revolution 1 (take 20)

i'm trying to download this and it's a real fucking pain in the ass, this sharebee site needs to be anally raped, violently

  David R James said:

  abusivegeorge said:

Was there really nothing like this before The Beatles? (Serious question).

 

In terms of popular music there wasnt that much but if anyone knows of anything please tell

 

There was all the avante garde artist making music concrete working with tape manipulation and effects since the late 40's , a guy call raymond scott was developing electronic early synthesis devices in the 50's and creating clever little jingles, and then we have the radiophonic workshop, im a big beatles fan but the people ive just mentioned mean more to me because it was the start of electronic music.

 

And in terms of the beatles i always look to george martin as the guy that created the magical aspects of the beatles records.

I thought the tape looping technique achieved on "Tomorrow Never Knows" was essentially an early form of electronic music, maybe not sonically, but in terms of sound engineering.

"McCartney supplied a bag of ¼ inch-wide audio tape loops he had made by himself at home, which he started making after listening to Stockhausen's Gesang der Jünglinge. McCartney found out that if he took off the erase head of a tape recorder and then spooled a continuous loop of tape through the machine, anything he recorded would constantly keep overdubbing itself; creating a saturation effect, a technique also used in musique concrète. McCartney encouraged the other Beatles to use the same effect and create their own loops.[12]"

  karmakramer said:

  David R James said:

  abusivegeorge said:

Was there really nothing like this before The Beatles? (Serious question).

 

In terms of popular music there wasnt that much but if anyone knows of anything please tell

 

There was all the avante garde artist making music concrete working with tape manipulation and effects since the late 40's , a guy call raymond scott was developing electronic early synthesis devices in the 50's and creating clever little jingles, and then we have the radiophonic workshop, im a big beatles fan but the people ive just mentioned mean more to me because it was the start of electronic music.

 

And in terms of the beatles i always look to george martin as the guy that created the magical aspects of the beatles records.

 

I thought the tape looping technique achieved on "Tomorrow Never Knows" was essentially an early form of electronic music, maybe not sonically, but in terms of sound engineering.

Oh for sure, course it is, im just saying in terms of history when things happened first. Tommorow never knows is just fucking awesome track. Maybe we can credit the beatles to first use of the techniques in a popular music track.

it was the first time someone slack-tuned and close-miked toms and a kickdrum like that, as well

which is why it sounds like god's drumkit

and one of the first uses of phasing (on lennon's vocal) too

I am acknowledging all this by the way I just don't really know what to reply with, just so's you know I'm not ignoring you all coz I do actually find this quite interesting.

  kaini said:

it was the first time someone slack-tuned and close-miked toms and a kickdrum like that, as well

which is why it sounds like god's drumkit

 

and one of the first uses of phasing (on lennon's vocal) too

Did you read "Here, There, and Everywhere?"

  abusivegeorge said:

I am acknowledging all this by the way I just don't really know what to reply with, just so's you know I'm not ignoring you all coz I do actually find this quite interesting.

no, but i can't recommend this enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_In_The_Head

that guy also has an a cappella version of pet sounds on his blog. pretty cool, thanks for the link

  kaini said:

it was the first time someone slack-tuned and close-miked toms and a kickdrum like that, as well

which is why it sounds like god's drumkit

 

and one of the first uses of phasing (on lennon's vocal) too

Yeah the kiks are so thumpy and bass is so pumpy in some records

The music that was made from 1965 on was like a prototype for modern popular music, they were using overdriving, extreme compression, tape effects and list goes on. The overdrived horns cornets and trumpets just sound awesome.

Its like strawberry fields, the first few dubs were recorded and then it was pitched down to change the key and make johns voice sound lower

I enjoyed watching this a while ago if you have time, this is just the part 1 link but u can find the others there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRr37NxL5qc

  kaini said:

mccartney was very interested in musique concrete

way before revolution #9, he did some still unreleased tape loop stuff by himself

That's the thing man, today our vision of the Beatles, or say Dylan, or any of those 60's myth is compressed in time. You say "way before", like it was a decade before. We all think like that. Like somebody saying that John Wesley Harding happened waaay after say, Another Side of. But that's like 3 years which today seem like twenty.

Same for Revolution #9, that shit was recorded in May 1968, a mere 4 years after A Hard Day's Night!!!!!!!! Fucking amazing.

ive tried listening to the beatles. I cant deny their musical prowess or unbridled creativity, but to me, their music is pretty unspectacular.

  42Orange said:

ive tried listening to the beatles. I cant deny their musical prowess or unbridled creativity, but to me, their music is pretty unspectacular.

I always understand when someone says yeah its shit or its just not that good, but regardless of that from sgt pepper on wards they helped pathe the way for everything after them.

i dont really see "being an influence" as being in itself worth merit.

Would a world without the beatles be a better place? who knows. Im sure beatles fans would be inclined to say no, but maybe its because of the beatles that we have shitty derivitave poprock.

