|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 1:24:19 GMT -5
No Reply, you say, isn't upbeat? Hmmm. OK.
Put it this way, if I'm down I can safely listen to the Beatles without becoming more depressed... if the tune is upbeat, then you don't feel the impact of the words the same way... at least, I don't... and I also am a qualified musician.
Favorite album? Pre-66, couldn't possibly pick one... I love them all.
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 1:26:38 GMT -5
No Reply, you say, isn't upbeat? Hmmm. OK. Define upbeat. I'm getting the impression that you don't quite know what it means. Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 1:33:54 GMT -5
UPBEAT: Cheerful; optimistic
Courtesy Merriam-Webster
Don't forget, I was referring to the beat, not the lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 1:35:02 GMT -5
Yes, but No Reply? That has no sense of being an upbeat song at all. The vocals are very depressed and angry, and the instrumentation and notes have no upbeatness like I Saw Her Standing There, for instance. I mean, I've seen many Beatles fans with differing opinions, but the statement seems so... I can't even put a word to it. It baffles me.
Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 1:41:16 GMT -5
I see... well if you can dance to it, it's upbeat enough in my opinion. Perhaps there are different levels of "upbeatness".
I am reminded of that dance hit "Stars on 45"... What was the song it opened with again... oh, yeah... No Reply.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 26, 2005 8:30:31 GMT -5
Which is what makes this as closed-minded as people have called M4E!!!! "without-a-doubt" = "I am definitely not not not not not wrong about this" = can't see things beyond a one-way persepctive. With your opinions, I have to call you on "they wouldn't have split up." How many bands from the 60s split up? A lot. So say PID was false, they could have still easily split like other bands. Their best albums also seem to be made after Paul supposedly died. Sgt. Pepper, MMT, White Album, and Abbey Road, these being my favorite along with Rubber Soul. Why would their music suddenly maintain high order? This is one of the things that makes me a fence-sitter and currently unable to shift either way. Cheers, Umang Sure, that comes off sounding rather closed minded, but that's fine. The Beatles so-called history really doesn't make any sense until you figure in PID/PWR. Their excuse for not touring anymore was just plain stupid.... etc. etc. etc. Figure in PID & everything falls into place & makes perfect sense. I've been a Beatles fan for 40 of my 50+ yrs & Beatles history never made sense until I figured in PID..... So why would I want to take a step backwards for even a minute? I spent too many yrs there already. That would be a total waste of my imagination to ponder 67-70 Beatles WITH JPM. It would've been a totally different group. That's yer opinion about which albums are best & a few here will agree with ya.... personally, I think Let It Be & Abbey Rd are mostly crap. But that's beside the point. Whether pre-66 or post-66 stuff is better is really hard to say because they are like 2 different bands. So I don't see the point in comparing the 2 periods of Beatles music. That's like comparing apples & oranges. And their music did not suddenly maintain a higher order. It just changed.... drastically. And there was a lot more than drugs goin' on behind the scenes. You really can't say one period is better than the other. You didn't really mean to imply that the pre-66 stuff is not of the highest quality, did ya? Coz if ya did, most every music scolar on the earth would disagree with ya. Personally, I now much prefer the post-66 stuff because the lyrics & darker tone of the music makes so much more sense when you figure in PID, so I can enjoy the later stuff much more than before. It all falls into place. That's the way I like it.
