gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
621100 Posts in 24988 Topics by 3550 Members - Latest Member: SunshineOverClouds November 24, 2017, 09:41:33 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: A Response to a Request For a Positive Post...My Top 10 Beach Boys Observations  (Read 2000 times)
MikestheGreatest!!
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 281


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2017, 08:33:26 AM »

I think the idea of attempting to "convert" someone to your musical tastes is goofy.  Let folks have their own likes and dislikes.  Unless you are getting paid to do it, it is a waste of time.  Probably a waste of time anyway...

As for appreciating the Boys' full catalog, well, you can appreciate some of it but if you are honest you have to depreciate a sizeable amount of it also....largely running on vapors after Holland....
Logged
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3666


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2017, 08:37:30 AM »

I think the idea of attempting to "convert" someone to your musical tastes is goofy.  Let folks have their own likes and dislikes.  Unless you are getting paid to do it, it is a waste of time.  Probably a waste of time anyway...

As for appreciating the Boys' full catalog, well, you can appreciate some of it but if you are honest you have to depreciate a sizeable amount of it also....largely running on vapors after Holland....

I'll agree that, if one is trying to convert somebody to The Beach Boys, using anything after Holland would likely guarantee they'll never be a fan.  Granted, I think there's some good material post Holland, but nothing much that would convert a non believer to a life long BB fan. 

Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6467



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2017, 08:58:54 AM »

O.K.  That'd be YOUR take on it all...and while I agree that you can't MAKE someone else dig 'the boys' osmosis works wonders on the intelligent ear.  It's a slow motion process though.  It can't 'happen' in one sitting.  As for the Beatles....they're GREAT.  Or at least they were.  Ringo's still turning out some interesting tuneage.  Paul needs John to balance his 'act'.  That said...if I HAD to choose [and I don't] to pick one library...Beatles/collectively and individually OR Beach Boys/collectively and individually...the pickin' would be easy.  I'd even pick the Boys/collectively and individually over Bob Marley.

The problem with the "osmosis over time" thing is that you need to subject someone to HOURS of something they don't want to be doing. I don't want to be the guy who shows me the 27-hour cut of "Dune" and sits next to me the whole time waiting for my mind to be blown and my life changed. That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't try to turn people on to cool stuff. But there usually has to be some sort of germ of interest. Your friend likes Pepper and Smile? Then yeah, it's probably worth a little time to hip them to "Odessey and Oracle" or something like that.

It's probably just my own experience that colors this aspect. I've been on both sides of the awkward, hard sell on something that the other person has ZERO interest in. It doesn't do my heart or soul or faith in humanity any good to play someone "'Til I Die" and have them come away with a "meh, whatever" attitude.

I have turned people on to the BBs, but they've always had some vaguely related interest, in at least some sort of melodic music or something.

I would generally disagree that Ringo is still turning out interesting music. It's all competent and professional, but his last five or six albums have all sounded the same. Even when he changed producers it still sounded the same. The last killer track from Ringo was probably "What in the World" off "Vertical Man" in 1998. Some other good stuff, I dig "For Love" from "Liverpool 8." But in particular, this last three albums have been so indistinct and bland I've had trouble getting through them. I should certainly try them all again. It doesn't help that after nearly 30 years of touring he has barely changed the songs he performs and now in the last several years doesn't even bother to change the rotating group of "All Stars." Do we really need "Hold the Line" with Steve Lukather singing for like four tours in a row?

As for McCartney, he has turned out VOLUME, and that has meant some mediocre stuff but also some brilliant stuff. John was his perfect (and only true) muse, the only person Paul was ever truly trying to impress. But McCartney has also turned out a TON of amazing material on his own. Like Brian, McCartney's ability to write amazing music is *still* there even if it runs at a slow and sporadic pace these days.

