Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Neil Young, Paul Simon
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

ok.

but what lennon did... was pretty close to what he would have done. period.

his biggest reason for wanting to leave the band was that they didnt have to try anymore. they could put any sounds they wanted on an album and it would still sell millions of copies. he had said that if this happened in his solo work that he would probably give it up also... and it did.
on one of his albums the entire b-side was a recording of the bedside sounds of yoko giving birth... and it sold like a mother fucker.

as far as making the most post-beatles waves it WAS paul. period.
lennon did nothing new. he just produced more of the same john lennon material he released with the beatles. if there were any changes they were very very minor. if an artist wasnt influenced by the beatles, then they probably werent by lennon's solo work either.
and no. he didnt sell as many albums as paul did post-beatles either.

as for ringo being the weak-link. thats because john and paul had no rhythm. they didnt want him doing any crazy fills or anything because they would lose the beat.


as far as jimi hendrix goes, without the beatles i dont see him being a very noticeable artists anyways. he was founded on guitar tricks invented by the beatles. especially the reverb... invented on accident by lennon but perfected by george harrison.

and the reason they no longer wanted to perform is that there was no reason to. the crowd admittedly couldnt even hear them. they couldnt even hear themselves. the crowd wouldnt shut-up long enough to hear a single note anymore. they were only there for show. it was useless for them.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:48 pm
 
Mikal kHill



Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com
 Reply with quote  

Ringo was the frucking mack. He's the only Beatle who never had an ego, and he only fucked up 3 times during recording 10 years worth of material. The cat is a human drum-machine, and he knew the importance of complementing, not overshadowing, the song.

...and John had no rhythm. Paul has plenty.

Plastic Ono Band is a genious album. And McCartney by Paul is dope. From there... the solo stuff is very hit and miss.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

hugh grants hooker wrote:


as far as jimi hendrix goes, without the beatles i dont see him being a very noticeable artists anyways. he was founded on guitar tricks invented by the beatles. especially the reverb... invented on accident by lennon but perfected by george harrison.

and the reason they no longer wanted to perform is that there was no reason to. the crowd admittedly couldnt even hear them. they couldnt even hear themselves. the crowd wouldnt shut-up long enough to hear a single note anymore. they were only there for show. it was useless for them.


You had me 'till there. My opinions on Lenon over McArtney are ungrounded opinions. When I speak of volume I think of what I like volume, not units slung or joints hitting the charts volume.

"Guitar tricks invented by the Beatles". The reverb? First of all, the beatles didn't do anything on the guitar in real time that was anything more than a scale, or a progression. What they did invent is playing those scales or progression back backwards within a production driven album. Jimi Hendrix made up chords. There are notes that sound so god damn good in his songs that mirror noted chords but have additions that don't make sence while sounding incredible.

Hendrix might have gotten a little pop influence from the Beatles. As far as learing from Beatle guitar inventions, there is no such thing. The guitar hasn't changed much in its aplication and ranges since the master someone posted earlier...Robert Johnson.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

the beatles invented hendrix's main tool. reverb.

all his shit is full of reverb. they did that. they did it in real time.

lennon and harrison would lean their guitars against the speakers and mics while playing them.
it was the only way they knew of to produce that sound.

thats genius at work baby.
harrison owns.
hendrix owes.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:13 pm
 
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

i don't know if the Beatles invented reverb. i know what it is. reverb is only genius pending the results. in hendrix's case it was genius. in harrison's case it was really good. in mcartney's case it was basic but good.

technically speaking you don't need amplification to have reverb. Reverb (short for reverberation) is the acoustic environment that surrounds a sound. Natural reverb exists everywhere. Whether the space being described is a bathroom or a gymnasium, the essential characteristics remain the same. Reverb is the construction of a tightly spaced echo, how it decays, and how this all sounds. What Jimi did, what the advent of amplified instruments actually did, was enable reverb to be synthecised (sp?). Reverb existed long before the Beatles.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

reverb before the beatles existed as an annoying accident.

and which songs are you using to distinguish between harrison's reverb and Mcartney's reverb?

in the beatles case it was genius. they took what was seen as a fucked up sound indicating error and made it an instrument.

in hendrix's case it was merely duplication.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:30 pm
 
