out how to achieve the effect live on stage. In The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Mark Lewisohn states that all the takes of the song included the feedback so it can be presumed that this had happened during a rehearsal of "I Feel Fine".
Also in the Anthology series, the Beatles are shown performing "I Feel Fine" live at the New Musical Express awards. Lennon can be seen turning to face the guitar amplifiers during the guitar solo, presumably to get the feedback effect and also indicating that the feedback was not restricted to the start of the song.

And as 'popular culture revolutionaries' (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_popular_culture):

1. In the mid-1960s, the Beatles began filming promotional music videos for their songs, which they sent to television networks in lieu of appearing in person.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" was made in 1967. It used many techniques previously only seen in experimental film, including intricate jump-cuts that rapidly alternated between night and day, reversed film, and other avant-garde devices. These techniques were later copied and the use of such film and videos started the now common practice of releasing a video clip to accompany singles.

2. Prior to the Beatles' influence, record albums were of secondary consideration to singles ("45s") in mass marketing. Albums contained largely "filler" material (unexceptional songs) along with one or two hits. The Beatles rarely incorporated singles as part of their albums, thus defining the album as more important.

3. The Beatles were the first entertainment act to stage a large stadium concert. At Shea Stadium, New York City on Sunday, August 15, 1965 the group opened their 1965 North American tour to a record audience of 55,600. [7] It was the first concert to be held at a major outdoor stadium and set records for attendance and revenue generation, demonstrating that outdoor concerts on a large scale could be successful and profitable.

I leave my comment here, cheifly due to my doubt that anyone has bothered to read this far. If nothing else, I hope you've all realised the power of Wikipedia. Before you get on your high-horse, be sure you know your subject, or at least 'exert' yourself by browsing the archives of Wikipedia. "Ahhh the sweet smell of incredibility" you say. I can hear the desperate sound of fingers tapping away at keyboards already...

XO

dkos

dkos said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

Yeah sorry mate, way too long to read all of it, but I get it, you disagree with me. Kudos to you and those of your ilk.

CureMe

CureMe said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

i think you win an award for the longest post in history
i loved every word of it though.... and i usually hate everyone

emmawheatley

emmawheatley said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

Dude. That was awesome.

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

i want a sandwich.

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

haha remember on the simpsons
when homer has that band
and barney goes out with that yoko-esque girl
and they play a song and its a loop of her saying "number eight" and then followed by barney burping

classic.

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

As much as I love Something With Numbers, you just can't go past the Beatles.

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

I feel somewhat obliged to comment...
precisely the reason why I should not go through with said comment.

Firstly, to clarify a few matters (many of which will merely be reiterations):

- One should not remove credit where credit is due. Joseph Lister is (arguably) the founder of antiseptics. To pipe up with "Oh, but if he didn't, then someone else would have" is ludicrous, because the simple fact is, someone else didn't. HE founded antiseptics, so HE deserves the credit. As do The Beatles deserve credit for their contribution. (Should we no longer congratulate the winner of a race? After all, if they didn't win someone else would have?) Excuse me while I go console my sister, because HECK! If Einstein hadn't of developed the Theory of Relativity, then she would have!

- The Beatles didn't invent pop music. We all know that pop music was stolen from the black man. End.

PS Nothing is ever reallllly invented. All inventions stem from a previous discovery. The world - and the inventions/discoveries that occur within it - are in a constant state of flux.

- As for 'inoffensive', I wish to remind (or perhaps inform) your-lovely-selves of a few (non-exhaustive) instances that occurred throughout The Beatles career (for this, I choose to quote from Wikipedia, just to nudge my credibility). While these instances may not involve the raping of small children, they still suggest material of an offensive nature (always remember to process material within the context of the time it once existed):

1. "Will the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you, if you'll just rattle your jewelry."
* Royal Variety Performance in London (4 November 1963) attended by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and Princess Margaret. John had intended to say "fucking jewelry", but was persuaded against doing so by Paul McCartney and the group's manager Brian Epstein.

