- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/20/16 at 10:41 pm to HeadyBrosevelt
quote:
A Beatles reunion could have easily happened
Not a chance. They never played live. Didn't like it and didn't like each other.
Their last great album was 1970.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 9:55 am to WhopperDawg
You can blame their management at the time for the band's reluctance to perform any more...their concerts were budgeted on the cheap so much, the conditions to play in were atrocious. That was actually the bigger factor why they stopped playing live. Once they all went their separate ways & played solo gigs, it's plausible that they eventually could've come around and performed again, this time doing it on their own terms...
Posted on 12/21/16 at 11:28 am to Pettifogger
quote:
We'll have to see what has staying power 50 years later as we go forward.
have you read chuck klosterman, but what if we were wrong? You might like it, he spends a few chapters on this exact topic. basically he said chuck berry and/or dylan will be who is remebered.
ANd I don't think of montreal will be remembered. I just thought that story was funny.
If I was going to guess what rock band will the most likely to be remembered, I would go with pink floyd or led zep. Teens are still getting into those bands, where as I don't think they are with the beatles.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 12:24 pm to Upslope
No and a lot of great musicians were influenced by the Beatles.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 3:02 pm to Upslope
The level of influence they accomplished in 7-8 years is earth shattering. Never will their be and never has their been anything like it. The Beatles, while they made good music, were so much bigger than just a band or just an album, it was a revolution (pun maybe intended).
Posted on 12/21/16 at 4:22 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
have you read chuck klosterman, but what if we were wrong? You might like it, he spends a few chapters on this exact topic. basically he said chuck berry and/or dylan will be who is remebered.
I would agree with that, but I think the Beatles will too. Too much cultural impact.
quote:
ANd I don't think of montreal will be remembered. I just thought that story was funny.
I know, I'm just sticking with the theme
quote:
If I was going to guess what rock band will the most likely to be remembered, I would go with pink floyd or led zep. Teens are still getting into those bands, where as I don't think they are with the beatles.
Maybe. Pink Floyd and the Doors are more of a shallow exploration for most teens IMO. I think there is some iconic power there, perhaps exceeding LZ, but LZ will continue to have a far greater impact on musically minded teenagers, IMO.
I think the Beatles popularity works against them with young people. But they'll probably always know the songs.
Posted on 12/21/16 at 4:40 pm to Upslope
Likely underrated by millennials and younger.
Their influence was deeper than just using new instruments, arrangements, production, etc. They lifted everyone else to new heights.
David Crosby has alluded to this.. they and others would never have been so motivated without the Beatles around to set the standard.
Their influence was deeper than just using new instruments, arrangements, production, etc. They lifted everyone else to new heights.
David Crosby has alluded to this.. they and others would never have been so motivated without the Beatles around to set the standard.
This post was edited on 12/21/16 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 12/21/16 at 7:31 pm to Upslope
In no way, but you would know that had you lived back in those days.
When I was 5 years old in 1964 I knew who the Beatles were and bought with my own money, that back in the day 1 cent was worth much, and a nickel was lots of money. Introducing... The Beatles was the first album released in the US, still have my copy all these years later.
I will tell you I did not buy the Baby doll cover from Sear because I did not like the cover, my cousin still has her copy; she and I were big Beatle fans in the family. ps side note I bought a German GI JOE that night instead of the Beatles.
I have copies of all the Beatle albums on CD now.
If you saw the side by side show of the Beatle doing I want to hold your Hand on Ed Live with the practice tape a few days before you will see why they were the best.
When I was 5 years old in 1964 I knew who the Beatles were and bought with my own money, that back in the day 1 cent was worth much, and a nickel was lots of money. Introducing... The Beatles was the first album released in the US, still have my copy all these years later.
I will tell you I did not buy the Baby doll cover from Sear because I did not like the cover, my cousin still has her copy; she and I were big Beatle fans in the family. ps side note I bought a German GI JOE that night instead of the Beatles.
I have copies of all the Beatle albums on CD now.
If you saw the side by side show of the Beatle doing I want to hold your Hand on Ed Live with the practice tape a few days before you will see why they were the best.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 2:21 am to Upslope
I don't think so. I'm not the biggest Beatles fan but recognize how they changed the game forever.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:34 am to Upslope
No, and I'll tell you why.
They wrote their own music and evolved their style constantly, and everything was really good. Most pop stars have teams of writers and producers in cubicles creating their music and professional studio musicians filling in for recording. They did it themselves with limited help. That run of absolute excellence lasted for more than ten years.
That is about the most rare and amazing run ever.
