tifosi77 wrote:Paul McCartney is a musical genius who reinvented popular music. John Lenon was a musical genius who depressed the living sh|t out of everyone he met. George Harrison was a musical genius who was a real unsung hero of the 1960s. Ringo was the drummer.
Wings was a pox on music, a pet project done to give Linda something to do (badly). Four or five decent songs, one or two really good ones, and the rest of the catalog is dirge.
Yeah man Band on the Run what an awesome innovative song. He's to music what Carrot Top is to comedy.
That is quite possibly the stupidest public comment I've ever read.
Yesterday, Hey Jude, Blackbird, Helter Skelter, Penny Lane, Eleanor Rigby, We Can Work It Out, Back In The U.S.S.R., Things We Said Today, And I Love Her, Good Day Sunshine, Got To Get You Into My Life.... to name but a few. Wrote or co-wrote over 30 #1 hits in the U.S., plus another 28 in the U.K. (the most ever). He was effectively the musical director of the band and took the Beatles from their 'cute' phase into their mature works from '66 on, which contains their truly revolutionary repertoire. He is largely the reason why the Beatles are still relevant today.
I do not deny that Wings was useless - I said as much when I said 'Live And Let Die' was my favorite Bond song. But I take it for what it was; a vanity project that was all about simple pop songs. But bear in mind that every song they released as a single (about two dozen) reached the Top 40 in the U.S. They may have been light and fluffy and much of their repertoire does not hold up well, but they were immensely popular.
The Beatles were the first group that released single 45s that had good songs on both sides. It may have happened occasionally before them but they routinely released 2 good songs per record. Most 45s had a crap song on the B side or a cover of someone else's song. Since singles cost 90 cents ( about $6 today I'm guessing) or so that's what most kids bought. Not only were albums pretty much out of the price range but the Beatles were pioneers in putting out albums packed with good songs. The Beach Boys probably ranked highly in that regard but the Beatles led the way IMO. There were groups (Motown) in particular and some solo performers that would put 3 or so per album but most stuff on albums at that time were like B side 45s.
Kids loved their 45s because it was like getting 2 records for the price of one.
Geezer wrote:
The Beatles were the first group that released single 45s that had good songs on both sides. It may have happened occasionally before them but they routinely released 2 good songs per record. Most 45s had a crap song on the B side or a cover of someone else's song. Since singles cost 90 cents ( about $6 today I'm guessing) or so that's what most kids bought. Not only were albums pretty much out of the price range but the Beatles were pioneers in putting out albums packed with good songs. The Beach Boys probably ranked highly in that regard but the Beatles led the way IMO. There were groups (Motown) in particular and some solo performers that would put 3 or so per album but most stuff on albums at that time were like B side 45s.
Kids loved their 45s because it was like getting 2 records for the price of one.
James Brown doesn't agree with this. I have a handful of his 50's 7"s and both sides are good.
Geezer wrote:
The Beatles were the first group that released single 45s that had good songs on both sides. It may have happened occasionally before them but they routinely released 2 good songs per record. Most 45s had a crap song on the B side or a cover of someone else's song. Since singles cost 90 cents ( about $6 today I'm guessing) or so that's what most kids bought. Not only were albums pretty much out of the price range but the Beatles were pioneers in putting out albums packed with good songs. The Beach Boys probably ranked highly in that regard but the Beatles led the way IMO. There were groups (Motown) in particular and some solo performers that would put 3 or so per album but most stuff on albums at that time were like B side 45s.
Kids loved their 45s because it was like getting 2 records for the price of one.
James Brown doesn't agree with this.
He's dead so I guess he told you this at a seance. I heard his stuff back in the day and liked some of it but I'll stand by my opinion.
Pavel Bure wrote:You are well versed in Beetles lore.(I am not) Paul became a hack later in life...
He's had his share of duds post-Beatles. He's also come out with some great stuff. For a fairly recent (see: modern) effort, I think Chaos and Creation in the Backyard is pretty great.
PensFanInDC wrote:They (Tom Scholz) revolutionized how music was recorded.
I had a Rockman when I was in high school, which I think can rightly be said to be the first POD or amp emulator.
That seems correct. My freshman year roommate had one (along with a sweet, handmade Mesa Boogie. )
I've always wanted a Boogie. I love how full the mids sound.
While I'm undeniably a Marshall guy, two of my favorite players played other amps. Brian May has always played through Vox AC30 amps, and Nuno Bettencourt has played Hughes & Kettner and now Randall amps. Even EVH - hail! - played through a highly modified Marshall plexi head. But it's hard to deny that the JTM45, 1959SLP Plexi Super Lead, and JCM800 pretty much defined the sound of hard rock from its early years right through the 80s.
This is why I love Line 6 so much. They have mastered amp modulation. Nothing will sound exactly like a Plexi with the tube warmth and hollow wood state of the head, but Line 6 does a damn good job of coming close.
I haven't used an amp in years. Plug my POD XT Live into the PA and done. Much less to carry.
Yeah, dude, a 1959 Plexi re-issue is like $3,000. A for-real vintage Plexi might be three times that. Plus, if you're lucky enough to have one of those, try finding the E34L power tubes and 12AX7 pre-amp tubes for the vintage box.
)