  42Orange said:

i dont really see "being an influence" as being in itself worth merit.

 

Would a world without the beatles be a better place? who knows. Im sure beatles fans would be inclined to say no, but maybe its because of the beatles that we have shitty derivitave poprock.

Its the case with any influential artist(s) where they allow people to see the possibilities, its 'oh shit yeah we can do that, never thought we could before'.

those links are dead already :(

  David R James said:

  42Orange said:

i dont really see "being an influence" as being in itself worth merit.

 

Would a world without the beatles be a better place? who knows. Im sure beatles fans would be inclined to say no, but maybe its because of the beatles that we have shitty derivitave poprock.

 

Its the case with any influential artist(s) where they allow people to see the possibilities, its 'oh shit yeah we can do that, never thought we could before'.

yeah but would you rather have everybody being inspired by one band or thousands of bands? I can see much more variety in the latter, and though they also heralded new ideas, they also defined (limited) the genre. I just dont agree with people who think the beatles invented music, as if without them wed still be listening to gypsy jazz and classical.

  42Orange said:

  David R James said:

  42Orange said:

i dont really see "being an influence" as being in itself worth merit.

 

Would a world without the beatles be a better place? who knows. Im sure beatles fans would be inclined to say no, but maybe its because of the beatles that we have shitty derivitave poprock.

 

Its the case with any influential artist(s) where they allow people to see the possibilities, its 'oh shit yeah we can do that, never thought we could before'.

 

yeah but would you rather have everybody being inspired by one band or thousands of bands? I can see much more variety in the latter, and though they also heralded new ideas, they also defined (limited) the genre. I just dont agree with people who think the beatles invented music, as if without them wed still be listening to gypsy jazz and classical.

no one believes the beatles invented music and they certainly didnt limit a genre. Popular music in 1964 was based around rock, blues, folk, classical, jazz i dont see the variety, or know of too much experimentation in those genres at that time. Obviously you have no comprimise i give up.

  42Orange said:

  David R James said:

  42Orange said:

i dont really see "being an influence" as being in itself worth merit.

 

Would a world without the beatles be a better place? who knows. Im sure beatles fans would be inclined to say no, but maybe its because of the beatles that we have shitty derivitave poprock.

 

Its the case with any influential artist(s) where they allow people to see the possibilities, its 'oh shit yeah we can do that, never thought we could before'.

 

yeah but would you rather have everybody being inspired by one band or thousands of bands? I can see much more variety in the latter, and though they also heralded new ideas, they also defined (limited) the genre. I just dont agree with people who think the beatles invented music, as if without them wed still be listening to gypsy jazz and classical.

the thing is that you can't choose how many bands are inspiring, or if they are how much, and who they happen to be. the beatles did it in a way unparalleled and there's really nothing to argue from this point on. it's like trying to demerit einstein for being just one person.

the only thing im trying to argue is that just because the beatles influenced a lot of people doesnt make them great, and that theoretically this could be detrimental. Unlike einstein whos contributions to his field provided concrete progress for the scientific community, the beatles did not necessarily provide concrete progress for music. If einstein hadnt existed to discover his theory of relativity, someone else most likely would have. If the beatles hadnt produced their top albums and never gained all that fame, i think things could've be more interesting, though thats not to say another band wouldnt have taken their place. Again, just my guess.

  42Orange said:

the only thing im trying to argue is that just because the beatles influenced a lot of people doesnt make them great, and that theoretically this could be detrimental. Unlike einstein whos contributions to his field provided concrete progress for the scientific community, the beatles did not necessarily provide concrete progress for music. If einstein hadnt existed to discover his theory of relativity, someone else most likely would have. If the beatles hadnt produced their top albums and never gained all that fame, i think things could've be more interesting, though thats not to say another band wouldnt have taken their place. Again, just my guess.

serious? ever heard of

verse

bridge

chorus

verse

bridge

chorus

the beatles style of writing songs has been the base of all pop music since they became popular.

and thats exactly the kind of limiting of the genre that happens when everyone takes after one influence. Songwriting is not a science.

it's not a good thing necessarily, but you can't say they didn't have an impact or create a base for tonnnsss of other artists

The ending is amazing

  42Orange said:

the only thing im trying to argue is that just because the beatles influenced a lot of people doesnt make them great, and that theoretically this could be detrimental. Unlike einstein whos contributions to his field provided concrete progress for the scientific community, the beatles did not necessarily provide concrete progress for music. If einstein hadnt existed to discover his theory of relativity, someone else most likely would have. If the beatles hadnt produced their top albums and never gained all that fame, i think things could've be more interesting, though thats not to say another band wouldnt have taken their place. Again, just my guess.

dude... seriously. i mean one could argue endlessly on whether or something like "progress" in music exists.

lets reduce it to this:

better sticks.

worse dies.

having influence means that it sticked.