Andre Jute wrote:

So as not to disturb my family, sleeping on the floors below me, I
took the disc box from the top. It turned out to be my rock'n'roll
collection, which is pretty modest at about 250 discs or sets. Putting
in my hand with closed eyes, taking potluck, grabbing a handful of
discs, I came out with six discs:

British Beat before the Beatles, organized by years, 1956 to 1962
inclusive, EMI compilation issued 1993. My God, there was some raw
talent back then! Alma Cogan, Frankie Vaughan, The Southlanders,
Lonnie Donegan, Humphry Lyttleton, all just off the 1956 disc. The
Beatles, by comparison, are homogenized, sanitized; in retrospect they
remind me of nothing so much as Euro-vegetables: universal, bland, pre-
pureed, the perfect chinese taste (right after you finish listening
you want real music).

Andre Jute
"The noted vacuum tube hi-fi designer, cyclist, music collector and
critic, author, economist, psychologist, soldier and advisor to
statesmen worldwide has made his home in the vicinity for many years."
-- from his hometown's website, contributed by wreck.audio admirers

I have a friend who was given the task of re-engineering some beach boy
tunes . He had the pleasure of working with the original tape masters.
As a favor to me , he recorded a cd of the boys sans back-up.
The beach boys could sing. And they harmonized chillingly well.
Knock the california surf sound if you must, but it had its time and
place in music history.

As for the Beatles...... Sorry my friend. They may have been limp at
first, but their music was composed well and 45 years later still is a
joy too listen too.
Mike Mueller

In article ,
mike mueller wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

So as not to disturb my family, sleeping on the floors below me, I
took the disc box from the top. It turned out to be my rock'n'roll
collection, which is pretty modest at about 250 discs or sets. Putting
in my hand with closed eyes, taking potluck, grabbing a handful of
discs, I came out with six discs:

British Beat before the Beatles, organized by years, 1956 to 1962
inclusive, EMI compilation issued 1993. My God, there was some raw
talent back then! Alma Cogan, Frankie Vaughan, The Southlanders,
Lonnie Donegan, Humphry Lyttleton, all just off the 1956 disc. The
Beatles, by comparison, are homogenized, sanitized; in retrospect they
remind me of nothing so much as Euro-vegetables: universal, bland, pre-
pureed, the perfect chinese taste (right after you finish listening
you want real music).

Andre Jute
"The noted vacuum tube hi-fi designer, cyclist, music collector and
critic, author, economist, psychologist, soldier and advisor to
statesmen worldwide has made his home in the vicinity for many years."
-- from his hometown's website, contributed by wreck.audio admirers

I have a friend who was given the task of re-engineering some beach boy
tunes . He had the pleasure of working with the original tape masters.
As a favor to me , he recorded a cd of the boys sans back-up.
The beach boys could sing. And they harmonized chillingly well.
Knock the california surf sound if you must, but it had its time and
place in music history.

As for the Beatles...... Sorry my friend. They may have been limp at
first, but their music was composed well and 45 years later still is a
joy too listen too.
Mike Mueller

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:
1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.
2. Rock solid rhythm. I think that there is a lot to be critical of in
Ringo's drumming (fills in weird places, for example), but he's like a
freaking digital clock. So is Paul on bass. Unconventional style?
Sure. But SUPER aware of time.
3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

Jenn said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

Was he the original drummer? Forgive my ignorance of Beatles trivia.
I can't wait for Jeopardy to start up again.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

This'll help you catch up:

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/...notes_on.shtml

3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

Was he the original drummer? Forgive my ignorance of Beatles trivia.
I can't wait for Jeopardy to start up again.

He knew Goons.

Stephen

MiNe 109 said:

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

This'll help you catch up:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/...notes_on.shtml

kee-rist!

"In 1989 the American musicologist Alan W. Pollack started to analyze
the songs of the Beatles. He published his first results on internet.
In 1991 — after he had finished the work on 28 songs — he bravely
decided to do the whole lot of them. About ten years later, in 2000
he completed the analysis of the official Beatles' canon, consisting
of 187 songs and 25 covers."

"What's wrong with this picture?" asked the student of the master. The
student wondered what on earth would motivate the author of the above-
referenced page to characterize the burrowing behavior of a compulsive
Beatles freak as "brave". The student shook his head at the
characterization of an oeuvre that includes "Good Day Sunshine", "Day
Tripper", and other vapid exercising in empty rhyming as a "canon". The
student closed the book before contemplating how much an "analysis" of
lyrics like "yeah yeah yeah" could yield in the way of insight.

The master held a grim silence, fixing a beady stare on the student
throughout his sacreligious assault. No words of enlightenment issued
from the master, and P. McCartney got another divorce while penning such
immortal classics as "Jet".

Goodnight, Mr. Pollack. A person of healthy mind does not refer to
himself in the third person. George is getting upset!

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:
Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a
success for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

So you don't like The Beatles and Dylan.

Your loss.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dork The Plowborg said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a
success for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

So you don't like The Beatles and Dylan.

Untrue. Nobody likes you, though -- you can take that to the bank.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

Matter of opinion, of course. IMO, Get Back is a cute, catchy little
rock tune by Paul ( I sometimes include it in my acoustic guitar act),
but not super long-lasting from a historical POV. Jude a a really fine
pop melody.


3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

Was he the original drummer? Forgive my ignorance of Beatles trivia.
I can't wait for Jeopardy to start up again.

He produced most of their recordings. He was responsible for all of the
orchestration stuff; cello on Yesterday, orchestra on Penny Lane,
recording "tricks" on Sgt. Pepper's album, etc.

On Aug 22, 7:58 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Jenn said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

I'm not sure. Where do "I am the Walrus," "A Day in the Life," and
"Eleanor Rigby" fit in?

Frank Sinatra called "Something" one of the greatest love songs ever
written.

3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

I'm sure you meant "Sir George Martin." :-)

Was he the original drummer? Forgive my ignorance of Beatles trivia.
I can't wait for Jeopardy to start up again.

Pete Best.

In article .com,
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

On Aug 22, 7:58 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Jenn said:

Besides the whole image/sociology thing, the Beatles were/are a success
for these reasons, IMO:

I'm always astonished that such vapid music achieves recognition among
the most musically literate people.

1. Genius song writing. Sure the very early stuff is fairly fluffy,
but later, the three writers turned out stuff for the ages.

Which grouping has "Get Back" and "Hey Jude"?

I'm not sure. Where do "I am the Walrus," "A Day in the Life," and
"Eleanor Rigby" fit in?

Frank Sinatra called "Something" one of the greatest love songs ever
written.

3. George Martin; 'nuff said.

I'm sure you meant "Sir George Martin." :-)

Yes sir. Or is it yes; Sir? ;-)