With A Little Help From The People On This Board I'll Get My Query Answered

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Re With A Little Help From My Friends.

i'm sure this will have already been discussed at some point, so apologises for the repetition, but:
a) who on earth is singing the lead here? Is it, as i suspect, Bruce? And if so...
b) how come he sounds so weird??

Not their finest cover version...

[Paulos]

It is indeed Bruce and the reason he sounds weird is due to an error - something along the lines of it was recorded at half speed but the mastering engineer for Rarities didnt speed it up so it sounds odd.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Of course i could've just looked on the Definitve Vocal Credits List i now release, but hey, then i wouldn't have got an explanation as to why Bruce sounds like he's singing from inside a sealed container full of porridge...

[Paulos]

Just speed it up and it sounds quite good although I am not sure exactly how much you need to speed it up in order for it to be 'correct'.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Either way, not their finest cover... And what a strange choice of song, especially at this period following the abandonment of Smile and the universal praise heaped on Sgt Pepper. Speaking of Sgt Pepper, anyone else here think it's a little over-rated? I'm a Beatles fan, but Sgt Pepper is at least as patchy and hit-and-miss as, to pluck an example at random, the much less universally celebrated Surf's Up, and it just sounds so dated: Pet Sounds sounds like it could've been recorded yesterday, Sgt Pepper however sounds 45 years old. Anyway, another argument for another fan website methinks....  

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Speaking of Sgt Pepper, anyone else here think it's a little over-rated? 

Yes I do. But you could be opening a can of worms here. There are many people who think that, as this is a Beach Boys site, you have no right criticising the Beatles here, or anywhere. At best I've been accused of sour grapes, and at worst have had violence threatened upon my body. (Not here I hasten to add). As the hype surrounding this band is now accepted as historical fact, it is unwise to question the Gospel According To The Baby Boomers. Many people are actually shocked you would dare think a bad thing about those lovable mop tops

But yes I agree. Not only is that album overrated, they are overrated. They wrote a few nice tunes, but had no idea of how to arrange, relying on George Martin to do this and even structure their bloody hits and tell them where the hook was. Stuff Brian could do instinctively. Can't be doing with 'em. Don't like 'em. Beach Boys whoop their arses each and every time IMO

[ahoutman1]

I believe it has to be sped up approximately 5 percent

[Austin]

In general, the Beatles appeal to a different emotional need of mine than the Beach Boys do. I find "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Don't Worry, Baby" equally joyous, but not at all in the same way. I also like Sgt. Pepper a lot, although I don't think it's their musical best (my vote would be for Abbey Road). And its placement at the top of Rolling Stone's list and others -- which I assume is the source for much BB fan ire -- would be a lot less polarizing if the list was called "The 500 Most Historically Significant Albums of All Time."

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Well, the Beatles were exceptional - no point even trying to deny that. However the BB's were better (in terms of sheer natural songwriting talent, the three Wilson brothers beat Lennon/McCartney hands down); also, i think George Martin is over-rated as a producer (i've always agreed with Lennon's reported complaints re the production of Lucy In The Sky..., Strawberry Fields, etc), and, yes, Sgt Pepper is ridiculously over-rated (agreed, Abbey Road is their best - and by some distance their best produced: it's the only one that rivals Brian's own production abilities. I'd say Rubber Soul, Revolver and the White album are all also superior to Sgt Pepper). Paul McCartney was (is) unbelievably gifted re songwriting and melody... but Brian has the edge.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Re With A Little Help From My Friends.

i'm sure this will have already been discussed at some point, so apologises for the repetition, but:
a) who on earth is singing the lead here? Is it, as i suspect, Bruce? And if so...
b) how come he sounds so weird??

Not their finest cover version...

This question was answered back in March 1985, by Bruce when I interviewed him.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Re With A Little Help From My Friends.

i'm sure this will have already been discussed at some point, so apologises for the repetition, but:
a) who on earth is singing the lead here? Is it, as i suspect, Bruce? And if so...
b) how come he sounds so weird??

Not their finest cover version...

This question was answered back in March 1985, by Bruce when I interviewed him.

I haven't read that interview.

[stack-o-tracks]

They really should have done that cover in this style: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kL_90HsEkA

[Andrew G. Doe]

Re With A Little Help From My Friends.

i'm sure this will have already been discussed at some point, so apologises for the repetition, but:
a) who on earth is singing the lead here? Is it, as i suspect, Bruce? And if so...
b) how come he sounds so weird??

Not their finest cover version...

This question was answered back in March 1985, by Bruce when I interviewed him.

I haven't read that interview.

It's also been widely disseminated in the intervening 27 years. 

[runnersdialzero]

Just speed it up and it sounds quite good although I am not sure exactly how much you need to speed it up in order for it to be 'correct'.

I tried this once, and Bruce STILL sounded strange. And the backup vocals then sound sped up! No idea what's going on, here.

[Ebb and Flow]

They slowed it down to add the backing vocals, intending to speed it back up for the final mix.

[MBE]

I like it.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Well, the Beatles were exceptional - no point even trying to deny that.