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

By the way, Ringo is quite possibly the worst drummer in the R&R Hall of Fame. The fact that he fucked up during recording and they had to take it keeps proving my point. He fucked up in what should be a flawless press. Their recordings were sick. They took forever and thousands of cuts. Ringo still fucked up. He had no ego cuz he had no skill to be egotistical about. Ringo could only do like snare/bass or bass/high hat, or snare/high hat....he could never do something with three limbs at once, never mind four like any good drummer...ANY.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

couldn't tell you the song. just the fact that harrison was such a better pure musician than paul

accident or not, reverb is not a big thing, until you look at hendrix's

what was big was what you call "merely duplication". hendrix harmonized distortion, that was his reverb. he would distort the high "e" "b" and sometimes "g" strings and play the low "e" "a" "d" strings in tune, as if that was conceivable.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
PokeHerFace



Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 361
Location: behind
 Reply with quote  

once on page three, a thread is a new beast

case in point:
this thread
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:41 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Mikal kHill



Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com
 Reply with quote  

When did Ringo fuck up? Please, tell me. He's not the most technical drummer, no. But the shit he did CHANGED rock drumming either way. Revolver and Sgt Pepper were some of teh first rock records to allow the drummer to even be properly heard, much less matter that much.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mikal kHill



Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com
 Reply with quote  

And none of the Beatles were particularly great musicians. They were real innovators, and remain to this day my favorite band, but they weren't dynamos with their instruments or anything.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

PokeHerFace wrote:
once on page three, a thread is a new beast

case in point:
this thread


Yeah I just dialed in to see where this beast was at, and now there's some shit about Jimi Hendrix being insignificant without the presence of the beatles...You have to be deaf to make that assertation. Forget for a second who invented what(hell one of jimi's most memorable songs is a Bob Dylan song which he so completely owned that Bob gave it to him) and just hear the music. I can't even believe one has to defend Hendrix's music...I'm completely dumbfounded.

I think if you had said what you said to George Harrison himself he would have looked at you funny...seriously how familiar are you with Hendrix's music? You need to pull out Electric Ladyland(at the very LEAST) and reaquaint yourself. I mean it's nothing personal or anything, I just think you will be suprised how good it still sounds to this day.

And this whole idea of who owes what to whom can get really out of hand, so I suggest not even going that route. Most roads lead back to Robert Johnson and even Robert Johnson learned some things from Son House, right? So I mean thinking like that can just go on forever. There's a certain point where you need to just listen to the music--and Hendrix's work stands on its own outside of anything the beatles did or did not do. In my opinion.
Post Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:57 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
hugh grants hooker
Guest




 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:
Forget for a second who invented what(hell one of jimi's most memorable songs is a Bob Dylan song which he so completely owned that Bob gave it to him) and just hear the music. I can't even believe one has to defend Hendrix's music...I'm completely dumbfounded.

I think if you had said what you said to George Harrison himself he would have looked at you funny...seriously how familiar are you with Hendrix's music? You need to pull out Electric Ladyland(at the very LEAST) and reaquaint yourself. I mean it's nothing personal or anything, I just think you will be suprised how good it still sounds to this day.

And this whole idea of who owes what to whom can get really out of hand, so I suggest not even going that route. Most roads lead back to Robert Johnson and even Robert Johnson learned some things from Son House, right? So I mean thinking like that can just go on forever. There's a certain point where you need to just listen to the music--and Hendrix's work stands on its own outside of anything the beatles did or did not do. In my opinion.


we are talking about 1 specific invention. reverb. without it, jimi hendrix would have just blended in with everyone else and the beatles DID invent it.
like it or not. its true.

i got electric ladyland and are you experienced when i was like 12 years old.
i listen to them about 2 times per year just to see if they've grown on me. they never do. the man has about 3 songs that i consider breathtaking. other than that he doesnt even entertain me.

i think if i said this shit to harrison he would stand up and applaud.
buy the anthology man. buy it now.
harrison complains more than once on there that he never got respect. all credit is given to john and paul.

give him his props.
he fuckin deserves it.

he's fuckin george harrison for christs sake!!!

nuff said.

to even have to argue this with someone says that they must be deaf.
i cant believe this lasted more than one post.
its nearly impossible to justify comparing them.
Post Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:22 am
 
Mikal kHill



Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com
 Reply with quote  

And, for the record, Axis: Bold As Love is teh best Jimi Hendrix record. Period.
Post Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:44 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mikal kHill



Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6852
Location: http://mikalkhill.com
 Reply with quote  

I also only put "period" at the end of that last post to be a dick. I don't really think it matters enough to bother putting "period" and I don't understand why people do that so much on messageboards. Period.
Post Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:18 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon