Its rather ironic with some of the best solos by the beatles george didnt play them WMGGW (eric c)Taxman (macca) good morning (macca) lead guitar on ticket to ride (macca) you cant do that (john)all 3 traded solos on the end (paul, george, john in that order) get back (john)i always thought george refrained himself too much listen to any of the hamburg stuff he could let rip i.e the cover of too much monkey business (live at the bbc) or some other guy but what he did he did perfect i mean the solo on nowhere man (which is brians top solos)isnt terribly difficult but fits the song perfectly & whoever put roger & john l above george h is taking the piss
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Regarding "jacks of all trades": Indeed, they're extraordinary songwriters, and good enough to play (for the most part) and sing what they've written.
Regarding Brian on 'Anato', how many instruments did he actually play there? Guitars, piano (on the demo of 'God Save the Queen') and baritone ukelele. Koto: less than ten seconds if we sum it up. Harp: less than ten seconds and entirely copy-n'-pasted. So it's not *that* impressive IMO. What *is* absolutely superb is how astonishing his contributions as guitarist, singer, songwriter, producer and arranger were on that album and many others.
Regarding Brian on 'Anato', how many instruments did he actually play there? Guitars, piano (on the demo of 'God Save the Queen') and baritone ukelele. Koto: less than ten seconds if we sum it up. Harp: less than ten seconds and entirely copy-n'-pasted. So it's not *that* impressive IMO. What *is* absolutely superb is how astonishing his contributions as guitarist, singer, songwriter, producer and arranger were on that album and many others.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]maxpower wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Its rather ironic with some of the best solos by the beatles george didnt play them WMGGW (eric c)Taxman (macca) good morning (macca) lead guitar on ticket to ride (macca) you cant do that (john)all 3 traded solos on the end (paul, george, john in that order) get back (john)i always thought george refrained himself too much listen to any of the hamburg stuff he could let rip i.e the cover of too much monkey business (live at the bbc) or some other guy but what he did he did perfect i mean the solo on nowhere man (which is brians top solos)isnt terribly difficult but fits the song perfectly & whoever put roger & john l above george h is taking the piss[/QUOTE]
Er.. that was me. And frankly I'm ashamed of I myself and must have been on crack when I wrote that.
New Guitar list:
1) Brian
2) Daylight
3) Paul
4) John L
5) George
6) Roger
7) John D
8) Freddie
Oh and as for keyboards, I deliberately left Billy Preston out as he was only really helping them out for one record. If I was to include him he'd go straight to the top (sorry Freddie).
And whoever said that Roger was a lousy bass player - how would they even know??
Er.. that was me. And frankly I'm ashamed of I myself and must have been on crack when I wrote that.
New Guitar list:
1) Brian
2) Daylight
3) Paul
4) John L
5) George
6) Roger
7) John D
8) Freddie
Oh and as for keyboards, I deliberately left Billy Preston out as he was only really helping them out for one record. If I was to include him he'd go straight to the top (sorry Freddie).
And whoever said that Roger was a lousy bass player - how would they even know??
As for Billy Preston - If we count him, we should count George Martin, Fred Mandel, David Richards, Spike Edney and perhaps even David Bowie.
As for Roger on bass - listen to 'Sheer Heart Attack', 'Fight From The Inside' or his solo albums: nice bass lines, poor bass playing.
As for Roger on bass - listen to 'Sheer Heart Attack', 'Fight From The Inside' or his solo albums: nice bass lines, poor bass playing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zebonka, I was talking about their abilities on various instruments. Which was what Sebastian was discussing.[/QUOTE]
I understood that much, but what's the sense in limiting the discussion to that? It's only a part of being a musician!!
I understood that much, but what's the sense in limiting the discussion to that? It's only a part of being a musician!!
@Zebonka. I was not "limiting" my discussion. That was one of many points discussed in this thread.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]@Zebonka. I was not "limiting" my discussion. That was one of many points discussed in this thread.[/QUOTE]
So why explain to me what you were discussing in the first place??? ..... wait. I'm freakin' lost now. I dunno where this was or is headed, I was merely bringing up that 'jack of all trades' implies.. well... all trades. Which in music, isn't just limited to the playing of the instruments.
It may not have been the original topic, but it's really quite relevant.
Anyway!
So why explain to me what you were discussing in the first place??? ..... wait. I'm freakin' lost now. I dunno where this was or is headed, I was merely bringing up that 'jack of all trades' implies.. well... all trades. Which in music, isn't just limited to the playing of the instruments.
It may not have been the original topic, but it's really quite relevant.
Anyway!
this whole thread is subjective
beatles...four/eight track recording with george martin doing the tricky stuff
queen....24/48 tracks of recording with roy thomas baker, mike stone, mack etc etc doing their bits
i don;t see that queen win this one...they had 16 times the recording space to work with...
listen to A Day in the Life or abbey road on 8 track recording and tell me honestly it isn't as good
beatles...four/eight track recording with george martin doing the tricky stuff
queen....24/48 tracks of recording with roy thomas baker, mike stone, mack etc etc doing their bits
i don;t see that queen win this one...they had 16 times the recording space to work with...
listen to A Day in the Life or abbey road on 8 track recording and tell me honestly it isn't as good
Why ask this on Queenzone?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]JasonD. wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why ask this on Queenzone?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]~-:Moet et Chandon:-~ wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
@Ramirez: thank you. By the way, I'm Vinesh. It's been nice talking to you too!
I think I "sort-of" agree with your hypothesis. In contrast to the original post I made, I do in fact think that the most important aspect of music is: how good does it sound. However, this is not all there is to it.
Over the years I've found that my taste in music is moulded by my knowledge of theoretical/technical aspects of music. It doesn't determine it entirely, but it certainly influences it greatly. As one's taste develops, some music becomes either abandoned or an occasional "cheap thrill" -- e.g. in my case, the majority of the commercial music that pollutes MTV!
I can identify with your example of country music.
However, with a song like "Misfire", I'm not sure if it's a case of evolving taste. I've listened to the song countless times, and each time I conclude that musically, it's pretty darn boring. There ARE songs that I love which I also think are not musically meritorious, but those I suspect are not the sort of songs that I'd still love a few years down the line. On the other hand -- I'm sick as hell of some songs, be it a Queen number or a Beethoven composition, and yet with each listening I can still say "ah, this is a fine piece of music!"
I guess, if one listened endlessly to cheap commercial pop (a la Paris Hilton), then one may well start to like it. Doesn't mean, though, that there's not more stimulating music out there! [/QUOTE]
You have got to be the most logical person I've ever had the fortune in talking to on Queenzone. I sincerely mean that!
Just to wrap this up I'd like to say that I definetly agree with everything you wrote. I suppose my theory mainly works for people going into different musical categories (such as someone starting to accept country or baroque).
The whole idea of disliking a song like Misfire due to it's musical structure is acceptable. I can only speak for myself when I say that every single Queen song has impressed me. I remember a time when I despised She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettoes), however within a matter of months I gradually became more fond of it. I don't know why, and I guess I'm still not in love with it's musical content, but maybe it's the lyrics that I fell in love with. Lyrics have always been an important aspect in the music that we listen to, it makes sense right? So, perhaps (and this is only a speculation) one day you'll enjoy Misfire more thoroughly due to the meaning of the song rather than it's musical content. We all go through changes in our lives and some of us look for comfort through that which we listen to. I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's just a theory. Basically, I just don't feel that you can always dislike a certain song...eventually you (and everybody else) might learn to enjoy whatever it is.
However, in the same respect, what you're saying is also correct. Basically, it's 50/50. We're both right. That's my conclusion and as of now this topic feels concluded. I can't see how we could continue this discussion...unless you have something else to add I'm finished.
It's been nice talking to you, Vinesh! I hope to talk to you soon actually, it was enjoyable for me!
~Take care~
Ramirez
@Ramirez: thank you. By the way, I'm Vinesh. It's been nice talking to you too!
I think I "sort-of" agree with your hypothesis. In contrast to the original post I made, I do in fact think that the most important aspect of music is: how good does it sound. However, this is not all there is to it.
Over the years I've found that my taste in music is moulded by my knowledge of theoretical/technical aspects of music. It doesn't determine it entirely, but it certainly influences it greatly. As one's taste develops, some music becomes either abandoned or an occasional "cheap thrill" -- e.g. in my case, the majority of the commercial music that pollutes MTV!
I can identify with your example of country music.
However, with a song like "Misfire", I'm not sure if it's a case of evolving taste. I've listened to the song countless times, and each time I conclude that musically, it's pretty darn boring. There ARE songs that I love which I also think are not musically meritorious, but those I suspect are not the sort of songs that I'd still love a few years down the line. On the other hand -- I'm sick as hell of some songs, be it a Queen number or a Beethoven composition, and yet with each listening I can still say "ah, this is a fine piece of music!"
I guess, if one listened endlessly to cheap commercial pop (a la Paris Hilton), then one may well start to like it. Doesn't mean, though, that there's not more stimulating music out there! [/QUOTE]
You have got to be the most logical person I've ever had the fortune in talking to on Queenzone. I sincerely mean that!
Just to wrap this up I'd like to say that I definetly agree with everything you wrote. I suppose my theory mainly works for people going into different musical categories (such as someone starting to accept country or baroque).