Both objectively and subjectively, I'd take the Beatles catalog over the BBs. Easy call, whether we're talking only 1962-1970 or if we're throwing solo Beatles up against 1970-present Beach Boys. We obviously don't have to choose between the two.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6467



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2017, 09:06:54 AM »



The one I don't get AT ALL is people who love the Beach Boys but hate the Beatles, or vice versa. They're far from identical, but there's so much overlap there. I figure this hangup often has to do with Beatles fans being too tunnel-visioned in only liking the Beatles and *nothing else*, while BB fans get hung up on not wanting to acknowledge the Beatles were better (by a variety of individual measures of course).

I can't say I understand that either.   

I think some of those anti Beatles feelings among BB fans are due to the fact that The Beatles get more credit / respect than The Beach Boys among critics and music aficionados, many of whom think Pet Sounds and Smile are the only things of merit ever released by the Boys.   



I've definitely run into some BB fans who have a hang-up, a sort of "my team is better than yours" mentality when it comes to the Beatles.

Whereas, with some super-tunnel-visioned Beatles fanatics, it's just lack of attention paid to *anything else.* Fans who have every version of Paul McCartney's "Deliverance - Dub Mix" , but who've never heard "Surf's Up."

Some BB fans are like that too. I recall someone scoffing at the idea of liking Brian's recording of "Wanderlust" and therefore allowing it to turn them on to other McCartney material. If you love Brian's version of "Wanderlust" but have zero interest in McCartney's original recording, then I have the impulse to say you're not really actually listening to the *music* per se.

The BBs are a tough nut to crack to get other people into them. Sometimes. They really don't have the front-to-back solid albums the way the Beatles did. There was simply more filler on a lot of those BB albums. "Pet Sounds" *is* one of the few solid, not-a-single-slightly-wonky-song albums the BBs did. That's not to say I don't find something to love about almost everything the BBs have done (I've championed songs as obscure and maligned as "Oh, Darlin'"), but putting a bit of an objective critics hat on, the BBs just didn't uniformly do what the Beatles did, because nobody else did. I'll put the BBs and Brian's best up against anything the Beatles ever did. The Beatles (and to varying degrees the solo Beatles) just did *more* of that level of stuff.

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3666


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2017, 09:17:14 AM »



The one I don't get AT ALL is people who love the Beach Boys but hate the Beatles, or vice versa. They're far from identical, but there's so much overlap there. I figure this hangup often has to do with Beatles fans being too tunnel-visioned in only liking the Beatles and *nothing else*, while BB fans get hung up on not wanting to acknowledge the Beatles were better (by a variety of individual measures of course).

I can't say I understand that either.   

I think some of those anti Beatles feelings among BB fans are due to the fact that The Beatles get more credit / respect than The Beach Boys among critics and music aficionados, many of whom think Pet Sounds and Smile are the only things of merit ever released by the Boys.   



I've definitely run into some BB fans who have a hang-up, a sort of "my team is better than yours" mentality when it comes to the Beatles.

Whereas, with some super-tunnel-visioned Beatles fanatics, it's just lack of attention paid to *anything else.* Fans who have every version of Paul McCartney's "Deliverance - Dub Mix" , but who've never heard "Surf's Up."

Some BB fans are like that too. I recall someone scoffing at the idea of liking Brian's recording of "Wanderlust" and therefore allowing it to turn them on to other McCartney material. If you love Brian's version of "Wanderlust" but have zero interest in McCartney's original recording, then I have the impulse to say you're not really actually listening to the *music* per se.

The BBs are a tough nut to crack to get other people into them. Sometimes. They really don't have the front-to-back solid albums the way the Beatles did. There was simply more filler on a lot of those BB albums. "Pet Sounds" *is* one of the few solid, not-a-single-slightly-wonky-song albums the BBs did. That's not to say I don't find something to love about almost everything the BBs have done (I've championed songs as obscure and maligned as "Oh, Darlin'"), but putting a bit of an objective critics hat on, the BBs just didn't uniformly do what the Beatles did, because nobody else did. I'll put the BBs and Brian's best up against anything the Beatles ever did. The Beatles (and to varying degrees the solo Beatles) just did *more* of that level of stuff.



