Meet people from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: The Beatles As Solo Artists  (Read 17927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Fab4Fan

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 292
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2014, 04:12:40 AM »

Here's another example.  I love Bob Dylan songs,,,,,,but only when other people sing them.  I've never heard a cover that wasn't better then his originals.  Out of all his output, I only really like 'Tangled Up In Blues' and 'Hurricane'.  I could care less if I ever heard any of his other songs.  In that aspect, Dylan receives way more accolades for writing then he does actually singing and playing the songs.  I guess that would hold true with the members of 10cc too.

I'm a huge Dylan fan but, I too, often prefer covers of his songs. During my college days I used to think of Bob as the greatest demo artist of all time b/c so many other acts covered his songs better and had commercial success w/ them.
Logged
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4284
  • “Moog was the truth” TheseLyricsDoNotExist 2023
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2014, 05:49:46 AM »

I'm a huge Dylan fan but, I too, often prefer covers of his songs. During my college days I used to think of Bob as the greatest demo artist of all time b/c so many other acts covered his songs better and had commercial success w/ them.

Relevant to Beatles as solo artists, I think George did Dylan stuff well. He seemed to get the phrasing while having a more pleasant voice. If Not For You, I Don't Want To Do It and Mama You've Been On My Mind are all nice versions.  It helped that George could throw his guitar licks in too.
Logged

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2014, 07:30:08 AM »

.....so if it's smoothness you want, do you think that all those Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Slim Harpo, Bo Diddley and Jimmy Reed songs were better done by other people?
Logged

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4284
  • “Moog was the truth” TheseLyricsDoNotExist 2023
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2014, 08:28:56 PM »

I actually don't mind Dylan's voice in many cases. And he can actually sound quite good on some tunes.  Particularly softer songs.  Eventually  his vocal mannerisms became almost self parodying.
Logged

Old Brown Shoe

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2014, 01:58:54 AM »

reply to number 10: sorry, didn't mean to "step on any toes".
Logged

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2014, 09:15:41 AM »

oldbrownshoe here.
No problem Old Brown Shoe.
In fact it means that I might be able to put forward some less than appreciated views, and then pass them off as yours!

Here's one:
Have the recent 'Basement Tapes' elevated Bob Dylan to the position of the most important recording artist ever?
Above Elvis, above Hendrix, above The Stones, and, whisper it, even above The Beatles?

I suggest this because, with the best will in the world, the various Beatles' out-takes that appeared on 'Anthology' showed that the group released the best versions of their takes 99% of the time, and had little else in the can apart from run-throughs, stutters, etc.

Dylan, however, appears to have bucket-loads of unreleased stuff, some every bit as good as the material that got released, and, just the other day, another cache of 150 (150!) songs were apparently discovered from 1969!

Quite apart from anything else, if we just look at the 60s (i.e. the time when both acts were active), in 30/40 years time Dylan may be seen to have record four or five times more material than The Beatles, and it will probably all be available.

Erm.....Old Brown Shoe said all of the above.....
Logged

Mr Mustard

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #66 on: November 09, 2014, 05:34:36 PM »

Have the recent 'Basement Tapes' elevated Bob Dylan to the position of the most important recording artist ever?

 ha2ha ahem! NO


Above Elvis

You're joking, right?

above Hendrix

Maybe....


above The Stones

Probably (but who cares?)

and, whisper it, even above The Beatles?

Get a grip on yourself!!!!  :laugh:

Bob will certainly be remembered as the years fall away.

He'll go down in history as the joint-third most important Traveling Wilbury!!


Logged

Hombre_de_ningun_lugar

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2105
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2014, 09:12:35 PM »

Bob Dylan will never be more relevant than the Beatles (no one could be in the music world) but he certainly is more relevant than John, Paul, George or Ringo as individualities.
Logged
"Love is old, love is new; love is all, love is you."

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • At The Top Of The Stairs
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20127
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #68 on: November 10, 2014, 12:04:28 AM »

Bob will certainly be remembered as the years fall away.