With respect, as I know we are basically singing in the same choir here, but..........

Exceptional compared to what?

I could name many songwriters from the 30's and 40's who were easily the equal of Messrs L and M. And going back further these guys really start to pale into insignificance musically.

But Brian Wilson is someone who naturally understands music's five fundamental aspects. Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Counterpoint and, obviously most importantly, Structure, and, utilises all five in a perfect marriage, where the five become one. This puts him near the heady heights of the 18th century, where the science that is music reached it's apex and has been steadily dwindling since.

So they were exceptional compared to what? 50's rock 'n roll basically. As much as I love it, that's not  difficult.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, the Beatles were exceptional - no point even trying to deny that.

With respect, as I know we are basically singing in the same choir here, but..........

Exceptional compared to what?

I could name many songwriters from the 30's and 40's who were easily the equal of Messrs L and M. And going back further these guys really start to pale into insignificance musically.

But Brian Wilson is someone who naturally understands music's five fundamental aspects. Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, Counterpoint and, obviously most importantly, Structure, and, utilises all five in a perfect marriage, where the five become one. This puts him near the heady heights of the 18th century, where the science that is music reached it's apex and has been steadily dwindling since.

So they were exceptional compared to what? 50's rock 'n roll basically. As much as I love it, that's not  difficult.

Well, this is why being really musically exceptional is not that important. I mean, I think mostly you need to have basic understanding of music to be successful (and therefore, have the opportunity to be relevant). Look, for example, at The Sex Pistols. They were potential the most important band of the 70s, certainly one of the most important, and most of them barely knew how to play their instruments at all. What The Beatles were were important and exceptionally so. Whatever musical talent Brian Wilson had, and he had a lot, he didn't have the same ability as Lennon and McCartney to tap into what were some of the primary concerns and desires of not only their generation but even the next few generations that followed. In fact, no artist in any field at that time, had that kind of skill. And, yes, that is a skill. One, I would argue, that is far more important than expertise at one's craft. I've said this here before and I'll say it again - calling The Beatles overrated is like calling Shakespeare overrated. You don't like them (or him), that's fine but to call them overrated is to say that they shouldn't have been culturally relevant. They shouldn't have mobilized youth in the way they did. They shouldn't have inspired so many other bands, and therefore, shouldn't have been primary agents in music movements and counter-cultural movements as a result. They shouldn't have made music that has had such lasting cultural, educational, and use value. What you then begin to realize is that The Beatles place in history - both musical history and actual history (and yes, outside of music history into general history, The Beatles do have a firm place that could never be occupied by any other band - but Elvis and Bob Dylan and maybe Jimi Hendrix could be mentioned in the same breath) - is a place that is inevitable, then it becomes impossible to talk about them in terms of their "rating."

[Iron Horse-Apples]

All well and good when you're talking about cultural significance. I'm only really concerned with music, and composition. So from that perspective, when putting the Beatles in the context of 1000 years of tonal music, then I'm well within my rights to think them overrated. After all, I have to put up with people calling Lennon and McCartney the "greatest songwriters ever!!!" on this board, as if that is an accepted fact.

And to me, a popular culture that disregards everything prior to 1956 as irrelevant, is fundamentally wrong.

Rolling Stones Greatest List Of All Time being a case in point.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

All well and good when you're talking about cultural significance. I'm only really concerned with music, and composition.

That's fine -- but it is also crucial to understand how ultimately irrelevant that is and how what are typically "accepted" notions of great music and composition are often cultural constructs to reinforce works from particular cultures - namely historically Anglo cultures. Once you take for granted the general accepted truisms of what constitutes great composition then you can throw away virtually anything that didn't take place in Europe.

So from that perspective, when putting the Beatles in the context of 1000 years of tonal music, then I'm well within my rights to think them overrated.

Sure, and if you put them in the context of 1000 years of say, haircuts, then the reaction to their hair was probably overrated too. It's just not that relevant, as far as I'm concerned.

And to me, a popular culture that disregards everything prior to 1956 as irrelevant, is fundamentally wrong.

Rolling Stones Greatest List Of All Time being a case in point.

That's up to popular culture to decide - it's not a matter of right or wrong.

[Smilin Ed H]

I kind of regard the Beatles the way I do Chaplin.  I know they're geniuses in their chosen field in the context of muscal development at the time and probably only Dylan and maybe BW are up there (prefigured, of course by the likes of Elvis and Chuck Berry), but, to me, they lack the warmth and emotional depth of the BB - and that has to do with production and arrangement as much as the actual music and lyrics. I go with Laurel and Hardy over Chaplin, partly for the same reason, but partly because there's an element of contrivance at the forefront of a lot of his work. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the Beatles have this element of contrivance any more than the BB, nor am I making any claims for the Beatles or BW as 'better than Ellington or Gershwin or Sinatra or Davis or Parker or Armstrong or Crosby or.... whoever.'

Taste is a funny thing.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

All well and good when you're talking about cultural significance. I'm only really concerned with music, and composition.