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 9:31:52 GMT -5
Sure, that comes off sounding rather closed minded, but that's fine. The Beatles so-called history really doesn't make any sense until you figure in PID/PWR. Their excuse for not touring anymore was just plain stupid.... etc. etc. etc. And every music scholar on Earth would disagree with you there as well!!! The Beatles were the band that was getting screamed for, and if you CAN'T hear yourself with that primitive technology, you need to rectify the situation. The only solution would be to hold a finger to one's ear to hear your voice better, and that's hard to do when you're playing a guitar or piano or drums!!! Being a vocalist and an instrumentalist, I can tell you that when our band is taking a break and practicing individually, it's hard to hear yourself well without putting a finger to your ear, and that only works for Brass Players. Woodwinds and guitarists can't do that as well. So that "excuse" is entirely probable and plausible no matter how you look at it. And you have great taste That's your opinion. I'm with the millions of others that understand Beatle history just fine without PID. It makes so much sense it's unbelievable. I also, however, can understand like you -- WITH PID!!! Which makes me a fence-sitter. Another theory. Cool. But when you have an open mind and come in and go, "OK, regardless of PIA and PID, which has the more complex music, this and that this and that." it all comes down to post-66. Abbey Road is considered by most their definitive, best album. And I agree. 2 bands, another theory. I won't bother to argue since you firmly believe PID. Didn't really change. It was chaning since Help!. Got more complex during Help!, then a big turn for Rubber Soul, then many more studio effects for Revolver, and then full studio at Sgt. Pepper. Very gradual. I don't believe I came off that way. A better than B doesn't mean B is bad -- just that A is superior. Revolver and Rubber Soul are great. I really like discussing their albums with you! Perhaps we can turn this away from the PID -- PIA dispute and go toward looking at their music more, which is great to listen to and enjoy!! Cheers to eyesbleed, Umang
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 26, 2005 10:01:22 GMT -5
Sure, you never SAID it, but you implied it. "Overnight" meaning "suddenly" meaning "when he was replaced." So you're pretty much saying when he made his appearance in Nov/Dec of 1966, that's when the problems started, which is untrue. Cheers, Umang The point is(again : I never said November of 1966, which probably at the time Bill was having plastic surgery done and recovering from that. The problems in the band started as early as 1967 when they were spending time apart from each other. I'd say things changing 'overnight' is not an exaggeration considering the Beatles were together for 10 years before that! That's all fine but we have sections where you can discuss just the music. Remember this is a PID forum and the discussions here aren't likely to be 'comfortable' for many Beatles' fans. Regarding the discussion about the best Beatles album of all time, I'll agree many fans will pick the later albums like Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper. However I recently saw a special on VH1 where the musicians voted on the best Beatles album of all time and it was... Revolver, a JPM album. Perhaps they knew something.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 10:10:07 GMT -5
Right on, EB!
That's exactly how I feel about that, although I can't really say I prefer it, but I enjoy it much more now that I understand the meaning behind it.
Anyways, BOTJ, no offense, but post-66 stuff is closer to your generation, it's kinda natural that you would prefer it anyway.
And let's say a band redid a song from the 50's in the 70's and theirs is the first one I've heard, I will always prefer that to the "original". Likewise, if a new band comes along and tries to redo a classic, it usually sucks.
"Voodoo Chile" is one example that comes to mind. (My favorite Hendrix song!)
Imagine anyone thinking they could touch Hendrix with a 10 foot pole!
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Feb 26, 2005 10:57:33 GMT -5
So you're the Jonna I've heard about over at M4E (don't worry, I lurk there all the time). You obviously didn't read my introductory post -- I stated clearly that I'm a fence-sitter, AKA "Not a PIDDER or a PIAer." But M4E is right -- you certainly ain't tolerant, because you have falsely accused me of baiting. Cheers, Umang YES I AM THE JONNA YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT!! and no i'm not tolerant at all, its part of my charm. You had an introductory post? wow that makes you so special but honestly i really couldn't give a rats ass. You obviously haven't seen any of my posts. You see i'm here for one reason and one reason only, damage control. i don't care about whether anyone likes me or not, popularity is not my thing. Anyone that i suspect is here to damage this board is going to come face to face with me and right now your red flagged. I don't concern myself with whether you are PID or PIA but if your going to make statements as you did when i originally called you out then you better have something to back them up or state them as opinion. Its that simple. The rest of the mods on this forum will give you enough rope and i will hang. Keep the discussion respectful and you and i won't have a problem, bait people and i will ban you in a new york minute. I don't bother myself with little details like three strikes. You managed to catch me in a good mood (yes this is a good mood) so i suggest you take this polite warning and remember who's house your visiting.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 26, 2005 13:10:48 GMT -5
And every music scholar on Earth would disagree with you there as well!!! The Beatles were the band that was getting screamed for, and if you CAN'T hear yourself with that primitive technology, you need to rectify the situation. The only solution would be to hold a finger to one's ear to hear your voice better, and that's hard to do when you're playing a guitar or piano or drums!!! Being a vocalist and an instrumentalist, I can tell you that when our band is taking a break and practicing individually, it's hard to hear yourself well without putting a finger to your ear, and that only works for Brass Players. Woodwinds and guitarists can't do that as well. So that "excuse" is entirely probable and plausible no matter how you look at it. Well.... I only see one thing that I've got the energy to argue with right now. They had 2 excuses for not touring.... too much screaming & the music was too complex. In 68 every rock band out there was trying to write & sound like Sgt.P. & they all had to go out on the road & promote the new material. The REAL Beatles were music greats & would not of had any problems figuring out a way to reproduce it live. Believing that excuse really cuts them short. Touring is the lifeblood of most bands.... & The Beatles enjoyed being on the road (to a point) & all the partying & all the screaming fans. Also, by 67-68.... after all the controversy of 66, the screaming had died down somewhat anyway. The 68 crowds would've been different from the 64 crowds imo. And besides, I've spent a good chunk of time on stage performing songs while people are hootin' & hollerin' & moshin' & throwin' beer cans etc etc etc. Much smaller crowds, but still a hell of a lot of crazy **** goin' on all around me. So I think that excuse doesn't hold water any way ya look at it.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 26, 2005 13:18:47 GMT -5
That's your opinion. I'm with the millions of others that understand Beatle history just fine without PID. Millions of people except flimsy/stupid excuses for all sorts of things..... just watch the news on any given day. Just because millions of people accept it, doesn't automatically mean it holds water.