He'll go down in history as the joint-third most important Traveling Wilbury!!

Joint-third most important with whom?
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #69 on: November 10, 2014, 07:46:33 AM »

I didn't say Prince, Michael Jackson or George Michael, Mr. Mustard!!!!.....I said Bob Dylan.
You know, born 1941, wrote vaguely important songs like 'Blowin' In The Wind', 'A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall', 'Like A Rolling Stone'.

You must agree on one thing - Dylan's 'Bootleg Series', since the hit and miss of 'Anthology', has delivered live concerts, The Basement Tapes, and literally hundreds of unreleased tracks, and is a little bit more substantial than Apple's efforts ('Live at the BBC Volume 2' notwithstanding) on behalf of The Beatles in the same time-frame.

The 'Yellow Submarine' song-track (whatever a 'song-track' is), '1', 'Let It Be...Naked' and 'Love' look very slim pickings in comparison and, I suspect, aren't currently flying off the shelves.

It's surely time for Apple to pull their finger out.....would a similar Beatles' 'Bootleg Series' be out of the question?
Logged

Moogmodule

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4284
  • “Moog was the truth” TheseLyricsDoNotExist 2023
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #70 on: November 10, 2014, 08:53:40 AM »

I didn't say Prince, Michael Jackson or George Michael, Mr. Mustard!!!!.....I said Bob Dylan.
You know, born 1941, wrote vaguely important songs like 'Blowin' In The Wind', 'A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall', 'Like A Rolling Stone'.

You must agree on one thing - Dylan's 'Bootleg Series', since the hit and miss of 'Anthology', has delivered live concerts, The Basement Tapes, and literally hundreds of unreleased tracks, and is a little bit more substantial than Apple's efforts ('Live at the BBC Volume 2' notwithstanding) on behalf of The Beatles in the same time-frame.

The 'Yellow Submarine' song-track (whatever a 'song-track' is), '1', 'Let It Be...Naked' and 'Love' look very slim pickings in comparison and, I suspect, aren't currently flying off the shelves.

It's surely time for Apple to pull their finger out.....would a similar Beatles' 'Bootleg Series' be out of the question?

I doubt there's a lot to bootleg. The Beatles under George Martin were pretty efficient. They didn't dwell too much on things that weren't working. And most things that were shelved appears  later on the Beatles solo albums anyway. 

There were exceptions of course especially as they got more free time in the late 60s. . They did do the amazing number of takes of Not Guilty before canning it for instance. Carnival of Light seems to be the biggest unreleased track , but it doesnt sound like it would appeal beyond the crowd who think What's the New Mary Jane is the height of Lennons art. I suppose trawling through every minute of the Let it Be recordings might bring some stuff to the fore. I wouldn't hold my breath that itd have anything but curiosity value though.

Logged

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #71 on: November 10, 2014, 09:09:31 AM »

But what about the Christmas flexis? They've not been officially re-released since the 1970 album have they?

Let start at the beginning - 'Bootleg Series Volume 1: 'The Beatles' Decca Audition''.
According to wikipedia (!), 'the master tape is believed to be in possession of The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd.'.
Has it ever been done properly either on vinyl or CD? I certainly only own the tracks on 'Anthology 1'.
 
15 tracks, early-60s sleeve design, photos of the West Hampstead location, Mark Lewisohn sleeve-notes, NO 'sweetening-up' or over-dubbing, £9.99. 
Logged

Ovi

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1133
  • Tonight, I'm a rock 'n' roll star.
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #72 on: November 10, 2014, 01:22:56 PM »

Yeah, but I think the influence/importance is measured in the things that were actually released in their time. The new Basement Tapes will obviously be brilliant and I look forward to it, but as far as the influence those songs might have had, had they been released in 1967...well, we can only guess. I feel the same about Beach Boys' 'Smile'. It does show how far ahead of the game they were....but only, you know, 40 years later.