2. "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first � rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."
* One of the most controversial statements Lennon ever made, this was published in England's Evening Standard newspaper (4 March 1966) as part of an interview with writer Maureen Cleave. This single quote (taken out of context � Lennon was often misquoted as stating the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus") was to spark protests across the Bible Belt in America. Beatles records were burned en masse, and the Ku Klux Klan burned a Beatles effigy and nailed Beatles albums to a burning cross. The band members were dismissive of this, as they pointed out that first the people had to buy the albums in order to burn them.

3. Elvis Presley disapproved of The Beatles's anti-war activism and open use of drugs, later asking President Richard Nixon to ban all four members of the group from entering the United States. Peter Guralnick writes, "The Beatles, Elvis said, [...] had been a focal point for anti-Americanism. They had come to this country, made their money, then gone back to England where they fomented anti-American feeling." Guralnick adds, "Presley indicated that he is of the opinion that The Beatles laid the groundwork for many of the problems we are having with young people by their filthy unkempt appearances and suggestive music while entertaining in this country during the early and middle 1960s."

Look no farther than the 'intellectual goldmine' that is Wikipedia, and you may indeed find that The Beatles offended their share of high-profile figures; the Queen, the Lord (Jesus) and the King (Elvis).

And before anyone harks up with a royal "Yeh, well that jus provezzz that Da Beatlez were offensive ppls, but deir muzick is still inoffensive", I'll salute you with a "Plz go listen to da White Album".

- As for the 'music revolutionaries' tag, again, I wish to cite Wikipedia for all it's convenience and iconic status. I also refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_music_recording for further examples:

1. The song "Rain" has the first example of a backwards vocal. John Lennon had taken a tape of the song to his house to see what he could do with it and accidentally played it backwards, which he liked.

2. During the recording of "Eleanor Rigby" on 28 April 1966, McCartney said he wanted to avoid "Mancini" strings. (It is possible that Mantovani was actually the style that McCartney wanted to avoid.) To fulfil this brief, Geoff Emerick close-miked the strings � the microphones were almost touching the strings. George Martin had to instruct the players not to back away from the microphones.
In 1966, this was considered a radically new way of recording strings; nowadays it is common practice.

3. The song "I Feel Fine", recorded on 18 October 1964, starts with a feedback note tone produced by plucking the A-string on McCartney's bass guitar, which was picked up on Lennon's semi acoustic guitar. Speaking in his last interview � with the BBC's Andy Peebles � Lennon said this was the first use of feedback on a pop record. In The Beatles Anthology series, George Harrison said that the feedback started accidentally when a guitar was placed on an amplifier but that Lennon had worked out how to achieve the effect live on stage. In The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, Mark Lewisohn states that all the takes of the song included the feedback so it can be presumed that this had happened during a rehearsal of "I Feel Fine".
Also in the Anthology series, the Beatles are shown performing "I Feel Fine" live at the New Musical Express awards. Lennon can be seen turning to face the guitar amplifiers during the guitar solo, presumably to get the feedback effect and also indicating that the feedback was not restricted to the start of the song.

And as 'popular culture revolutionaries' (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles%27_influence_on_popular_culture):

1. In the mid-1960s, the Beatles began filming promotional music videos for their songs, which they sent to television networks in lieu of appearing in person.
"Strawberry Fields Forever" was made in 1967. It used many techniques previously only seen in experimental film, including intricate jump-cuts that rapidly alternated between night and day, reversed film, and other avant-garde devices. These techniques were later copied and the use of such film and videos started the now common practice of releasing a video clip to accompany singles.

2. Prior to the Beatles' influence, record albums were of secondary consideration to singles ("45s") in mass marketing. Albums contained largely "filler" material (unexceptional songs) along with one or two hits. The Beatles rarely incorporated singles as part of their albums, thus defining the album as more important.

3. The Beatles were the first entertainment act to stage a large stadium concert. At Shea Stadium, New York City on Sunday, August 15, 1965 the group opened their 1965 North American tour to a record audience of 55,600. [7] It was the first concert to be held at a major outdoor stadium and set records for attendance and revenue generation, demonstrating that outdoor concerts on a large scale could be successful and profitable.