And the music has held up for more than 40 years. That is also extremely rare.
They wrote their own music and evolved their style constantly, and everything was really good. Most pop stars have teams of writers and producers in cubicles creating their music and professional studio musicians filling in for recording. They did it themselves with limited help. That run of absolute excellence lasted for more than ten years.
That is about the most rare and amazing run ever.
And the music has held up for more than 40 years. That is also extremely rare.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:38 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Pink Floyd and the Doors are more of a shallow exploration for most teens IMO. I think there is some iconic power there, perhaps exceeding LZ, but LZ will continue to have a far greater impact on musically minded teenagers, IMO.
But most of that stuff hasn't held up. I heard a Pink Floyd song on the radio the other day and I cringed. Same for the Doors. It just makes me wonder whether I actually liked them back in the day or whether it was nothing other than the availability of cheap drugs that made it seem meaningful.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 9:59 am to TBoy
quote:
But most of that stuff hasn't held up. I heard a Pink Floyd song on the radio the other day and I cringed. Same for the Doors. It just makes me wonder whether I actually liked them back in the day or whether it was nothing other than the availability of cheap drugs that made it seem meaningful.
Yeah, and that's what I'm saying. I'm not gonna shite on either, but neither had any significant impact on me when I was really developing as a listener (and more so then, not so much now) a musician. It was cool to revere Morrison, but I never actually did.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 11:55 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Maybe. Pink Floyd and the Doors are more of a shallow exploration for most teens IMO. I think there is some iconic power there, perhaps exceeding LZ, but LZ will continue to have a far greater impact on musically minded teenagers, IMO.
I think the Beatles popularity works against them with young people. But they'll probably always know the songs.
read that chuck klosterman book. it discusses this.
Could you think of any music your grandparents listened to? All i got is herb alpert, and paw paw liked it only due to the cover.
I think we over estimate what people in the future will remember, and I think the beatles won't be the face of a generation.
eta: if you give me your email, I will shoot you a copy of the book. its worthy of a read. one of my bookclub's read it and it was one of the liveliest discussions we have had.
This post was edited on 12/22/16 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 12/22/16 at 12:18 pm to Upslope
John Lennon is. The rest aren't.
Posted on 12/22/16 at 12:21 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
read that chuck klosterman book. it discusses this.
Could you think of any music your grandparents listened to? All i got is herb alpert, and paw paw liked it only due to the cover.
I think we over estimate what people in the future will remember, and I think the beatles won't be the face of a generation.
Ok I will
And I'm sure the book addresses it, but it's hard to compare eras when one of them didn't have recorded music on anything close to the level of the 50s onward.
With the exception of EDM, we've been relatively steady since the 50s and 60s when it comes to instrumentation, and predominant ones now (electric guitar and bass) weren't around in any significant numbers in the period you reference. They're still pretty prevalent today, and I think that will allow for better continuity.
Further, the concept of songwriting and performance is far more prevalent now, as is the concept of the group performance.
I suppose I don't have to mention who or what contributed heavily to the influence of most of these concepts...
Posted on 12/22/16 at 12:38 pm to Pettifogger
it most certainly addresses the time period issue.
I think this might be an era where you are a bit out of touch. Rock isn't dead by any means, but its definitely dying. turn on the radio, or go to a music festival. And sure you see rock, but its mostly hip hop, EDM or mindless Pop. While I am sure some intruments are used at some point, its mostly synth.
I am not saying the beatles will be forgotten, nor that they suck. They will be a big influence for generations, but rock is slowly moving to the way people perceive jazz.
quote:
With the exception of EDM, we've been relatively steady since the 50s and 60s when it comes to instrumentation, and predominant ones now (electric guitar and bass) weren't around in any significant numbers in the period you reference. They're still pretty prevalent today, and I think that will allow for better continuity.
Further, the concept of songwriting and performance is far more prevalent now, as is the concept of the group performance.
I suppose I don't have to mention who or what contributed heavily to the influence of most of these concepts...
I think this might be an era where you are a bit out of touch. Rock isn't dead by any means, but its definitely dying. turn on the radio, or go to a music festival. And sure you see rock, but its mostly hip hop, EDM or mindless Pop. While I am sure some intruments are used at some point, its mostly synth.
I am not saying the beatles will be forgotten, nor that they suck. They will be a big influence for generations, but rock is slowly moving to the way people perceive jazz.
Posted on 12/23/16 at 5:14 pm to Pettifogger
Grandparents listened to?
Sure.
Sinatra. Got quite a few of his albums.
Sure.
Sinatra. Got quite a few of his albums.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News