I do sense that Bob Dylan is a bit underrated on this forum and I'm a big fan as you know and can't stress his importance and influence highly enough, Basement Tapes or not. I find it hard impossible to rank the artists in terms of importance, so I'm not gonna go into that, but surely Bob Dylan is among the 10 greatest artists of the 20th century popular music.
Logged
http://tangledupinmusic.wordpress.com - yet another music blog

Mr Mustard

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 702
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #73 on: November 10, 2014, 02:11:07 PM »

Joint-third most important with whom?

Overrated Bob aligns with underrated Jeff Lynne; above Tom Petty but below Roy Orbison and obviously below George  ;)

(I'm only jesting - I was teasing obs that's all)

Now to put my serious hat on:

Bob's influence was unarguably huge, but I think Moog's post nails it very well. Most (virtually all) of what needed to see the light of day from their recordings was put out by The Beatles. Good grasp of quality control by them & George Martin to my mind. Only a few exceptions like "Leave My Kitten Alone" and some of the live BBC stuff deserved to escape from the can IMO.

I'm not surprised to learn that Dylan was so prolific, and I'm genuinely happy for Dylan fans that there appears to be a treasure trove of decent quality material still surfacing.

Regarding "Biggest acts" I guess that has many subjective interpretations. By audited global record sales The Beatles outstrip the others. In terms of cultural impact (beyond just music, into the minutiae of everyday lives like fashion, hairstyles, attitudes etc) again I think circumstances combined into a perfect storm where the fabs were concerned - everything from timing and twists of fate/lucky breaks, chance meetings etc all combined at the right times in the right places to make them untouchable. I honestly think they then "took the ball" further, faster and in more new directions  within the relatively short time fate allotted them, than anyone else before or since.

Only Elvis (without whom we should remember there would not have been a "Beatles") came close to rivalling their panoramic impact. But they obviously left him standing with regards to songwriting and musicianship. I think of Presley as the quake...massive, but only a foretaste of the all-swamping tsunami of The Beatles which followed it. They came closer to being all things to all men on so many levels than any other act I can think of, and that's really special.

 
Logged

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • At The Top Of The Stairs
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20127
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #75 on: November 11, 2014, 02:16:58 AM »

Interesting story, Todd.  I wish they would have pulled that off.  I can see why Keith was all in favor of the collaboration...


Cocaine Blues 1961 "Robert Zimmerman"



Keith Richards - Cocaine Blues
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • At The Top Of The Stairs
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20127
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #76 on: November 11, 2014, 02:21:56 AM »

Yeah.  My kind of music.  This is from my lesson tapes.  The way Ian Buchanan taught me the piece...


Cocaine Blues - Ian Buchanan 1972
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #77 on: November 11, 2014, 07:46:53 AM »

Yep, fair enough Mr. Mustard.
I thought I'd just throw it out there to see what the response was.

If the 'Anthology' series taught us anything I think it was that if there was a decision to be made at the time on the studio floor, The Beatles and their associates invariably made the right one.
Logged

tkitna

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8619
  • I'm a Moondog,,,,,are you?
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #78 on: November 11, 2014, 08:28:17 AM »

Interesting story, Todd.  I wish they would have pulled that off. 

It would have been interesting, but I don't see anyway possible of it happening.  The Beatles were on their last leg in 69' with them concentrating on Abbey Road and going out on a good note instead of the Let It Be fiasco, plus all the legal garbage going on.  The Stones were dealing with Brian Jones's death, a tour and the 'Let It Bleed; album.  Where would either have found the time?

oldbrownshoe

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 800
Re: The Beatles As Solo Artists
« Reply #79 on: November 11, 2014, 08:54:11 AM »

Never under-estimate the huge amount of material these groups put out in the 60s.

Lily Allen, in a ten year career, has just released her 3rd studio album, Amy Winehouse managed just two.
Fairport Convention released three studio albums in 1969 alone.

Not only were these artists much better, they were also far more prolific.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
 

Page created in 0.6 seconds with 85 queries.