That's fine -- but it is also crucial to understand how ultimately irrelevant that is and how what are typically "accepted" notions of great music and composition are often cultural constructs to reinforce works from particular cultures - namely historically Anglo cultures. Once you take for granted the general accepted truisms of what constitutes great composition then you can throw away virtually anything that didn't take place in Europe.

So from that perspective, when putting the Beatles in the context of 1000 years of tonal music, then I'm well within my rights to think them overrated.

Sure, and if you put them in the context of 1000 years of say, haircuts, then the reaction to their hair was probably overrated too. It's just not that relevant, as far as I'm concerned.

And to me, a popular culture that disregards everything prior to 1956 as irrelevant, is fundamentally wrong.

Rolling Stones Greatest List Of All Time being a case in point.

That's up to popular culture to decide - it's not a matter of right or wrong.

We can of course take it further and say that all of your arguments and semantics are also  vulnerable to the whims of fashion, and by your own arguments, irrelevent.

Music however is mathematics. It is not just convention that dictates "what sounds good" What makes a major chord, and a minor chord different, is mathematical. What makes a well balanced melody is mathematical. There is a good reason atonality has never become the dominant form of music. Tonality sounds better because it stems from sound (pun intended) mathematical principles. Musical analysis is about numbers, not "I like this".

Of all the art forms, music is the most open to quantifying objectively. I agree, it is hard to say something is greater, or better than something else, without imposing subjective parameters on it, but you can say something is more correct than something else, if you are treating music as maths.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

That's up to popular culture to decide - it's not a matter of right or wrong.

Come on, you're a clever guy, how can you write that!

So I'm supposed to blindly accept what a bunch of idiot journalists and so called trend setters decide is right? Didn't you just say........

That's fine -- but it is also crucial to understand how ultimately irrelevant that is and how what are typically "accepted" notions of great music and composition are often cultural constructs to reinforce works from particular cultures - namely historically Anglo cultures.

It's the very fact that I question these accepted notions you speak of, that leads me to disregard the Beatles. Namely I don't like being told what to think. And by you telling me that "calling the Beatles overrated is like calling Shakespeare overrated", you are doing just that, and also insinuating I'm not as educated as you

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We can of course take it further and say that all of your arguments and semantics are also  vulnerable to the whims of fashion, and by your own arguments, irrelevent.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. I mean, I suppose, there is a certain degree to which every person is forced to choose from a limited and constraining number of positions that are socially and culturally circumscribed but this is an altogether different thing from saying that what is conveived "acceptably" good music often works to privilege one thing over another. In this case, it happens that mostly Anglo critics devised a way for appraising music that mostly privileged white, Ango cultures and excluded others.

Music however is mathematics.

It can be - and it especially can be when you want to privilege some forms of music over others. In other words what could be called more "primitive" music, will often inevitably fail when you privilege the notion that music is mathematics. What succeeds is precisely what's supposed to succeed - white, European music.

What you don't take into account here is that music, like all art, like any expression, is inextricably bound to culture. And expression, even if it's, "Can I have a cup of coffee?" can only really be relevant if it attracts the right the listener, if it is said in the right place, and the right time -- ultimately it doesn't matter if all it does is fulfill all the necessary requirements for a standard clause as accepted by bougeois English society. Same can be said about music - it can fulfill all the "right" or "appropriate" categories but what ultimately matters is whether or not it hits its mark. This is why genres work best in particular eras - because they almost inevitably spring out of a particular context in which there is just something in the air that makes it work and makes it important.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That's up to popular culture to decide - it's not a matter of right or wrong.

Come on, you're a clever guy, how can you write that!

So I'm supposed to blindly accept what a bunch of idiot journalists and so called trend setters decide is right? Didn't you just say........

That's fine -- but it is also crucial to understand how ultimately irrelevant that is and how what are typically "accepted" notions of great music and composition are often cultural constructs to reinforce works from particular cultures - namely historically Anglo cultures.

It's the very fact that I question these accepted notions you speak of, that leads me to disregard the Beatles. Namely I don't like being told what to think. And by you telling me that "calling the Beatles overrated is like calling Shakespeare overrated", you are doing just that, and also insinuating I'm not as educated as you

Hold on -- what I'm saying there is that no one gets to decide what is right or wrong for popular culture - not you, not me, not anyone. None of us have the inside track on what is right for what necessarily strikes the popular consciousness. You don't have to like The Beatles, but neither you nor myself are in a position to question their place in popular culture.

You'll also note in my analysis of accepted notions of great music, that I didn't use the word overrated once.

And I really don't get the point that I'm insinuating that I'm more educated as you. I mean, to be perfectly honest, I probably am, though not necessarily in music. And even if that's the case, I don't really think it matters or means anything. What I'm suggesting is that it is perfectly understandable if someone likes or dislikes Shakespeare but I think it really misses the mark to say he's overrated because he essentially is responsible for our understanding of the Early Modern literary era, he shaped what came after him because people were either influenced by him or reacting against him. His significance is entirely unparalleled. Now, if he's not your cup of tea, that's fine. But he's not overrated. In the same sense, neither are The Beatles.