I don't think anybody at any stage throughout this thread denied what the beatles did for the evolution of music so about 3/4 of your post was inane/unnecessary. Because the Beatles wrote a few songs with slightly offensive lyrics does not make them at all special. This is a band who came into being during Bob Dylan's career so they certainly don't deserve much credit for the rebellious songs which they did write. If you want to talk about the rebelliousness of the Beatles you probably should have mentioned something about their appearance, particularly their haircuts. Your precious little Wikipedia let you down there didn't it

In response to the inoffensive pop argument, just because they wrote those songs does not make them a protest band or anything of that nature. Just because Pink wrote that stupid Dear Mr President song doesn't make her a rebellious artist or make that god forsaken song a protest song. She is renowned for writing migraine inducing pop music about riding in her boyfriends car etc. Same goes for the Beatles. They are/were renowned for writing lyrics like "she loves you yeah yeah yeah" and "I want to hold your hand". They are renowned for being a cheesy pop band that write easy listening music that you wouldn't be scared to play in front of your parents.

In regards to the context argument, sure they did a hell of a lot and their music was mindblowing FOR THEIR TIME. Since this is a thread comparing and contrasting between modern artists (Thom Yorke) and artists from the 60's (Beatles) I think it should be noted that in comparison to the music which has evolved since their arrival the Beatles music is not half as mindblowing as what it once was. We can all talk about how great the Beatles were for their time and how they did amazing things for music but that's all they really deserve credit for. Sure they had primitive recording gear etc which denied them the access to the superior technology which today's artists do but when you judge them for their music alone in relation to the music produced by the bands since them, it is still bland, inoffensive and cheesy pop music which they are (and will continue to be) renowned for.

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

They Say Its Yer Birthday

theworldisround

theworldisround said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

I don't think anybody at any stage throughout this thread denied what the beatles did for the evolution of music so about 3/4 of your post was inane/unnecessary. Because the Beatles wrote a few songs with slightly offensive lyrics does not make them at all special. This is a band who came into being during Bob Dylan's career so they certainly don't deserve much credit for the rebellious songs which they did write. If you want to talk about the rebelliousness of the Beatles you probably should have mentioned something about their appearance, particularly their haircuts. Your precious little Wikipedia let you down there didn't it

In response to the inoffensive pop argument, just because they wrote those songs does not make them a protest band or anything of that nature. Just because Pink wrote that stupid Dear Mr President song doesn't make her a rebellious artist or make that god forsaken song a protest song. She is renowned for writing migraine inducing pop music about riding in her boyfriends car etc. Same goes for the Beatles. They are/were renowned for writing lyrics like "she loves you yeah yeah yeah" and "I want to hold your hand". They are renowned for being a cheesy pop band that write easy listening music that you wouldn't be scared to play in front of your parents.

In regards to the context argument, sure they did a hell of a lot and their music was mindblowing FOR THEIR TIME. Since this is a thread comparing and contrasting between modern artists (Thom Yorke) and artists from the 60's (Beatles) I think it should be noted that in comparison to the music which has evolved since their arrival the Beatles music is not half as mindblowing as what it once was. We can all talk about how great the Beatles were for their time and how they did amazing things for music but that's all they really deserve credit for. Sure they had primitive recording gear etc which denied them the access to the superior technology which today's artists do but when you judge them for their music alone in relation to the music produced by the bands since them, it is still bland, inoffensive and cheesy pop music which they are (and will continue to be) renowned for.