I once had a friend who was a big time Beatles - Paul especially - fanatic.  To the point where he knew all the words to "Big Boys Bickering" and knew the Fireman albums from to back.  I remember around 2008 or 2009, he scoffed when I told him I'd been getting into The Beach Boys. 

I've never really tried to "convert" somebody.  The only person I guess I tried to a little is my wife with the hope that we'll have a band to share.  You're spot on about the non PS albums.  Even most of the ones I deem the best have a track or two that are head scratchers.  So, I started with Sounds of Summer and Warmth of the Sun (the same compilations that won me over).  She loves Pet Sounds, but she doesn't exactly share my love of Friends, 20/20, Surf's Up, or Holland. 
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2782


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2017, 10:02:31 AM »

I think your list is great. May I add one. They have probably hit on more musical styles than just about any other pop group I can think of! Even some bad (disco and rap). So perhaps the most diverse band of all time. Letís just start with Lonely Sea vs All I Want to Do (the heavy Dennis song not All I Wanna Do).
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6467



View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2017, 11:04:20 AM »

When you *do* try to introduce someone to some stuff from a band you like, you sometimes never know what will resonate more with them.

I know one person who is into generally more recent bands, starting mostly with the 80s and then newer. Not pop stuff. The Cure, Nick Cave, some stuff of that ilk (and more modern relatively indie bands). When I introduced them to more Beatles, I started with later-era stuff figuring they'd be more into that, as it's relatively more "modern" sounding to non-fan ears. But we eventually touched on the whole catalog, and they much preferred (and genuinely enjoyed to the point of ripping some stuff to their iPod) the early-era Beatles stuff. Like first four albums type stuff. "Baby It's You"; stuff like that. They really dig Lennon's early era voice compared to his later era voice where he futzed with it more. Go figure.

When introducing people to the BBs, you also have to factor in how much someone weighs lyrics and politics and stereotypes and all of that. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of politics as it relates to BB lyrics, but the *arguably* chauvinistic slant on some BB lyrics can turn some people off, as do some of the other lyrics that delve into expected vs. unexpected gender roles, all of that. Also, some people don't relate to "fun in the sun", etc. Can "'Til I Die" somehow be more life-affirming to some than "Fun Fun Fun?" Maybe.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
SCaroline Z
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


My density has popped me to you.


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2017, 11:42:08 AM »

I used to think the Beatles were the be all and end all of bands Ė nothing could ever top them. Thatís a very narrow minded view, I admit, but Iíve obviously changed my opinion since becoming a BB fan. It doesnít mean I donít still hold the Beatles in very high regard; I think its more that I can see them a bit more in the context of their time and balance them against what else was going on. And by what else was going on I mean the BB's.

They do deserve to be seen as being in the same neighbourhood of invention and ground breakage as the Beatles, and thatís a perspective I want to share with others who may have had similar ideas as I had. I remember one time several years ago a friend of mine whose knowledge of and taste in music I trust without question told me that the Beatles and the Beach Boys had a friendly rivalry, and for a short time were basically equals on the global music stage, and I was shocked.

I didnít start listening to the Beach Boys that day ( or that year, even) but it planted a seed in me. I remembered him telling me that often enough that when the time was right, I did start listening. Itís a seed I very much appreciate and I want to plant more of them, wherever I can.  

I wouldnít say Iím on a crusade to convert people into BB fans, I just want to be someone who plants those seeds. Itís not up to me where they sprout or take root.