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 26, 2005 13:45:39 GMT -5
I really like discussing their albums with you! Perhaps we can turn this away from the PID -- PIA dispute and go toward looking at their music more, which is great to listen to and enjoy!! Thanks.... I'll just repeat Darkhorse & point to the big ol' "Fan Area" again. There's plenty of room around here for discussions that have nothing to do with PID/PWR/PIA. And there's plenty of major Beatle fans around here to discuss it with!
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 16:30:41 GMT -5
Well.... I only see one thing that I've got the energy to argue with right now. They had 2 excuses for not touring.... too much screaming & the music was too complex. In 68 every rock band out there was trying to write & sound like Sgt.P. & they all had to go out on the road & promote the new material. The REAL Beatles were music greats & would not of had any problems figuring out a way to reproduce it live. Believing that excuse really cuts them short. Touring is the lifeblood of most bands.... & The Beatles enjoyed being on the road (to a point) & all the partying & all the screaming fans. Also, by 67-68.... after all the controversy of 66, the screaming had died down somewhat anyway. The 68 crowds would've been different from the 64 crowds imo. And besides, I've spent a good chunk of time on stage performing songs while people are hootin' & hollerin' & moshin' & throwin' beer cans etc etc etc. Much smaller crowds, but still a hell of a lot of crazy **** goin' on all around me. So I think that excuse doesn't hold water any way ya look at it. Well, notice, they still did performances like All You Need Is Love, Hey Jude, and the Rooftop. It was just more contained so there would be no screaming and it'd be easier to play and hear each other. And I'm glad you perform!!! It's great, ain't it? However, try going up in front of 70,000 in Shea or prety big performances where thousands upon THOUSANDS are screaming -- it's nearly impossible, and it was only THE BEATLES that the massive screaming fans took notice and overwhelmed them. Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 16:32:45 GMT -5
Anyways, BOTJ, no offense, but post-66 stuff is closer to your generation, it's kinda natural that you would prefer it anyway. And let's say a band redid a song from the 50's in the 70's and theirs is the first one I've heard, I will always prefer that to the "original". Likewise, if a new band comes along and tries to redo a classic, it usually sucks. Good point, but I wanted to start chronologically, so I bought Please Please Me first and then worked my way up in the order of which they came out. All I saw was a big evolution, not a sudden drastic change, and it kinda started with Help! and took a bigger turn with Rubber Soul. Think about it -- Rubber Soul came out a YEAR after Hard Day's Night, and LOOK AT THE CHANGE!!! IMO, that was the overnight change, not Sgt. Pepper!!! Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 16:43:07 GMT -5
Good gracious... what do you see as being so different between those two??
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 16:44:43 GMT -5
Jonna, I'll just mention a few things:
1) Since when does an introductory post make you special? You're the one calling me out for not backing myself up, and really you just showed that YOU didn't because you didn't read the post which clearly stated I'm a fence-sitter. I've given props to some PID things here as well as called them. Should I be a yesman or one-track minded?
2) You're not too special either. You're an Internet Message Board Admin, which means in 150 years no one's gonna remember you or me or anyone else as we'll all be unfortunately dead with nothing but "Well, I at least was an internet admin" on our tombstone. So being abrasive doesn't really make me look at you as, "Oh dear, I better watch out." I ain't scared of you really. If you ban me, oh well, it's a message board. I was banned by somebody I don't know -- good heavens. And I don't care if YOU don't think your abrasiveness is OK and you don't care -- doesn't make you right. And you never will be there, no matter how much you try to convince yourself.
3) BTW, if you are gonna ban me, you can just tell me to leave, because I'm quite inclined not to come back and post if you are that interested in seeing that. I'm NOT here to damage the board, but if you really think so, a simple, "I'd prefer if you weren't here." will suffice and save you the trouble. I'll just make a, "Well, it's been fun. Farewell." post and move on. It's a message board -- threatening to ban me just makes me pity you, not make me scared of you. But I have a enough respect that I'll leave willingly if you make a post saying so.