Ahem.
Music does evolve, BUT evolution doesn't necessarily translate to superiority. Superiority (most certainly in this case) is subjective, and as such shouldn't be addressed in what I presumed thus far to be an objective argument. Who has jurisdiction to state with authority that Radiohead are superior to The Beatles? Of course, we all have authority to comment that one band is superior to another in our own view. But to state with absolute authority that all music succeeding The Beatles is of a superior quality, is beyond ridiculous. Sure, with the advent of new technology, the equipment now available is superior to that available in the 1960's, but the 3 fundamental components of music - that is melody, harmony and rhythm - have gained no superiority (of note). The last significant progression in music was the invention of the synthesizer, which allowed rhythmic complexities and tonal elements that were previously unattainable. This, however, is example only of technological advance. In terms of the 3 fundamental elements of music, the last points of significance were Stravinsky's experimentation with rhythm (collage like assemblage of sound) and Schoenberg's 'serial music' (all 12 notes of the chromatic scale were assigned equal importance, resulting in a loss of key and tonality and also redefining traditonal harmony). Then of course, in terms of popular music, improvisation, timing and syncopation used in jazz music, etc. Major genre shifts, while providing progression in terms of sound (in a general sense might I add) are not keystones in the development of music's fundamental elements. They are merely stylistic changes, that cannot be determined in measures of superiority. Blah blah tangent blah. 1980's new-wave cannot be determined as superior to 1930's jazz. An artists's brushstroke today is no more superior than an artists brushstroke 500 years ago. Style has certainly evolved, but the fundamentals have been established for quite some time. End.

This argument, secondly, is not about myself labelling The Beatles as inoffensive. I was merely trying to open a few eyes; not, as you state, prove them to be a protest band. This, is another argument all together. The most powerful protests, at times, are those that remain defensive. And being offensive by no means entitles one to be labelled as special. It just adds that touch of pizazz that the youth can desperately cling to, and wrap themselves up in when the man stabs them in the back. Punk music was successful thanks to youthful desperation.

The reason I didn't mention their haircuts is plain and simple. Lord! Imagine the potential backlash I could have faced had I mentioned a musician's haircut as the essence of their influence? That would be a lesson in public shame. Such comments lack all sense of credibility (much like my precious Wikipedia). In addition, The Beatle's haircuts were not particularly offensive, in fact, when The Rolling Stones hit the market (with their long unruly locks) The Beatles were labelled as pretty boy conservatives, donning perfectly barbered hair and tailor-made suits.

Bland and cheesy are two words that The Beatles are hardly 'renowned' as being. Do veterans and critics of music celebrate The Beatles blandness? Are The Beatles noted in history books as famous for being cheesy? Again, subjective comments. Renowned is a statement that goes beyond minor opinion. It is a matter of major opinion, published opinion etc.

And as aside, I would remain content - if I were an artist - with the accolades of being mindblowing for my time and doing amazing things for music. I daresay few musicians today are awarded such praise (and from public haters no less!).

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

So basically in the essay you have written with your past two posts all you are saying is that they were amazing for their time and the rest comes down to personal opinion?

So we are back to square one, as is usually the way with discussions of music. If you analyse the way in which music arguements operate (personal opinion, context etc.) it takes the fun out of it and nobody can say anything of any worth because it comes down to personal opinion.

I understand the pain suffered by Dkos having a girlfriend that is a Beatlemaniac.

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 22nd Nov, 2007

the beatles are the most significant band of all time

CureMe

CureMe said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/11/normal_Abbey%20Desktop.jpg

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

the beatles are the most significant band of all time

i love beetles

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Nature/Beetles/DetroitJapaneseBeetles.jpg

disasterplan

disasterplan said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

A good song is a good song regardless of the technology through which it was recorded and produced.

It's also pretty frustrating how you seem to have no concept of the chronology and evolution of The Beatles and their sound. They started off writing the inoffensive pop tunes your argument clings to but you're ignoring the fact that, from Revolver onwards, they started deconstructing their own sound. And since we're talking about The Beatles in relation to Mr Yorke's comments, I'll parallel your ignorance with that of someone who judges Radiohead solely on Creep.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

stop Being So Serious All You Chums. Its Not The Great Fucking Debate

http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/politicsclub/Assets/debate.jpg

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

i heart ted walker

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

heart me. how sweet

emmawheatley

emmawheatley said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

i also heart vomit.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

your just jelious no one is your man beast, ha ha ha ha ha

MAN BEAST.........

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

Methinks you've missed the point.

Stop being serious??
Not every discussion on here is light-hearted and fun, you know.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

Methinks you've missed the point.