Why do I care what other people think of the Beach Boys? On a personal level, of course it would be awesome if everyone I know were to become hardcore Beach Boys fans so I could gush about the music with them. But it's also maybe about giving back to the Beach Boys for all they have given us.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 11:42:40 AM by SCaroline Z » Logged

I once had a dream, so I packed up and split for the city.
Add Some
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1477



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2017, 12:38:50 PM »



The problem with the "osmosis over time" thing is that you need to subject someone to HOURS of something they don't want to be doing. I don't want to be the guy who shows me the 27-hour cut of "Dune" and sits next to me the whole time waiting for my mind to be blown and my life changed. That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't try to turn people on to cool stuff. But there usually has to be some sort of germ of interest. Your friend likes Pepper and Smile? Then yeah, it's probably worth a little time to hip them to "Odessey and Oracle" or something like that.


Osmosis over time suggests NOT subjecting anyone to "HOURS" of something they don't want to be doing.  It's taken YEARS of NOT doing that.  I was referring to my wife.  She hears what I play.  She decides if and WHEN she likes it...over time.  I did the same thing by playing West Indies music.  She liked it too...as typical top 30 poop was not gettin' the job done for her either.

It's probably just my own experience that colors this aspect. I've been on both sides of the awkward, hard sell on something that the other person has ZERO interest in. It doesn't do my heart or soul or faith in humanity any good to play someone "'Til I Die" and have them come away with a "meh, whatever" attitude.

That's NOT how it's done.

I have turned people on to the BBs, but they've always had some vaguely related interest, in at least some sort of melodic music or something.

Makes it an easier 'sell'...not that we're selling anything.

I would generally disagree that Ringo is still turning out interesting music. It's all competent and professional, but his last five or six albums have all sounded the same. Even when he changed producers it still sounded the same. The last killer track from Ringo was probably "What in the World" off "Vertical Man" in 1998. Some other good stuff, I dig "For Love" from "Liverpool 8." But in particular, this last three albums have been so indistinct and bland I've had trouble getting through them. I should certainly try them all again. It doesn't help that after nearly 30 years of touring he has barely changed the songs he performs and now in the last several years doesn't even bother to change the rotating group of "All Stars." Do we really need "Hold the Line" with Steve Lukather singing for like four tours in a row?

Guess who doesn't dig Ringo?  Oh well.  Not my problem.  I like it...and his Xmas lp too.

As for McCartney, he has turned out VOLUME, and that has meant some mediocre stuff but also some brilliant stuff. John was his perfect (and only true) muse, the only person Paul was ever truly trying to impress. But McCartney has also turned out a TON of amazing material on his own. Like Brian, McCartney's ability to write amazing music is *still* there even if it runs at a slow and sporadic pace these days.

Each recent album, in it's entirety, shows that  "mediocre" keeps outdistancing "brilliant".  He lacks the balance which Lennon used to provide.  Has increasingly for at least 35 years.

Both objectively and subjectively, I'd take the Beatles catalog over the BBs. Easy call, whether we're talking only 1962-1970 or if we're throwing solo Beatles up against 1970-present Beach Boys. We obviously don't have to choose between the two.

Good.  You take your collection...and I'll take mine.  We have different preferences.
Logged

"Add Some...Music...To Your Day.  I do.  It's the only way to fly.  Well...what was I gonna put here?  An apple a day keeps the doctor away?  Hum me a few bars."   Lee Marshall [2014]

Y O U  voted for Trump?   "What a disaster."  "Overrated?"... ... ..."BIG LEAGUE."  "Lots of people are saying it"  "Make America Immigrate Again!!!"  2-faced arsewipist!!!
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6467



View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 18, 2017, 01:13:19 PM »



The problem with the "osmosis over time" thing is that you need to subject someone to HOURS of something they don't want to be doing. I don't want to be the guy who shows me the 27-hour cut of "Dune" and sits next to me the whole time waiting for my mind to be blown and my life changed. That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't try to turn people on to cool stuff. But there usually has to be some sort of germ of interest. Your friend likes Pepper and Smile? Then yeah, it's probably worth a little time to hip them to "Odessey and Oracle" or something like that.