The whole idea of disliking a song like Misfire due to it's musical structure is acceptable. I can only speak for myself when I say that every single Queen song has impressed me. I remember a time when I despised She Makes Me (Stormtrooper in Stilettoes), however within a matter of months I gradually became more fond of it. I don't know why, and I guess I'm still not in love with it's musical content, but maybe it's the lyrics that I fell in love with. Lyrics have always been an important aspect in the music that we listen to, it makes sense right? So, perhaps (and this is only a speculation) one day you'll enjoy Misfire more thoroughly due to the meaning of the song rather than it's musical content. We all go through changes in our lives and some of us look for comfort through that which we listen to. I'm not saying it's a fact, but it's just a theory. Basically, I just don't feel that you can always dislike a certain song...eventually you (and everybody else) might learn to enjoy whatever it is.
However, in the same respect, what you're saying is also correct. Basically, it's 50/50. We're both right. That's my conclusion and as of now this topic feels concluded. I can't see how we could continue this discussion...unless you have something else to add I'm finished.
It's been nice talking to you, Vinesh! I hope to talk to you soon actually, it was enjoyable for me!
~Take care~
Ramirez
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]beatles...four/eight track recording with george martin doing the tricky stuff
queen....24/48 tracks of recording with roy thomas baker, mike stone, mack etc etc doing their bits[/QUOTE]
Yes and no ... you can have all the machines in the world and yet they won't compose a track. So, from a songwriting point of view, there's no excuse. And Beatles' were horribly underrated in that matter: most people tend to think of them as "three-chord numbers written for and by rookie musicians", which is far from the truth.
Check out the (extremely unusual) modulation in 'Do You Want To Know A Secret?' and the astonishing way it's executed, analyse John's, George's and especially Paul's effortless skill for parallel key-changes (Brian May's another genius at that, and I'm sure he'd agree they greatly influenced him in that matter), the clever 3+4 (or 3+2+2) phrasing in 'Yesterday' (a song which is far from being "common" in both harmony and structure), the unpredictable form in 'Rich Man' or 'Onion', the tricky functional harmony in 'Because' or 'Dr Robert', the polyrhythm in 'Warm Gun', the change of metre in 'Work It Out' and 'Here Comes The Sun'... and all of those things aren't at all done by outsiders, it's all John, Paul and/or George.
Yes, a tracks like 'Bo Rhap' is beyond them as songwriters (in terms of complexity), and certainly beyond Roger, Brian and Deacy as well, but it doesn't mean they were "not as good" as composers. It's just one of the many points involved.
But at the end of the day, Paul, George and John Lennon were extraordinary songwriters, probably the best in their genre. No wonder why people like Rick Wakeman, Benny Andersson and the Queen lads themselves admire and respect them that much.
queen....24/48 tracks of recording with roy thomas baker, mike stone, mack etc etc doing their bits[/QUOTE]
Yes and no ... you can have all the machines in the world and yet they won't compose a track. So, from a songwriting point of view, there's no excuse. And Beatles' were horribly underrated in that matter: most people tend to think of them as "three-chord numbers written for and by rookie musicians", which is far from the truth.
Check out the (extremely unusual) modulation in 'Do You Want To Know A Secret?' and the astonishing way it's executed, analyse John's, George's and especially Paul's effortless skill for parallel key-changes (Brian May's another genius at that, and I'm sure he'd agree they greatly influenced him in that matter), the clever 3+4 (or 3+2+2) phrasing in 'Yesterday' (a song which is far from being "common" in both harmony and structure), the unpredictable form in 'Rich Man' or 'Onion', the tricky functional harmony in 'Because' or 'Dr Robert', the polyrhythm in 'Warm Gun', the change of metre in 'Work It Out' and 'Here Comes The Sun'... and all of those things aren't at all done by outsiders, it's all John, Paul and/or George.
Yes, a tracks like 'Bo Rhap' is beyond them as songwriters (in terms of complexity), and certainly beyond Roger, Brian and Deacy as well, but it doesn't mean they were "not as good" as composers. It's just one of the many points involved.
But at the end of the day, Paul, George and John Lennon were extraordinary songwriters, probably the best in their genre. No wonder why people like Rick Wakeman, Benny Andersson and the Queen lads themselves admire and respect them that much.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=FF0033 face=symbol>Freddie wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We can all say that The Beatles were legendary, therefore they have to be the better of the two. Or we could all say Queen improved what The Beatles were trying to do, therefore they're the better of the two. It's an on going war between two sides.[/QUOTE]
In that case, there are three sides:
In my opinion, The Beatles were the batter band, not because they were the first, or because they are legendary, but because their overall output had an overall higher "quality" (IMO).
I really hate it when The Beatles are being reduced to just being legendary, their music holds up as well today, as when it was recorded (again IMO).
In that case, there are three sides:
In my opinion, The Beatles were the batter band, not because they were the first, or because they are legendary, but because their overall output had an overall higher "quality" (IMO).
I really hate it when The Beatles are being reduced to just being legendary, their music holds up as well today, as when it was recorded (again IMO).