Stop being serious??
Not every discussion on here is light-hearted and fun, you know.

of course it is light hearted and fun. your just a doosh.

emmawheatley

emmawheatley said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

your just jelious no one is your man beast, ha ha ha ha ha

Fuck off slag.

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

Y-o-u-'-r-e.

D-o-u-c-h-e.

Just a reminder for next time, kay?

CureMe

CureMe said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

Y-o-u-'-r-e.

D-o-u-c-h-e.

Just a reminder for next time, kay?

this is a classic.... what has this forum become we are correcting spelling now!

Wow what fun we are all having ! LOL!

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

this is a classic.... what has this forum become we are correcting spelling now!

Wow what fun we are all having ! LOL!

I'm just not a fan of illiteracy, and tlkn lyk dis.

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

A good song is a good song regardless of the technology through which it was recorded and produced.

It's also pretty frustrating how you seem to have no concept of the chronology and evolution of The Beatles and their sound. They started off writing the inoffensive pop tunes your argument clings to but you're ignoring the fact that, from Revolver onwards, they started deconstructing their own sound. And since we're talking about The Beatles in relation to Mr Yorke's comments, I'll parallel your ignorance with that of someone who judges Radiohead solely on Creep.

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I am aware that the Beatles career didn't solely consist of simplistic pop music. But it is that music for which they are renowned. You said yourself that the the Beatles invented the pop rulebook. Now you wouldn't say the Beatles invented the rulebook on deconstructing your own sound now would you?

This argument is getting worse with DP saying they did start with inoffensive pop then went progressive, theworldisround telling me that they didn't write inoffensive pop and that I'm not allowed to claim that because Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it.

disasterplan

disasterplan said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

You seem to be missing what I'm saying. I am aware that the Beatles career didn't solely consist of simplistic pop music. But it is that music for which they are renowned. You said yourself that the the Beatles invented the pop rulebook. Now you wouldn't say the Beatles invented the rulebook on deconstructing your own sound now would you?

This argument is getting worse with DP saying they did start with inoffensive pop then went progressive, theworldisround telling me that they didn't write inoffensive pop and that I'm not allowed to claim that because Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it.

I'm not contributing to anyone else's argument. I'm just opposing yours. You're assuming that my argument has to be cohesive with the other arguments against you. Says who?

Now my main point isn't too hard to grasp. Their early albums defined a relatively standard pop sound and built their reputation... before their 1966+ material broke all those rules. I'm not going to start arguing in favour of them being the first to break the rules - that horse has been flogged already.

And to claim that they're renowned for their earlier pop material would be equally stupid. Ask anyone in the street to name a Beatles album and I'll bet my left testicle (but not my right - I like him) that 90% or more will name Revolver or something later. Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, Let it Be, Rubber Soul - none of their most famous releases fit in with the type of pop you got on With The Beatles etc.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

your a wanker boy. who gives a fuck if anyone spells wrong? or for the fact that douche sounds like a fucking wanker way. doosh is how its sounds so i think you better go here loser trooper

http://www.literaturejunction.com/ Go and join these forums. DOOSH

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

And to claim that they're renowned for their earlier pop material would be equally stupid. Ask anyone in the street to name a Beatles album and I'll bet my left testicle (but not my right - I like him) that 90% or more will name Revolver or something later. Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, Let it Be, Rubber Soul - none of their most famous releases fit in with the type of pop you got on With The Beatles etc.
I'd even say the post-66 Beatles are the best known- hell, the first Beatles song I ever heard as a kid was Octopus's Garden.

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

your a wanker boy. who gives a fuck if anyone spells wrong? or for the fact that douche sounds like a fucking wanker way. doosh is how its sounds so i think you better go here loser trooper

http://www.literaturejunction.com/ Go and join these forums. DOOSH

I'm sorry, are you drunk?

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

the beatles are ghey.

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

I'm not contributing to anyone else's argument. I'm just opposing yours. You're assuming that my argument has to be cohesive with the other arguments against you. Says who?