Osmosis over time suggests NOT subjecting anyone to "HOURS" of something they don't want to be doing.  It's taken YEARS of NOT doing that.  I was referring to my wife.  She hears what I play.  She decides if and WHEN she likes it...over time.  I did the same thing by playing West Indies music.  She liked it too...as typical top 30 poop was not gettin' the job done for her either.

It's probably just my own experience that colors this aspect. I've been on both sides of the awkward, hard sell on something that the other person has ZERO interest in. It doesn't do my heart or soul or faith in humanity any good to play someone "'Til I Die" and have them come away with a "meh, whatever" attitude.

That's NOT how it's done.

I have turned people on to the BBs, but they've always had some vaguely related interest, in at least some sort of melodic music or something.

Makes it an easier 'sell'...not that we're selling anything.

I would generally disagree that Ringo is still turning out interesting music. It's all competent and professional, but his last five or six albums have all sounded the same. Even when he changed producers it still sounded the same. The last killer track from Ringo was probably "What in the World" off "Vertical Man" in 1998. Some other good stuff, I dig "For Love" from "Liverpool 8." But in particular, this last three albums have been so indistinct and bland I've had trouble getting through them. I should certainly try them all again. It doesn't help that after nearly 30 years of touring he has barely changed the songs he performs and now in the last several years doesn't even bother to change the rotating group of "All Stars." Do we really need "Hold the Line" with Steve Lukather singing for like four tours in a row?

Guess who doesn't dig Ringo?  Oh well.  Not my problem.  I like it...and his Xmas lp too.

As for McCartney, he has turned out VOLUME, and that has meant some mediocre stuff but also some brilliant stuff. John was his perfect (and only true) muse, the only person Paul was ever truly trying to impress. But McCartney has also turned out a TON of amazing material on his own. Like Brian, McCartney's ability to write amazing music is *still* there even if it runs at a slow and sporadic pace these days.

Each recent album, in it's entirety, shows that  "mediocre" keeps outdistancing "brilliant".  He lacks the balance which Lennon used to provide.  Has increasingly for at least 35 years.

Both objectively and subjectively, I'd take the Beatles catalog over the BBs. Easy call, whether we're talking only 1962-1970 or if we're throwing solo Beatles up against 1970-present Beach Boys. We obviously don't have to choose between the two.

Good.  You take your collection...and I'll take mine.  We have different preferences.

Well yeah, I'd say someone just being in the room and overhearing music *you're* playing and listening to is different from a "sitting someone down and introducing them to something" scenario.

Regarding "how it's done", there is no rule, and I'm sure we've all been introduced to music in different ways. Spinning the dial (in the old days), a friend's recommendation, YouTube recommendations, and yes, sometimes someone handing you a CD (or tape, or whatever) and *instructing* you to listen to it.

Simply playing someone "'Til I Die", not doing a hard sell or a sell at all, but simply playing it, is "how it's done" as much as anything else when it comes to sharing music.

Regarding Ringo, I bow to few when it comes to being a huge Ringo fan. I've seen him in concert over a dozen times, I've listened to everything he's done, including "Ringo the 4th" and that '95 live CD that you had to hunt for at Blockbuster Video. Scouse the Mouse. I know it all, good, bad, and ugly. I've just found his last several albums boring. Nothing much on the last few has stood out at all.

Conversely, EVERY McCartney album has something of important merit (no, I'm not really including "Liverpool Sound Collage" or the Fireman stuff, although even some of the Fireman stuff has some intriguing bits). Even "New" had some excellent tracks.

Citing McCartney needing Lennon for balance is odd in my view, as Lennon has been dead for 37 years. What should McCartney have done? Stop making albums? He obviously has a clear problem truly collaborating or deferring to collaborators post-Lennon, no question (listen to Howie Edelson's Fabcast episode with Mark Lewisohn focusing in on the Elvis Costello/Flowers in the Dirt period for some great discussions on that).

