one with the horse spock

Beatle Bashing Key Point #1

2005-10-06T19:30:00.000-07:00

Key Point #1:

Heaven help me... here goes.

The gas has run out. The gig is up. The revolution is over. The changes they made influenced “their” generation. The “generation” that I'm talking about are pop artists that pushed the envelope artistically throughout some specific period of time during the Beatles career and after their break up. The five artistic qualities of pop music (P.M.) that I wish to consider would be social impact, performance (vocal and/or playing), song writing, stage presence, and recording/production innovations. No great artist could ever master all five qualities, but I figure that they should make at least “two” hits on the list.

I would say in terms of P.M., two years would cover a “generation” life cycle. Why two years? The record buying public was sparser then (as opposed to today where P.M. is truly a commodity literally given away) which meant there was a smaller chance of being “over” exposed thus viable P.M. trends took longer to rise and fall. Indeed, records were played to death even back then, but not like today. Today, a life cycle may be as little as three months because P.M. today presents less artistic impact and the listener has a shorter attention span as the music video format has (to many, but not all) redefined what it means to interpret P.M as an art form.

The Beatles cover four generations actively (1963 -1970) and three more passively (1970-1975). During their existence, they had an opportunity to reinvent their art, thus stay relevant for some time. They sustained perhaps three generations of relevancy as they spiked up and down my so called “quality list” though they grew less and less (slowly, not suddenly) relevant between 1965 and 1970 as they stopped touring and when other artists took on groundbreaking paths that would shape P.M. too. These artists include (but by no means complete the list) the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, the Cream, and Bob Dylan. They too have met similar artistic demises (some physical) with respect to relevancy, but it could be argued that some aspects of their greatness still hold today, perhaps even more than the Beatles. I would love to discuss this in a future posting. So basically, the Beatles where a driving artistic force during their declining years, but other artists simply improved, expanded or more importantly reinvented the art of P.M..

Let us examine the artistic generation before the Beatles. The life cycle then (1955-1962) was slower (thus longer) as the buying public was smaller, the creative pace felt (seemingly, but maybe this is not 100% true -->) less intense, and P.M. had not gone through the changes to come which would mutate the very (core) meaning of itself. Things were just different. The same rules still would apply.... great artists often motivate other great (budding) artists.

Here you have Elvis, Chuck Berry, and Little Richard.... to name a few. The Beatles took these influences and mutated them “within” their own sound. At first, Paul and John tried (and failed) to sound like Little Richard and Elvis respectively, but the point was they took it “all” in, thus they where motivated artistically. They had witnessed a viable artistic technique to emulate and perhaps improve upon. The sound of their heroes also provided a portal into their human condition, whether it was within Paul's humdrum upbringing or upon John's frustrating and tormenting childhood. You could even simplify all of my fancy talk down to the following: ”they got their rocks off and they wanted to do the what they were doing” On their early records (and live performances), you have them singing like their heroes and more importantly cutting a fairly high proportion of cover versions rather than issuing LPs full of original material. Soon they outgrew these influences and used their own material (almost) exclusively. Within their new artistic paradigm that they created, the Beatles placed such influences into a “mental” tool box where they would perhaps (as I cannot read their minds) pull out an occasional inflection (maybe more than that), especially into their singing/playing every now and then. Even as their song writing, singing, and playing (even hair styles) styles evolved further away from their heroes, they still gave us a hint of where they were coming from. They key for me at this point is to stress that somewhere along the way (maybe 1965) these inflections became more like homages and “less” the catalyst of artistic creativity. Perhaps they lost interest in paying their dues to their heroes. Who knows, but you can hear it in the recordings. In the case of the Beatles there was one exception. Toward the end where they were “getting back” to their roots, they were too far off in their own realm of creativity to seriously consider a return to the “good old days”. Still, they regretfully tried. Indeed at times, Get Back seemed like an homage and hence this brief period is dry and uninteresting from an artistic point of view, minus a few gems. This “get back” experiment was almost a test case within it self in that it was too late to pull out such old, dated “tools”. The time had come and gone.