Now my main point isn't too hard to grasp. Their early albums defined a relatively standard pop sound and built their reputation... before their 1966+ material broke all those rules. I'm not going to start arguing in favour of them being the first to break the rules - that horse has been flogged already.

And to claim that they're renowned for their earlier pop material would be equally stupid. Ask anyone in the street to name a Beatles album and I'll bet my left testicle (but not my right - I like him) that 90% or more will name Revolver or something later. Sgt Pepper's, Abbey Road, Let it Be, Rubber Soul - none of their most famous releases fit in with the type of pop you got on With The Beatles etc.

I can see what you're saying but within those later releases they still had songs which were straight up pop music. You mentioned Revolver, that still had songs like Yellow Submarine and Eleanor Rigby on it. I would bet MY left nut that when you ask people on the street what sort of a band the Beatles were that 90% of them would say a pop band, not a pop band turned progressive band who deconstructed their sound.

As I mentioned earlier, you wouldn't call Nofx a ska band for releasing a few ska albums, you wouldn't call the Clash a pop band because they released a pop album and you wouldn't call Grinspoon a shit band even though their latest release is a pile of steaming turd.

ted_walker

ted_walker said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

As I mentioned earlier, you wouldn't call Nofx a ska band for releasing a few ska albums, you wouldn't call the Clash a pop band because they released a pop album and you wouldn't call Grinspoon a shit band even though their latest release is a pile of steaming turd.

Michael would probably call Grinspoon a shit band, actually, bad example :p

mooney88

mooney88 said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

the beatles were amazing

but i can see why he wouldnt want to work with paul.

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

i just don't see the purpose behind all this heated aggression about the beatles.

i personally find the sex pistols to not only be my favourite band, but the most significant band of my life and the era in which they were active (even though i was born 10 years after their album came out). i get fucking raped with responses about what a prefabricated pile of shit they were and that they are the most fake band yadi yadi yada.

but it doesn't matter to me! they're opinions! i'm not going to change my view just coz someone i don't know on a forum tells me something contrary to my beliefs (or even a close friend of mine).

some like the beatles. some don't. now lets go get a beer and rape some dogs.

disasterplan

disasterplan said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

I can see what you're saying but within those later releases they still had songs which were straight up pop music. You mentioned Revolver, that still had songs like Yellow Submarine and Eleanor Rigby on it. I would bet MY left nut that when you ask people on the street what sort of a band the Beatles were that 90% of them would say a pop band, not a pop band turned progressive band who deconstructed their sound.

As I mentioned earlier, you wouldn't call Nofx a ska band for releasing a few ska albums, you wouldn't call the Clash a pop band because they released a pop album and you wouldn't call Grinspoon a shit band even though their latest release is a pile of steaming turd.

The fact that people classify Sgt Pepper's etc as 'pop' is pretty much the final nail in your argument's coffin.

dream_vs_scream

dream_vs_scream said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

dkos

dkos said on the 23rd Nov, 2007

Yeah I suppose we lose.. :rolleyes:

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 24th Nov, 2007

beatles = shit.

oh i'm sorry, was this argument supposed to have ended ? ;)

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 24th Nov, 2007

I'm pretty sure the fact you said that The Sex Pistols are the greatest band of all time pretty much disqualifies you from saying anything bad about the Beatles.

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 24th Nov, 2007

oh yeh... well.. you.have.bad.hair!

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 24th Nov, 2007

...

WHAT did you say?

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 25th Nov, 2007

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 25th Nov, 2007

You take that BACK!

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 25th Nov, 2007

there are many things i won't take back MAB.

and one of them is that... damn it! you have beautiful eyes and your hair smells like cinnamon!

theworldisround

theworldisround said on the 26th Nov, 2007

So basically in the essay you have written with your past two posts all you are saying is that they were amazing for their time and the rest comes down to personal opinion?

So we are back to square one, as is usually the way with discussions of music. If you analyse the way in which music arguements operate (personal opinion, context etc.) it takes the fun out of it and nobody can say anything of any worth because it comes down to personal opinion.

