TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:Its funny about the Beatles though.

She ignored them until one of her friends forced her to listen, and was astonished at how they'd grown as a band.

Listen to "I Want To Hold Your Hand" from 1964 and then to "Abbey Road" from 1969.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:How different music would have been if their Bonanza had made it and the Beatles' plane had bough the farm!

Chas.

(Just kidding Beatle fans; well . . ."

Amen,

I quit listening to rock and roll and went country in 1965/66, when the Beatles started ruining R&R.

jimlongley wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:How different music would have been if their Bonanza had made it and the Beatles' plane had bough the farm!

Chas.

(Just kidding Beatle fans; well . . ."

Amen,

I quit listening to rock and roll and went country in 1965/66, when the Beatles started ruining R&R.

I grew up wondering what all the Beatle hype was all about and still do. I received more than my fair share of strange looks and verbal abuse because I did not rally behind their music. I think the same about the Grateful Dead.

I agree that Buddy Holly would have made R&R much different than it is today.

Anygunanywhere

mr.72 wrote: I am somewhat of an expert on popular music and cannot name more than one song that Roy Orbison made popular.

"Pretty Woman"?

Only the Lonely
Cryin'
In Dreams
Runnin' Scared

Didn't he write Blue Baoyou? He's in the Songwriters Hall of Fame. He's like Prince in that regard, he wrote a lot more hits than he ever sang himself.

TxD wrote:

mr.72 wrote: I am somewhat of an expert on popular music and cannot name more than one song that Roy Orbison made popular.

"Pretty Woman"?

Just off the top of my head - ever heard of "Only the Lonely"? How about "Crying" ( which was a bigger hit as a re-make for Don McLean, and then as a duet with k.d. lang) And I'm no expert!

The Beatles' effect on popular music, as a process or a product, was much like the effect that Henry Ford had on manufacturing or the effect that Steve Jobs had on personal computers. The Beatles, along with George Martin, revolutionized the way pop music was made.

Now the thing is, in public school they will teach everyone about what Henry Ford did for the automobile, and a fringe of geeks will understand what Steve Jobs did for the personal computer, but only a very small number of people will truly endeavor to understand what the Beatles did for popular music. I co-owned a record label for four years, produced a number of pop/rock records, and have spent most of my adult life as a part-time or full-time session musician, songwriter, and producer. The impact that the Beatles had (including George Martin's amazing contribution, as important as anything) is not a question that is debated amongst music professionals that I know of. There are college courses that focus only on the Beatles' impact on popular music.

I am not talking about the issue of taste, or whether you like the sound of the Beatles' music. I am talking about the effect on the method and culture of pop music production and idealism. I won't go into the detail here because, frankly, you can go read many books on the subject that are far more interesting than my commentary.

Crossfire wrote: "Only the Lonely", "Crying" ( which was a bigger hit as a re-make for Don McLean, and then as a duet with k.d. lang) and I'm no expert!

The Beatles, in a 7 year time span, had TWENTY-SEVEN #1 hits. Not just songs we can remember, but the TOP of the charts.

Most of these songs debuted at #1 on the charts.

The Beatles wrote, recorded, and released some 383 songs (or so, including instrumentals and some not released in the USA, and not including work that was uncredited done for BBC) in that 7 year time span. They recorded and released another 20 or so cover songs. That's an astonishing 54 or so songs written, recorded, and released for each year on average, and among those released in the USA, one in ten were #1 singles. They did this along with doing a pretty steady, busy touring and television schedule at the same time for at least the first couple of years. They did not just bop into the studio and lay down a vocal track on top of a recording that was otherwise completely recorded and produced by a team of session pros like Sinatra or Whitney Houston. They sang and played on every single recording themselves, attended all of the mixdown and mastering sessions, and were involved in the production at every step. They were creative and covering new ground with their work even to the last track recorded on Let it Be. This is a truly extraordinary, unprecedented, and never-again duplicated feat of productivity that has set the bar at a level that may never again be seen. Just for comparison, most modern pop musicians who are regularly writing and recording are doing very well to write, record and release 10 or 12 songs each year, and usually their first year in the market is so busy touring that they cannot make enough time to write and record and their second album is usually delayed. Any modern pop musician is doing extremely well to have one #1 single in their entire career, and to have more than one will put you in the category of the truly elite. To have four #1 singles in one year is extraordinary, and to do so for 7 consecutive years has only happened one time.

They set records for most records sold for some of their albums on the very first day the albums were released. I mean, the record was xxxxx total units sold of any one title for any length of time, and they broke the record in one single day of record sales.

Please do not try and compare Roy Orbison to the Beatles!! Give me a break!

mr.72 wrote:The Beatles' effect on popular music, as a process or a product, was much like the effect that Henry Ford had on manufacturing or the effect that Steve Jobs had on personal computers. The Beatles, along with George Martin, revolutionized the way pop music was made.

Now the thing is, in public school they will teach everyone about what Henry Ford did for the automobile, and a fringe of geeks will understand what Steve Jobs did for the personal computer, but only a very small number of people will truly endeavor to understand what the Beatles did for popular music. I co-owned a record label for four years, produced a number of pop/rock records, and have spent most of my adult life as a part-time or full-time session musician, songwriter, and producer. The impact that the Beatles had (including George Martin's amazing contribution, as important as anything) is not a question that is debated amongst music professionals that I know of. There are college courses that focus only on the Beatles' impact on popular music.

I am not talking about the issue of taste, or whether you like the sound of the Beatles' music. I am talking about the effect on the method and culture of pop music production and idealism. I won't go into the detail here because, frankly, you can go read many books on the subject that are far more interesting than my commentary.

Thread Killer.

Just kidding.

While The Beatles were a prolific creative musical team, most of their work is best described as fruitcake music.

Roy Orbison was the best voice ever in American R&R music.

Always favored The Stones myself. And you know where they got their foundation roots.

Used to go and listen to Mance Lipscomb of Navasota play. Basic blues from the ground up. Slide guitar with a Case pocket knife. Profound in it's simplicity. Once I heard that, everything on the pop scene paled.

Anybody remember Joe Daniels and the Downbeats from Bryan? A Texas river bottom juke joint blues musical genius. I heard dope got him in the end. Must have been the life, though.

mr.72 wrote:Please do not try and compare Roy Orbison to the Beatles!! Give me a break!

I don't have to try, and I won't give you a break, Orbison's music was original, much of the beatles' was not.

My late wife had a degree in music from SUNY and one of the smesters she had to take was based on the beatles' undeniable impact on popular music, but it also showed how much they copied from other artists, out and out plagerized, and even claimed as their own when someone else wrote it. They were in the right place at the right time, with a sound that was just unique enough, to ride a huge wave and even to help shape it, but they were not that great as musicians.

And listen very carefully and you will hear Bo Diddley, Elvis, and even Roy Orbison bleeding through their early stuff.

Orbison may not have been as popular, but he was far better.

Gun forum is obviously not the right place to discuss popular music history.

mr.72 wrote:Gun forum is obviously not the right place to discuss popular music history.

Hey.

This is the Off Topic forum. Sometimes we even discuss dieting.

It is possible however that some submitters are more prone to preaching than discussing.

mr.72 wrote:Gun forum is obviously not the right place to discuss popular music history.

Also, not everyone who packs a gun respects authority or expert opinions.

Aygunanywhere

Discussing tastes in music and who the best musician/group is will get you as many or more opposing opinions as trying to argue which gun is best for concealed carry.