So, take this example and apply it to concurrent P.M. artists between 1963 and 1970 generation plus artists that changed P.M. two generations after 1970. I see more or less the same thing going on. Artists that guiltlessly copied the Beatles (i.e. the Monkees) did not come across as being truly relevant... they might have hit one of my quality markers and they did sell many records. This is not artistic relevance, instead pure opportunity. By the mid 1970s, disco and punk (via glam rock) were taking P.M. to a completely different path. In fact, punk was very deliberate in turning it's face away from the then current relevant generation (e.g. pink floyd). I would then find it hard to imagine that they were ripping off the fab four for inspiration when they where loosely assembling their anthems of (perhaps) disdain or (at least) dissatisfaction. I'd normally discard disco, but some great artists did shine under it's wing of influence (e.g. Bee Gees). Maybe a homage or inflection would pop up from the Beatles now and then or even today, but not too many as you (the relevant artist which I am not) would begin to sound dated and frankly embarrassing. The funny thing is that I still hear it today. Countless bands that sound like some variation of the Beatles. Can you really take them seriously as relevant artists that push the envelope? They are just catering to a fan base which is no crime, but completely different than developing their art to new, unchartered territories.

Beatle Bashing

2005-10-06T16:08:00.000-07:00

Yes. That's right! The Beatles deserve some bashing. Now before you crucify me and condemn me to hell, just let me tell you now that I am a fan of the Beatles. Who better could dish out the honest analysis needed to fairly evaluate the Fab Four?
Most individuals who really hate the Beatles have not taken the time to listen to their entire catalog. Most die-hard fans are just plain idiots who cannot see past the facade of Beatledom! I have listened to most of their catalog and I can tell you that the tide is turning for me! I'm not saying that they are irrelevant. I am saying that they have been put on an unbalanced pedistol.

Here are some key points that I plan to write about:

1. The relevance of the Beatles. Has the gas run out?
2. Why Yoko Ono saved them from a slow tortuous death.
3. John Lennon is really a genius. A jerk at times, but a genius.
4. Paul is a dimwit, but hey sure can sing and play.
5. Ringo - A good (but terrible) drummer.
6. Beatle Bashers love George, but out of spite?

I'll start posting very soon, but I thought I'd put it out there.

Why do I hate song writing? (Working Title: Why this musician became a recording engineer.)

2005-10-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

I will start off saying that I hate song writing because I never made any money off of it. I never became successful. I never received admiration. I never became famous. At a time where I desired the idea of having "no frills" sex...none came in my direction.

Whether I suck or not is no matter....Ok, I probably sucked....So, I've said it now and I am here on out protected from any criticism about my song writing....and yes this posting sucks too just in case you wanted to get real mean with me.

I will say that I really hate song writing because I could never get other people's songs out of my head.

The whole *&*^! time I'm writing, I'm thinking of how Joe or Jane Blow's tune follows through from verse to chorus and onto the bridge or whatever.

I'd grab the frets and randomly apply my fingers on them hoping to come up with the catalyst that would produce a riff or something. Come on damn it! Give me a riff or I'll throw you across the room!

This is when I really, really start to hate song writing because I'm thinking...."this is ridiculous!". "There is nothing there man! No inspiration. Nothing. How depressing. I can't think of any guitar pattern/progression or finger arrangement that does not sound like someone else. When I start getting real random (with my fingers), it sounds like noise or modern classical music, which I HATE." Desperate times indeed. I really hated the whole thing! Evil and unforgivable.

It was not so bad early on as I did not care that I was ripping off anyone I could get a hold of.

I could reverse a chord or two from their progression or chop off a section before it became too obvious...all of this done voluntarily or involuntarily. Perhaps this is how some people write songs and make a good living. I'm ok with that. Often my derivation was the result of me not being able to play what they where playing because I was not a very good player....no chops. I even bought a Gibson SG to help make me play better...they are the easiest to play, I swear. A wide neck, but thin from front to back....it made you feel pretty good. But you still suck.

As time went on, I took notice that I was running out of ways to rearrange other people's ideas. I wasn't creative enough in the art of stealing, I suppose. That is when I really, really, really hated the whole process. That is when it became very unpleasant and tiresome.

I found some distractions.

I think I'll record people for a living.

Oh yeah. That was a good move! Actually, it was. I wasn't the best, but I was a good engineer.

Still...similar things happened to me as a recording engineer....more disturbing. Evil times ten.

You rip off other people's recording styles for years on end and soon you want to develop your own only to realize that you can't deviate from what one expects. I still sucked (most of the time, sometimes I'd hit the mark times two), but I hated thinking that everything I recorded was being compared to what was just released on the Billboard top 40. Everything had to be just *^*% perfect from the perspective of what was "on" now.

I know you don't care, but the hell with you.

Like I give a damn. Ok maybe I do since I said that I don't. Shut up.