Lennon needed McCartney as much if not more than vice versa. To crib from one of Howie's comments, "Plastic Ono Band" isn't sparse and bare simply because John's mom died and he was doing primal scream therapy. It was bare because McCartney wasn't there to fill it out. McCartney was essentially the band's producer in the later era. McCartney contributed massively to even very late era Harrison and Lennon tunes. "Something" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Ballad of John and Yoko", all tracks that were made immensely better by McCartney.

McCartney didn't so much need a Lennon type to "balance" his material. He needed to have Lennon there to impress Lennon, because it was the only person McCartney ever strove to impress. And the same goes for Lennon. They missed each other's talents, but McCartney had enough raw stuff in him to continue to churn out amazing music. Lennon did up to a point, but then we started getting "Sometime in NYC" and stuff like that.

Make no mistake, just as I celebrate even the weirdest and deepest (and sometimes objectively not so great) of the Beach Boys output, so the same goes for all the solo Beatles. Ringo's "Heart on My Sleeve" from his "Bad Boy" album is a big favorite. I dig "Luck of the Irish", even with Yoko singing. "Out The Blue" from "Mind Games" is a hidden masterpiece.

But I think the time has long since passed to simplify McCartney's post-Beatles output to something as basic as "he needed Lennon to balance it out." McCartney recorded DOZENS of masterpieces without Lennon.

I love me some "So Tough" and "Holland", but front-to-back I'll still go for "Ram" or "Band on the Run" (and probably even "Wild Life", and "Imagine" as well).
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 01:17:54 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2819


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: October 18, 2017, 10:29:24 PM »

My current girlfriend is not convinced of the greatness of the Beatles, and part of the problem is the lyrics of the early songs. She finds them to simple, not thought provoking. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand? That didn't take much thought". I think the Beach Boys are going to be  a harder sell, though - all those songs about trivial things like surfing and cars. I told her "back in 1964, if people wanted serious, socially conscious lyrics, they listened to folk music. And who was the biggest folk artist in 64? Bob Dylan." She hates Dylan because of his singing.
Oh well. In the past I always dated girls that liked the same music as me - and it didn't work out. But I haven't given up trying to 'convert' her.
 LOL

Just curious as to what kind of music she's into. 
Silverchair, Alice in Chains, Stevie Ray Vaughan (he seems to be the only blues artist she's heard that she likes...I gotta play her some B.B. King one of these days), Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys - the only 60's artist she likes is Jimi Hendrix. On the plus side, she hasn't said anything bad yet about my own music. She's been to a couple of my shows and had a good time. Maybe that's how i'll trick her into liking the Beatles or Beach Boys - just mix a couple of their songs into the show, and wait until later to tell her whose song it was.  LOL

When someone criticizes a given piece of music (or an artist, etc.), the first thing I'm inclined to ask is what *they* like. Almost uniformly, whatever they don't like about the given piece or artist is *also* true of the stuff they like. I always reference in these cases the person who says "McDonald's? Ewwww! I eat at Burger King!"

So yeah, it's pretty funny to criticize Beatles lyrics but also be into Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Last I checked, Elvis Costello wasn't writing their lyrics, either.

Don't get me wrong; I can actually believe it or not make a pro-Britney Spears case. If you listen to her famous stuff, it's still far better than the *current* iteration of pop music, which has grown even more artificial and electronic and repetitive. Those famous 90s Britney Spears singles actually have melodic hooks usually; they're (sadly) better *songs* than the pop stuff of today, and (even more sadly) are far more judicious in the use of autotune, etc.
Yeah, I don't find the lyrics of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" any more juvenile that "Baby One More Time" or "Oops I Did it Again".  Her resistance to the Beatles seems to be largely based on "they're so overrated". Although I disagree, I can understand why she feels that way. The Beatles are the one band of the early or mid-60's most younger people know about. Sure, a few more clued in young people know about the genius of Brian Wilson, but the Beach Boys are far less omnipresent in today's pop culture. I guess I will have to wait for the right time to spring "Our Prayer" or "Surf's Up" on her.
Logged
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3666


