For those who don't rate the Beatles

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

I'm not familiar with reference. Care to share?

It's her cover of "Ticket To Ride" that I posted above:

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by mc1

It was a non sequitur.

I think he liked The Boxer cover...and was also commenting on the interview with Chet.

Of course, it's also possible he thought The Boxer was a Beatles tune.

I dunno...

[00-28]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

I'm not familiar with reference. Care to share?

Post #17. .......Mike

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

It's her cover of "Ticket To Ride" that I posted above:

Oh. Sorry.

The YouTube embedding feature is wonky in the iPad, so I didn't see it.

Man, I loved her voice though.

[grim83]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

Let's put it this way...neither of them have played something that made me cry.

I have a Chet song that could do that
Chet Atkins - I Still Can't Say Goodbye HQ: http://youtu.be/OVSHdwWzLo4

As to the original point I think of the Beatles much as I do hendrix both wrote some great songs and did some cool stuff that got em noticed but the main thing they did was be at the right places at the right times with just the right sound and marketability.

[Drubbing]

I find the marrying of bubblegum pop to schmaltzy adult ballad too big a stretch for credibility. Carpenters version of Ticket to Ride takes a jaunty tune and turns it into a semi-comatose dirge that sounds lazy.

It suck every ounce of melody out it, and that, apparently, is McCarneys forte. If you take that away you get, well… the Carpenters.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by grim83

I have a Chet song that could do that
Chet Atkins - I Still Can't Say Goodbye HQ: http://youtu.be/OVSHdwWzLo4

Nice song. Reminds me of this one by Thom Shepherd:

[tadol]

I find most folks who don't really appreciate the Beatles don't have the historical context - didn't hear those albums when they first came out, and what the "mainstream" was playing or promoting concurrently. They also don't usually offer any one group, or individual, that they'd specifically cite as better, especially in the broad, across-the-board appeal the Beatles had, and more importantly, still have.

There were alot of great musicians, performers, writers, and bands back then that certainly deserved much more recognition than they got then, or now, but they still weren't the Beatles. They were a rare, and unique, combination -

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by grim83

I have a Chet song that could do that
Chet Atkins - I Still Can't Say Goodbye HQ: http://youtu.be/OVSHdwWzLo4

As to the original point I think of the Beatles much as I do hendrix both wrote some great songs and did some cool stuff that got em noticed but the main thing they did was be at the right places at the right times with just the right sound and marketability.

That's a great song. I didn't know he could sing so well.

He didn't write it though.

[Jukie]

Originally Posted by tadol

I find most folks who don't really appreciate the Beatles don't have the historical context - didn't hear those albums when they first came out, and what the "mainstream" was playing or promoting concurrently. They also don't usually offer any one group, or individual, that they'd specifically cite as better, especially in the broad, across-the-board appeal the Beatles had, and more importantly, still have.

There were alot of great musicians, performers, writers, and bands back then that certainly deserved much more recognition than they got then, or now, but they still weren't the Beatles. They were a rare, and unique, combination -

Completely agree.

[aknow]

Originally Posted by Jukie

Completely agree.

I completely agree as well. When I hear someone say they don't like the Beatles, I have to believe they never took time to listen to their extensive catalogue, or they're tone deaf, (many musicians are), or they're just not musicians at all. MANY of their songs are masterpieces.

[jp2558]

Originally Posted by tadol

I find most folks who don't really appreciate the Beatles don't have the historical context - didn't hear those albums when they first came out, and what the "mainstream" was playing or promoting concurrently. They also don't usually offer any one group, or individual, that they'd specifically cite as better, especially in the broad, across-the-board appeal the Beatles had, and more importantly, still have.

There were alot of great musicians, performers, writers, and bands back then that certainly deserved much more recognition than they got then, or now, but they still weren't the Beatles. They were a rare, and unique, combination -

Amen. I feel sad that the later generations will never 'experience' The Beatles to the degree of those who lived it.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by tadol

They also don't usually offer any one group, or individual, that they'd specifically cite as better, especially in the broad, across-the-board appeal the Beatles had, and more importantly, still have.

Why is a broad-based appeal necessary?

I'd say folks like Miles Davis, Jimi Hendrix, Bill Monroe, Robert Johnson, Grateful Dead, Bob Marley, Stevie Wonder, etc. we're "better" musicians that had an enormous impact on the arch of musical history. And that's just sticking "mainstream"...the list is enormous. My list.

Don't get me wrong...I love, LOVE the Beatles.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by jp2558

Amen. I feel sad that the later generations will never 'experience' The Beatles to the degree of those who lived it.

I was born the year John Lennon died. So, my perspective is definitely different than most on this forum (based on the age of most members).

Imagine if it was 1964...who would people be discussing from 1914?

[Drubbing]

Originally Posted by tadol

I find most folks who don't really appreciate the Beatles don't have the historical context - didn't hear those albums when they first came out, and what the "mainstream" was playing or promoting concurrently. They also don't usually offer any one group, or individual, that they'd specifically cite as better, especially in the broad, across-the-board appeal the Beatles had, and more importantly, still have.

Pretty sure the Beatles were mainstream from the beginning of their career to the end.

I thought the 'magic' of the Beatles was you didn't need to be there. The music supposedly spans generations. I don't think it does. Kids generally don't 'discover' the Beatles, they hear it at home.

There's a hardcore of Baby Boomers who keep playing it because that represented their youth. A newer generation growing up with it from parents and grandparents may gravitate toward it too. May later in life. Then it's nostalgia for things associated with the music, not always the music itself.

Originally Posted by jp2558

Amen. I feel sad that the later generations will never 'experience' The Beatles to the degree of those who lived it.

That's just weird.

Why feel sad for me that I didn't live your adolescence and prefer the influences of my own? I was born in the 60s. I 'get' the 60s; the times, the culture etc. I got into a lot of 60s music. I don't get the Beatles or the fanaticism for them. I put it down to the largest cohort of teens that enjoyed the initial bloom of youth culture, and doesn't want to let that feeling die.

Plenty of bands cam after the Beatles that made a different generation feel the same way about music.