4) I don't see me stating anything as facts. When you said I stated things as "incorrect" you told me to back myself up. Look at my post again -- the opening sentence said, "That's incorrect," which I guess you could argue should have been worded differently. But I backed myself RIGHT after that. So what's the deal?
Umang
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 17:00:20 GMT -5
Girl, I've never met anyone in the whole flipping universe that thought Rubber Soul sounded like Hard Day's Night. I'll try to show you, because imo there seriously is a huge difference:
Hard Day's Night is pop tunes galore -- I love you, you love me. The sounds there are very optimistic, very in your face, and I mean IN YOUR FACE (Hard Day's Night, I Shoulda Known Better, Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, Anytime At All, and ESPECIALLY Tell Me Why). The lyrics were ALL about love -- nothing too deep.
Then ONE YEAR LATER, Rubber Soul comes out, and poof, they've CHANGED. They gotten more pessimistic (Run For Your Life, I'm Looking Through You, You Won't See Me, Think For Yourself, Girl), George suddenly gets VERY good with lyrics and making his own music (If I Needed Someone, Think For Yourself), the lyrics get very deeper (Think For Yourself, Girl, IN MY LIFE, Nowhere Man), they start getting into more psychadelic sounding songs/lyrics (Nowhere Man), George learns sitar (Norwegian Wood), the sound is more laid back than Hard Day's Night... WAY MORE (the whole album), and their singles were WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY better -- We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper was incredible, and Day Tripper was a rocking drugs piece that was different lyrically and musically than other rockers like Hard Day's Night.
Rubber Soul seems ultimately where they made the big leap and change, not Sgt. Pepper.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 17:03:40 GMT -5
Regarding Rubber Soul, George Martin said: "Up until then we'd been making albums rather like a collection of singles."
(Which, let's face it, is just good marketing.)
"Now we were really beginning to think about albums as a bit of art on their own."
("Good marketing" no longer necessary, the Beatles name would sell itself)
Meaning to say a different mix, not so much a different style.
And I'll just point out that I think the two Beatles compilations, 62-66 red and 67-70 blue are divided up just right.
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 17:16:37 GMT -5
Regarding Rubber Soul, George Martin said: "Up until then we'd been making albums rather like a collection of singles." (Which, let's face it, is just good marketing.) "Now we were really beginning to think about albums as a bit of art on their own." ("Good marketing" no longer necessary, the Beatles name would sell itself) Meaning to say a different mix, not so much a different style. Okay, could you please respond to the points I MADE rather than that, because that really doesn't negate what I said and change how different the styles are. Don't use other quotes!! Use your own judgement! Please read what I said rather than pulling that, because you technically didn't even respond to my points, and I take the time to do that with you!!!!! Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Feb 26, 2005 17:18:04 GMT -5
Jonna, I'll just mention a few things: 1) Since when does an introductory post make you special? You're the one calling me out for not backing myself up, and really you just showed that YOU didn't because you didn't read the post which clearly stated I'm a fence-sitter. I've given props to some PID things here as well as called them. Should I be a yesman or one-track minded? actually i did read your intro. you stated you were a fence sitter who lurked. i do not believe that for a second. you have way too much to say for someone that sat quietly for so long. your reading too much into it. i never claimed to be special and this place doesnt' define who i am. its the very reason i really don't care one way or the other what anyone thinks of me. wonderful now your seeing things my way. door... ass... i'm sure you get the picture. i really don't have time to read your long winded posts and to be honest with you find them boring. and thats the deal Jonna
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 17:21:48 GMT -5
wonderful now your seeing things my way. door... ass... i'm sure you get the picture. Ah, the great important Jonna tries to act cool and fails. But I do get it. The "it's been fun" post awaits. Cheers, Umang
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Feb 26, 2005 17:24:49 GMT -5
not trying to act cool. just telling it like it is. love to see your farewell. will take great pleasure in deleting it bu bye now
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 17:30:20 GMT -5
Oh no, my Farewell will be an "It's been fun." not a "f*ck you Jonna" one. I'm not that horrid =P. Anyway, time to start it anyway.
Cheers, Umang
P.S. You still don't realize that it's not about people liking you -- it's about fairness. I never came to damage anything, but too late for that.
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Feb 26, 2005 17:42:14 GMT -5
what no fuck you jonna thread? oh and i was so looking forward to it too
|
|