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2017, 05:14:00 AM »

My current girlfriend is not convinced of the greatness of the Beatles, and part of the problem is the lyrics of the early songs. She finds them to simple, not thought provoking. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand? That didn't take much thought". I think the Beach Boys are going to be  a harder sell, though - all those songs about trivial things like surfing and cars. I told her "back in 1964, if people wanted serious, socially conscious lyrics, they listened to folk music. And who was the biggest folk artist in 64? Bob Dylan." She hates Dylan because of his singing.
Oh well. In the past I always dated girls that liked the same music as me - and it didn't work out. But I haven't given up trying to 'convert' her.
 LOL

Just curious as to what kind of music she's into. 
Silverchair, Alice in Chains, Stevie Ray Vaughan (he seems to be the only blues artist she's heard that she likes...I gotta play her some B.B. King one of these days), Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys - the only 60's artist she likes is Jimi Hendrix. On the plus side, she hasn't said anything bad yet about my own music. She's been to a couple of my shows and had a good time. Maybe that's how i'll trick her into liking the Beatles or Beach Boys - just mix a couple of their songs into the show, and wait until later to tell her whose song it was.  LOL

When someone criticizes a given piece of music (or an artist, etc.), the first thing I'm inclined to ask is what *they* like. Almost uniformly, whatever they don't like about the given piece or artist is *also* true of the stuff they like. I always reference in these cases the person who says "McDonald's? Ewwww! I eat at Burger King!"

So yeah, it's pretty funny to criticize Beatles lyrics but also be into Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Last I checked, Elvis Costello wasn't writing their lyrics, either.

Don't get me wrong; I can actually believe it or not make a pro-Britney Spears case. If you listen to her famous stuff, it's still far better than the *current* iteration of pop music, which has grown even more artificial and electronic and repetitive. Those famous 90s Britney Spears singles actually have melodic hooks usually; they're (sadly) better *songs* than the pop stuff of today, and (even more sadly) are far more judicious in the use of autotune, etc.
Yeah, I don't find the lyrics of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" any more juvenile that "Baby One More Time" or "Oops I Did it Again".  Her resistance to the Beatles seems to be largely based on "they're so overrated". Although I disagree, I can understand why she feels that way. The Beatles are the one band of the early or mid-60's most younger people know about. Sure, a few more clued in young people know about the genius of Brian Wilson, but the Beach Boys are far less omnipresent in today's pop culture. I guess I will have to wait for the right time to spring "Our Prayer" or "Surf's Up" on her.

Simple, often juvenile lyrics have been a rock and rock staple since Bill Haley.  I think it's more about the music and the melodies that make songs like She Loves You special, and why people are still dissecting Beatles songs over 50 years later.
Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
RangeRoverA1
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3033


I drink tea. wanna join?


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2017, 09:03:00 AM »

2Add Some: good post! Agree with 1, 2, 5, 10. Listening to various vocal bands, the 1st observation is 100% right. BBs beat every vocal band.

Regarding GV (#4), I'll share this dialog I read in Russian Beatles forum where many dismiss BBs as lightweight muzak even after listening to late 60s-70s albums, for example didn't "get" PS' coolness. But some do recognize BBs place & influence. Among which the poster who lived thru the 60s, old timer who got to experience things as they're going back then. Listened to lots of music in his lifetime, can be objective & fair, knows music history etc. So, despite being mainly into blues, guitar-heavy things, he said that in 1966, nothing was as mind-blowing as GV when it 1st aired in the radio, that whole year was year of GV, lots of local bands started covering it (he lives in Estonia). The other guy, his friend 10 yrs younger, guitarist, respected poster as well who too knows his stuff about music couldn't get it, said he still doesn't understand the groundbreaking-ness of it. But when the old-timer cited names of musicians who dug GV, put some perspective, that guy said sth. to the effect, "OK, gotcha. Well, then I guess I just don't like BBs".
Logged

Short notice: the cat you see to the left is the best. Not counting your indoor cat who might have habit sitting at your left side when you post in SmileySmile.