I understand the pain suffered by Dkos having a girlfriend that is a Beatlemaniac.

The personal vendetta lives on!

I second this motion. Whole-heartedly.

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 26th Nov, 2007

there are many things i won't take back MAB.

and one of them is that... damn it! you have beautiful eyes and your hair smells like cinnamon!

Please, man, other thread?
Let's keep this strictly Beatles.

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 26th Nov, 2007

it's an addiction :(
with doctors and medicine and all that other stuff

CureMe

CureMe said on the 26th Nov, 2007

An example of some fine Beatles lyrics -

You better leave my kitten all alone,
you better leave my kitten all alone.
But I told you big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
You better leave my kitten all alone,
you better leave my kitten all alone.
This dog is gonna get you
if you don't leave her alone.
Well Mr.Dog I'm gonna hit you
on the top of your head.
That child is gonna miss you,
you gonna wish that you were dead.
If you don't leave my kitten all alone.
Well I told you big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
Well Mr.Dog I'm gonna hit you
on the top of your head.
That girl is gonna miss you,
you gonna wish that you were dead.
If you don't leave my kitten all alone, oh yeah.
Well I told you, big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
Hey hey you better leave, you better leave,
you better leave, yeah you better leave,
you better leave, oh you got to leave...

dream_brother

dream_brother said on the 26th Nov, 2007

inspiring stuff :S

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 26th Nov, 2007

That song was written in the very early sixties, cut some slack.
Besides, it's fun!

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 26th Nov, 2007

it's an addiction :(
with doctors and medicine and all that other stuff
Rehab.

tom_slater1

tom_slater1 said on the 1st Dec, 2007

Anyone doubting the Beatles' musical genius, listen to:

The medley at the end of Abbey Road
Eleanor Rigby (a fucking cool, also really sad song with perfectly creepy strings) and Got To Get You Into My Life from Revolver
Nowhere Man or Norwegian Wood from Rubber Soul
Within You Without You and Lonely Hearts Club Band from Sgt Peppers
While My Guitar Gently Sleeps, Rocky Raccoon, Birthday, Revolution and Happiness is a Warm Gun...in fact the whole White Album

None of that stuff is even close to a simple pop song. It's thoughtful, completely revolutionary, trippy, ridiculously musical and thoroughly unique (which I'm aware is a tautology). Even when they paraded out the simplistic stuff of their early years, it was still seen as threatening and risque - as lame as it seems now, parents were outraged that their hair was so long and that they drove kids crazy when they shook it.

The other, mind-blowingly amazing thing about The Beatles was that they were around for 7 years. That's it. They released 13 individual albums - which is two each year, except for 1977 which saw The White Album, which was a double LP anyway. In 7 years they created such a splash and changed so many people's lives that we're still talking about them almost 40 years later. Radiohead released 3 albums in their first 7 years. Doesn't compare. True, they made OK Computer, but The Beatles made 5 albums like that in 3 years.

el_boxer181

el_boxer181 said on the 2nd Dec, 2007

An example of some fine Beatles lyrics -

You better leave my kitten all alone,
you better leave my kitten all alone.
But I told you big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
You better leave my kitten all alone,
you better leave my kitten all alone.
This dog is gonna get you
if you don't leave her alone.
Well Mr.Dog I'm gonna hit you
on the top of your head.
That child is gonna miss you,
you gonna wish that you were dead.
If you don't leave my kitten all alone.
Well I told you big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
Well Mr.Dog I'm gonna hit you
on the top of your head.
That girl is gonna miss you,
you gonna wish that you were dead.
If you don't leave my kitten all alone, oh yeah.
Well I told you, big fat bulldog,
you better leave her alone.
Hey hey you better leave, you better leave,
you better leave, yeah you better leave,
you better leave, oh you got to leave...

ummmm are you 100% sure they wrote that???

MorningAfterboy

MorningAfterboy said on the 2nd Dec, 2007

It's on Anthology, but I don't know if they wrote it.

el_boxer181

el_boxer181 said on the 2nd Dec, 2007

They didnt write it :cool:

There are 11 more comments. View them all