Quote from: Some chap in Beatles picture
I BROOK NO DENIAL.

"Faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null." - Edmund Swettenham citates Lord Alfred Tennyson in "Murder Is Announced" by Agatha Christie.
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2819


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2017, 08:07:27 PM »

My current girlfriend is not convinced of the greatness of the Beatles, and part of the problem is the lyrics of the early songs. She finds them to simple, not thought provoking. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand? That didn't take much thought". I think the Beach Boys are going to be  a harder sell, though - all those songs about trivial things like surfing and cars. I told her "back in 1964, if people wanted serious, socially conscious lyrics, they listened to folk music. And who was the biggest folk artist in 64? Bob Dylan." She hates Dylan because of his singing.
Oh well. In the past I always dated girls that liked the same music as me - and it didn't work out. But I haven't given up trying to 'convert' her.
 LOL

Just curious as to what kind of music she's into. 
Silverchair, Alice in Chains, Stevie Ray Vaughan (he seems to be the only blues artist she's heard that she likes...I gotta play her some B.B. King one of these days), Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys - the only 60's artist she likes is Jimi Hendrix. On the plus side, she hasn't said anything bad yet about my own music. She's been to a couple of my shows and had a good time. Maybe that's how i'll trick her into liking the Beatles or Beach Boys - just mix a couple of their songs into the show, and wait until later to tell her whose song it was.  LOL

When someone criticizes a given piece of music (or an artist, etc.), the first thing I'm inclined to ask is what *they* like. Almost uniformly, whatever they don't like about the given piece or artist is *also* true of the stuff they like. I always reference in these cases the person who says "McDonald's? Ewwww! I eat at Burger King!"

So yeah, it's pretty funny to criticize Beatles lyrics but also be into Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Last I checked, Elvis Costello wasn't writing their lyrics, either.

Don't get me wrong; I can actually believe it or not make a pro-Britney Spears case. If you listen to her famous stuff, it's still far better than the *current* iteration of pop music, which has grown even more artificial and electronic and repetitive. Those famous 90s Britney Spears singles actually have melodic hooks usually; they're (sadly) better *songs* than the pop stuff of today, and (even more sadly) are far more judicious in the use of autotune, etc.
Yeah, I don't find the lyrics of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" any more juvenile that "Baby One More Time" or "Oops I Did it Again".  Her resistance to the Beatles seems to be largely based on "they're so overrated". Although I disagree, I can understand why she feels that way. The Beatles are the one band of the early or mid-60's most younger people know about. Sure, a few more clued in young people know about the genius of Brian Wilson, but the Beach Boys are far less omnipresent in today's pop culture. I guess I will have to wait for the right time to spring "Our Prayer" or "Surf's Up" on her.

Simple, often juvenile lyrics have been a rock and rock staple since Bill Haley.  I think it's more about the music and the melodies that make songs like She Loves You special, and why people are still dissecting Beatles songs over 50 years later.
I tried to explain that, but she didn't get it. I will keep trying.
Logged
Hickory Violet Part IV
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 280


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2017, 01:04:10 AM »

Maybe she just doesn't like the Beatles.
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2819


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2017, 08:52:19 PM »

Maybe she just doesn't like the Beatles.
Well, she does dislike the Beatles in particular, and not a fan of 60's pop rock in general. But she doesn't mind Daydream Believer or I Get Around when they are on the radio.
I am wearing her resistance down.
Slowly.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.119 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!